The New York Times was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed February 26, 2018 Good article reassessment Delisted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 18, 2004, June 13, 2009, September 18, 2014, and September 18, 2019.
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Brands High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Media High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Newspapers High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state) High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: Rindsberg, Ashley. The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times's Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History. Hungary, Midnight Oil Publishers, 2021.

In the print design heading, under the design and layout subheading, this article says the following:

"In cases where two major events occur on the same day or immediately after each other, The New York Times has used a "paddle wheel" headline, where both headlines are used but split by a line. ... Since 1981, the paddle wheel has been used twice; on July 26, 2000, when the 2000 Camp David Summit ended without an agreement and when Bush announced that Dick Cheney would be his running mate, and on June 24, 2016, when the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum passed, beginning Brexit, and when the Supreme Court deadlocked in United States v. Texas."

I am fairly certain this has been wrong since at least July 22, 2024, when the Times ran with the following :

"Biden Bows Out / Late Reversal Upends Race For The White House As President Endorses Harris To Lead Ticket"

I am fairly certain that is a paddle wheel, but I am unsure of what to do. I do not know if adding it would violate WP:NOR, but if not it seems eminently preferable to saying "From January 22, 1981 to July 24, 2016, the paddle wheel was used twice...", which is just not all that useful and would seem to me the only solution if it was a violation of WP:NOR.

Also, reading the NYT article cited for the claim that the paddle wheel has only been used twice, I don't think the article actually says that. It says that the 2016 decision was based on the precedent of the 2000 decision, but it doesn't say that they were the only two instances of it happening. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The headline after Biden's withdrawal was a hammerhead, not a paddlewheel. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the table in the editorial board section is not compatible with dark mode ChickpeaAnxiety (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley, the sequence of edits from here to here feed a WP:False balance with regard to criticisms of NYT coverage in relation to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict:

1. You reintroduced a 'both sides' WP:False balance predicated on the misrepresentation of a journalistic source—the subheading of which states "Netanyahu accuses the paper of record of anti-Israel bias. But for decades now, the opposite has been true"—against peer-reviewed scholarly sources documenting hard, quantifiable evidence of consistent anti-Palestinian bias in NYT coverage.
2. You then introduced a source from Israel Affairs, which should be attributed, to support the claim of NYT bias against Israel in its reporting, a claim which the Israel Affairs source, though it addresses NYT reporting errors, does not appear to explicitly state.
3. You then removed text articulating the critiques of journalists and activists.

إيان (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fully retrieve my thought process this many weeks later. Some of my edits were restoring long-term content, and some was clarifying stuff that was not quite accurate in our wording. I don't think I really added much that was new. I'll go through all my edits in order.

1. With this edit, I fixed some language that doesn't make sense: "the paper has been accused of holding both an anti-Palestinian bias" (the word "both" with no corresponding "an"?). I re-added the long-standing citation of Eric Alterman in The New Republic. I guess yes it's a "journalistic" source in that author is a "journalist" as well as a history professor and it's in a non-academic periodical, but it's a very robust, fair-minded deep survey of a complex field. I don't misrepresent it. I use it to verify the claim that the NYT has been accused of anti-Israel bias, which is undeniable - you just quoted it noting that Netanyahu made exactly that allegation, although Alterman ultimately rejects it. (Maybe it was too concise to be clear but this is what I meant to communicate in my edit summary: "Alterman opinion piece reports noteworthy accusation of anti-Israel bias but rejects")

