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

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 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. 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. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 19 August 2015 by reviewer Yossiea~enwiki (talk · contribs). Lists List‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. 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. 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. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Any objections to adding this article in The Spectator, it alleges that the Times prevented reporters from pursuing the lab-leak story. --Pakbelang (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC) 'Exclusive: New York Times quashed COVID origins inquiry'. August 2, 2021. https://spectatorworld.com/topic/new-york-times-quashed-covid-origins-inquiry/[reply]

Time to add this 117.248.179.153 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's officially the time to add this — perhaps the most controversial thing they've done, nowhere near the nonsensical discussions about LGBT which have been superfluously mentioned. 117.248.179.153 (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "This ‘violently racist’ hacker claims to be the source of The New York Times’ Mamdani scoop" Doug Weller talk 08:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both studies on Israel-Palestine were removed with the rationale "Jerusalem Post is not a reliable source on I/P". These were rigorous academic studies and should remain in the article so I have restored them. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources should be included for the Pinker study.[2][3][4][5] Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is: Yale professor Edieal Pinker examined 1,561 New York Times articles published between October 7, 2023 and June 7, 2024 that included "Israel” and “Gaza”, finding that “Israel” was mentioned three times more frequently than “Hamas". By omitting mention of deaths of Hamas fighters, Pinker argued, the NYT led readers to believe Israel was simply bombing Gaza, "diminishing Hamas’s responsibility for their situation and the continuation of the war". Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 2024 Bar Ilan study of 1,398 NYT articles found that 647 articles (46%) expressed empathy only towards Palestinians, while 147 articles (10.5%) expressed empathy only towards Israelis. Of 276 Top News headlines in 7 months, 55% expressed empathy only toward Palestinians, and 5.8% expressed empathy towards Israelis; 130 of these headlines criticized Israel, while only 6 headlines criticized Hamas.[6][7][8][9] Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of sourcing issues, the claim that the NYT is biased against Israel is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.

For these specific claims:

1. Despite being covered, by jpost and TOI, the Pinker study has not been published in an academic journal. His main argument is that because the deaths of Israeli soldiers after October 7th are mentioned less frequently than the deaths of Palestinian civilians (even though the latter is orders of magnitude larger than the former), this implies the NYT's reporting is skewed. This "scholarship" is clearly not worth taking remotely seriously.
2. A Gilboa & Sigan study was published in "Israel Affairs" but as far as I can see doesn't cover the articles expressing empathy statistics that your including here. This is most likely because "articles expressing empathy" is completely subjective and unscientific. The published work contains no data analysis at all and is mostly just regurgitating pro-Israel talking points while describing a few editorial errors made by the NYT. Also note that the jpost article was written by Sigan so falls into WP:SPS.

EvansHallBear (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With numerous citations in this article coming from The Wrap, Buzzfeed News, The Guardian, Slate, Rolling Stone, The Mary Sue, Vanity Fair, Hollywood Reporter, and other non-academic sources, setting the standard for inclusion at the level of an academic journal only for a pro-Israel stance is applying a clear double standard and therefore violates WP:NPOV. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of sourcing needs to be weighed against the argument being made. Giving these two "studies" more weight than we've given to the multiple studies published in reputable journals is the NPOV issue. EvansHallBear (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Campusj has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 27 § Campusj until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure how or where it best might be used, but wanted to draw editors’ attention to this potentially useful study:

• Zachary Jablow (2025-12-19). "The Genocides The New York Times Forgot". Jewish Currents. Retrieved 2026-01-05.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]