2. Next, this one and this one, where I added two sources verifying accusations of anti-Israel bias:

• a journalistic secondary source about an academic study (by a Yale professor)[1]. The paper is not a top tier academic study - it's not peer reviewed - but it is widely reported (albeit mainly by biased reliable sources) so noteworthy. I don't know if this was something I found or if it was in a previous version.
• an article from UK-based Israel Affairs journal, which is an academic journal that has an academic editorial board, although undoubtedly biased (towards liberal Zionism?), co-written by a reputable media professor. Although again not a top-tier academic publication, I don't see why this would need attribution, especially as the claim it is verifying is that the NYT is accused of bias (for which it is a decent primary source) and not a claim in our voice that it is biased. This article has ten academic citations, which is not nothing for a recent article. (Aside: one of the sources citing it would be a good source for the claim that NYT is biased for Israel, by the UK-based Palestine media professor Dina Mattar, in Third World Quarterly, a journal about as biased as Israel Affairs but in the opposite direction. Oddly, she seems to have taken the article to mean the opposite of what I took it to say: There is no doubt, as several studies have documented, that habitual Western legacy media, including liberal institutions like the BBC and the New York Times, along with right-wing media organisations globally, have played a pivotal role in the legitimation of the asymmetrical response by the Israeli state by gatekeeping, repeating Israel’s frames and refusing to address the settler-colonial historical context of the brutal 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks against Israel... Some of these studies have shown that the Western legacy media’s coverage of the war, such as that of the BBC in the UK, has been largely defined by Western political and foreign interests, misinformation, hate speech and the repetition of Orientalist tropes, images and language that have served to dehumanise Palestinians and normalise the violence and the war against them (see for example, Freedman 2023; Gilboa and Sigan 2024).

3. I think the edit summary of this edit is self-explanatory, but I'll explain it. The text I deleted was as follows: Critics, protesters, and journalists have charged that the newspaper's biased reporting in favor of Israel during the Gaza war amounts to complicity in and manufacturing consent for the Gaza genocide., which you added on 27 May. Leaving aside that some editors might find that POV in that it seems to say that the reporting is biased in our voice, while attributing the charge of complicity to these various unnamed actors, my issue was that it did was not verified in the sources cited.

• The first source was the Washington Post, clearly a good source. The only use of the word "genocide" is in this sentence: New York Times Magazine writer Jazmine Hughes resigned this month after signing another open letter accusing Israel of “genocide,” an action Silverstein called a “clear violation” of Times rules. Hughes (presumably in the category "journalist" in your sentence) did not accuse the Times of complicity in genocide; she was sacked (forced to resign) for "violation of The Times’s policy on public protest", i.e. for signing a protest letter making the genocide allegation against Israel. That might be noteworthy in this article, but doesn't verify the claim it was footnoting. Because I nonetheless saw it as a strong source, I moved it up in the section, so it was being used to verify the accusation of pro-Israel bias, as it describes another contributor, Mona Chalabi, suggesting that the Times devotes less attention to Palestinian deaths than Israeli deaths in the ongoing Gaza conflict — and calling out the Times for “bias.”, thus adding weight to that claim.
• The second source was Code Pink[2] reporting on its own protest against the NYT, where it indeed uses the terms "manufacturing consent" and "complicity in genocide". So this covers the "protestors" category in your sentence, but it's a non-reliable non-noteworthy primary source, and we have no secondary coverage indicating its due. There was no source for the "critics" category, whatever that means. So after removing the Code Pink ref, the sentence was not verifiable or due.

4. My final edit related to a sentence I believe was added on 7 May in an otherwise good edit. My edit was to change The New York Times initiated an inquiry that received criticism from NewsGuild of New York president Susan DeCarava for purported racial targeting;^[1] the Times's investigation concluded in ambiguity, but found that journalistic material was handled improperly.^[2] to The New York Times initiated an inquiry into the leaking of confidential information about the report to other outlets, which received criticism from NewsGuild of New York president Susan DeCarava for purported racial targeting;^[1] the Times's investigation was inconclusive, but found gaps in the way proprietary journalistic material is handled.^[2] I believe "concluded in ambiguity" is just bad prose. I strongly believe that my edit is a far tighter, more accurate and more neutral summary of the source, which says: “We did not reach a definitive conclusion about how this significant breach occurred,” Kahn wrote in a Times Slack channel. “We did identify gaps in the way proprietary journalistic material is handled, and we have taken steps to address these issues.” The replaced text "journalistic material was handled improperly" is ambiguous, as it might be taken to mean flaws in reporting when in fact it's about how internal memos were leaked.

I hope this fully explains and justifies my edits. Cheers, BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BobFromBrockley, thank you for your thorough response. We can work through these disagreements point by point, starting with number 1. It is a misrepresentation of the Alterman New Republic piece to use it to support the statement that the NYT has been accused of anti-Israel bias and leave it at that when the piece demonstrates that the accusation is false. We need to differentiate the findings of anti-Palestinian bias, as established by the scientific studies below, from claims of anti-Israeli bias, which essentially amount to (refuted) hearsay. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, the debunked claims of bias against Israel don't need to be mentioned, or if they are mentioned, it should be made clear that they have been refuted.

• Viser, Matt (September 2003). "Attempted Objectivity: An Analysis of the New York Times and Ha'aretz and their Portrayals of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict". The International Journal of Press/Politics. 8 (4): 114–120. doi:10.1177/1081180X03256999. S2CID 145209853.
• Zelizer, Barbie; Park, David; Gudelunas, David (December 2002). "How Bias Shapes the News: Challenging the New York Times' Status as a Newspaper of Record on the Middle East". Journalism. 3 (3): 283–307. doi:10.1177/146488490200300305. S2CID 15153383.
• Jackson, Holly M (2023). "The New York Times distorts the Palestinian struggle: A case study of anti-Palestinian bias in US news coverage of the First and Second Palestinian Intifadas". Media, War & Conflict. 17 (1): 116–135. doi:10.1177/17506352231178148.

Is this agreeable? إيان (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don’t object to more footnotes. What specific wording would you propose? BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe we can say in our voice that the claims are debunked; there are scholarly voices making them. Is there a way to show that many studies say x while some studies and prominent politicians say y that would satisfy you? BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not happen to read the section below from the source you proffered in support of 'both sides'-ing this?

As the Netanyahu tweet demonstrates, however, the legacy of Arthur Hays Sulzberger lives on, if only in the imagination of some of the Times’ Jewish critics. Former Times executive editor Joseph Lelyveld admitted that the above history had led to a “deep-seated feeling that the New York Times was made up of self-hating Jews,” and, by extension, that it was reflexively hostile to Israel. (Ironically, the man speaking was the son of Rabbi Arthur Lelyveld, the former president of the American Jewish Congress and frequent scourge of even the most sympathetic criticism of Israel.) Nothing could be more false. Compared to the coverage in the Times’ French counterpart, Le Monde; its British competitor, The Guardian; and even Israel’s own excellent newspaper, Haaretz, the Times’ coverage of Israel—like almost all U.S. mainstream coverage—has been remarkably favorable. To give just one small but representative example, when Yasir Arafat famously addressed the U.N. General Assembly in November 1974 to argue the Palestinians’ cause before the world, the Times’ coverage quoted an anonymous Israeli source accusing Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization of trying “to steamroll us,” and in another piece about Arafat’s address, the Times quoted Israeli diplomat Yosef Tekoah describing members of the PLO as “murderers” and declaring that “Arafat, today, prefers the Nazi method,” adding in its own words, “of physical annihilation of Jews.”

In the Times’ coverage, Palestinians often die in the passive voice, as if no one in particular is dropping the bombs or aiming the missiles that killed them. In a lengthy 2012 study of the history of the Times’ coverage of Israel, produced for Harvard Kennedy School’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy (the center’s name at the time), former Times reporter Neil A. Lewis found a pattern in Times coverage that was extremely sympathetic to Israel for a period of decades. Lewis noted that the word “nakba”—the commonly used term among those sympathetic to the Palestinians to describe the “catastrophe” of 1948—did not appear in the paper of record until 1998. What’s more, Times editors would sometimes—one has no idea how frequently—find occasion to censor their writers if they strayed too far from the pro-Israel position, even when those reporters were experts on the topic and their editors were not. In 1981, for instance, former Jerusalem correspondent David Shipler was assigned by the paper’s Book Review to write about Jacobo Timerman, a Jewish Argentinian journalist and human rights advocate who had been jailed by that country’s U.S.–supported, neofascist regime before being exiled to Israel in 1979. Timerman had been a hero to the U.S. press when he had written about Argentina’s crimes, but when Shipler quoted him saying that he had grown ashamed of being an Israeli because of how the nation treated the Palestinians, the article was killed. Shipler described the silencing of Timerman on Israel—as opposed to Argentina—as “purely political in that they didn’t want a person of Timerman’s stature criticizing Israel.”

Or even just the final paragraph?

The upshot of this never-ending battle is that no matter how offensively Israel behaves under the new Netanyahu government, it will still find itself far more favorably covered in the Times than in almost any other world-class news source. And as with the Amnesty report, the Times can achieve this goal simply by ignoring news that would likely cause its editors (and owners) even more tsuris. The worse the news from Israel gets, the more it will have to ignore.

You can propose softer, more sterile synonyms of 'debunked' if you'd like, but the bottom line is that analysis, from cursory surveys of incoherences and inconsistencies to quantitative longitudinal studies, has demonstrated these kinds of accusations from Netanyahu et al. to be false. إيان (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So now you think this “journalistic source” is good after all? I’m still not clear what wording you’re proposing. That’s a reliable source for noting accusations but not for saying the accusations are false. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So now you think this “journalistic source” is good after all? What I actually said was:

You reintroduced a 'both sides' WP:False balance predicated on the misrepresentation of a journalistic source—the subheading of which states "Netanyahu accuses the paper of record of anti-Israel bias. But for decades now, the opposite has been true"—against peer-reviewed scholarly sources documenting hard, quantifiable evidence of consistent anti-Palestinian bias in NYT coverage.

I didn't say whether it is good or not. I just said you misrepresented it and gave your misrepresentation of it WP:Undue weight against three scientific, peer-reviewed studies.

I’m still not clear what wording you’re proposing. See here.

That’s a reliable source for noting accusations but not for saying the accusations are false. Why? On what basis? إيان (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my previous response was hasty and inappropriate. Saying that accusations have been made and that specific scholars or politicians have said specific things about the NYT or that it has received criticism would be statements of fact that can be verified by individual sources. Saying in our voice that the NYT is biased requires an overwhelming consensus in the sources and we cannot say that per NPOV based on the current sourcing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this on the NPOV noticeboard to get wider editorial involvement. Your edit removes academic sources saying the bias is in the other direction in order to make a definitive statement in our voice. While you had a point that presenting both sides equally created false balance, erasing one side makes it POV. I object to the words “have demonstrated” and to the erasure of the opposing perspective. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my previous response was hasty and inappropriate. All good, bro.

Saying in our voice that the NYT is biased requires an overwhelming consensus in the sources and we cannot say that per NPOV based on the current sourcing. What it says in Wikivoice is that, since 2003, studies have found anti-Palestinian bias in NYT coverage, which is certainly supported by the sources. The scholarly consensus, based on empirical, quantitative analysis, seems perfectly clear to me. As noted above, there have been at least three major scientific, peer-reviewed studies affirming the anti-Palestinian bias in NYT coverage that many, many scholars and observers have been describing for a long time. The Alterman piece that was supposed to justify the equivocation on this is also itself unequivocal. On the other hand, we have only one study in support of the idea that the newspaper is somehow biased against Israel—a notion that does not appear to be very diffuse, to say the least. This lone source is published by the journal Israel Affairs, and—though it identifies what it describes as errors and omissions in coverage of the Gaza war—it doesn’t explicitly claim that NYT coverage is biased against Israel.

Your edit removes academic sources saying the bias is in the other direction in order to make a definitive statement in our voice. A survey of the scientific studies is included in the footnote, and the piece published by Israel Affairs is in the footnote too. It would give WP:undue weight to the POV-laden piece by the random prof at Yale’s business school writing outside of his field, as well as the low quality sources parroting it, to put them on the same level as the other sources.

I have raised this on the NPOV noticeboard to get wider editorial involvement. Cool. It’s probably good to get more eyes on this. إيان (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilboa & Sigan and Pinker seem to be legitimate sources, the former more reliable than the latter as it's published in a peer-reviewed journal. We cannot say that they were "refuted" in wikivoice as this would amount to WP:OR. We should follow due weight instead. Alaexis_¿question? 12:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alaexis, welcome to the discussion. From your comment it appears you haven’t understood various pieces of the conversation:

• The piece in Israel Affairs by Gilboa and Sigan identifies what it describes errors and omissions, but it does not seem to argue that there is anti-Israel bias in NYT coverage. To impute such a claim into the source would be to misrepresent it. It is also not comparable in quality to the three scientific peer-reviewed studies that have found anti-Palestinian bias in NYT coverage.
• The piece from Edieal Pinker, a business school professor writing an analysis of media bias, is not even peer-reviewed. It is inferior to the sources above.
• The only source we have addressing accusations raised by Netanyahu and company that NYT coverage is biased against Israel is the Alterman piece quoted at length above, which clearly and explicitly states that such claims are false and contrary to reality. It is not WP:OR to faithfully represent the full content of the cited sources, but it would be so to cherrypick pieces of information from it or to synthesize it with other sources to support a different claim.

I do agree that we must respect WP:DUE weight in light of these considerations. إيان (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Gilboa & Sagan argues that there is an "epidemic malaise" and not "sporadic errors" as they put it in the conclusion, as the major errors they analysed were all anti-Israel. "Media bias" is one of the keywords. This is how Algemeiner interpreted it as well [3].

If there are 3 articles espousing a different viewpoint, we should follow WP:DUE rather than trying to adjudicate who is right and who is wrong.

I agree that Pinker's piece should have less weight. Since you've mentioned that he's a business school professor, consider also that the authors of 2 out of 3 articles you've mentioned also don't seem to be experts in this specific area. Holly M Jackson works at the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Matt Viser doesn't seem to have any academic affiliation [4] [5]. Alaexis_¿question? 21:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd that I have to spell this out for you, but epidemic malaise ≠ anti-Israel bias

Per WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Algemeiner is a pro-Israel journalistic source not to be used for matters of WP:PIA import without attribution and certainly not to be used for imputing things into academic journals in the PIA topic area that aren't actually there.

Since you've mentioned that he's a business school professor, consider also that the authors of 2 out of 3 articles... This might have been a good argument if the scholarly studies had not been published in reputable academic journals and not been subject to rigorous peer review, which is the case for the Edieal Pinker source you like, unfortunately. إيان (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've responded to my point that "media bias" is one of the keywords of the article, so the authors and/or editors believe that it has to do with media bias. I'm not insisting on using the words "anti-Israel bias" in the article, as long as we describe their findings accurately.

I'm not against attributing this claim to Algemeiner, we can describe Gilboa and Sigal's findings and then say that Algemeiner have interpreted them as the NYT having anti-Israel bias. Alaexis_¿question? 13:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've responded to my point that "media bias" is one of the keywords of the article, so the authors and/or editors believe that it has to do with media bias Please. What is this desperation to extract things from the source that aren't there? The claims of the Israel Affairs piece are described accurately in the footnote.

In what world is some piece from Algemeiner interpreting and modifying a piece from Israel Affairs WP:DUE against consensus in independent, peer-reviewed studies? This is beyond tenuous POV pushing. إيان (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is exceedingly long. Has splitting it up/trimming it been discussed in the past?

I pasted the article into a google doc, deleted the notes and references and infoboxes. I got the counts below. Is there a better way to calculate the words and characters?

0c92e84jcn (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is of lots. Some of the controversial items could be split. ~2025-31218-10 (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Liberal as a description of The New York Times. ThrasherMichaelShawn (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is about 35 on controversial items. Here only are 2. Better to brief it all have. ~2025-31218-10 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? Snokalok (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many topics. Why only mentioned on two? ~2025-31218-10 (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many times has the word "pursed" been in a nyt article. ~2025-38171-12 (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

call it a liberal newspaper ~2025-42634-19 (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The "Political positions" subsection already discusses this. IsCat (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spending 75% of the "Controversies" section on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is undue weight and recentism, especially for a newspaper more than a century old. I suggest having a relatively short summary that covers the main controversies from List of The New York Times controversies. I proposed such a summary in this comment, let me know if it's good if appropriately sourced. Alenoach (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hard disagree, really we should be adding in sections on their involvement in the Holodomor and the Iraq War. If we have 95% of our article be about what an illustrious and lauded paper the NYT is, and then the other 5% is just briefly alluding to the fact that the paper has consistently collaborated with power to manufacture consent for mass atrocities, then that’s not an encyclopedia article, that’s just a promotional piece. Snokalok (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"consistently collaborated with power to manufacture consent" Well, their publication of government propaganda is the reason for the newspaper's status as a pillar of the establishment. Whitewashing atrocities is the name of their game. Dimadick (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a few of more issues, and short on each one? ~2026-74090-8 (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]