Talk:List of The New York Times controversies

Self-published text

I've removed a morass of lengthy content cited entirely to As'ad AbuKhalil's self-published blog, angryarab.blogspot.com. Although this text is attributed to AbuKhalil, it completely runs afoul of principles of due weight:

• It's self-published, so there is no vetting, no editorial control, no peer review, etc. There's no indication that AbuKhalil's views are widely shared or especially significant. Indeed, it seems likely that AbuKhalil's views are marginal, lacking significance in U.S. political discourse.
• The text appears to promote AbuKhalil's blog.
• There's no need to resort to self-published sources when there are many non-self-published Times criticisms out there from every corner. I question the need to rely on a personal blog when there are far weighter criticisms out there.
• It's excessively lengthy (two large paragraphs). Even if this was to be included in some form, it shouldn't be more than a sentence.
• The text is filled with over-the-top generalities ("criticized for disseminating fake news" or "not used Newspeak") or vague assertions ("its double standards in favor of the United States against Russia"). The text also presupposes the truth of AbuKhalil's claims by failing to hedge them (i.e., even if we were to include this — and we should not — we would have to hedge it: "what AbuKhalil believes to me").

I've also removed a citation to a Tweet(!) by an obscure research fellow (i.e., junior think-tanker) criticizing a Times editorial. First, no, having "testified to the Congress" does not make one's Tweets automatically significantly enough to be enshrined in an encyclopedia article forever. Second, having some people disagree with an editorial is not a "controversy."

--Neutrality^talk 06:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New York Times controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061224143543/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F12%2F22%2F1447213 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F12%2F22%2F1447213
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314235027/http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html to http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721164116/http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1992----02.htm to http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1992----02.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iG-8I87S5w4QP8CPIrx2wh8irqmgD8UVVVBO0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent reversions

I've made several reverts (eg) because of issues being discussed over at Talk:Sarah Jeong. The Wikipedia biographies of living people policy is quite strict. The specific additions (eg) do not bother to present a neutral point of view and are completely without context.Citing (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. I have used many high quality sources, and had used sources from the New York Times itself. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. And I have fulfilled the burden of proof with my many, many good citations. Where is the disagreements about what I have written? She tweeted anti-white, anti-cop tweets, so I have written that she did that. The. New York times stand by their decision to hire her, so that's what will be written. Don't broadly criticise it - if you have valid criticism, be specific. --1.152.104.255 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I gave criticism and you didn't address it.Citing (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

your criticism is that what I wrote was not neutral. It is. I wrote straightforward what she has said on twitter and that the New York Times have stuck by her. You said that it is without context. The context is that she tweeted them out. I have addressed your comments, now you address mine. --1.152.104.255 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

you're saying it's not neutral and it violates BLP. How is it not neutral? How does it violate BLP? --2001:8003:4023:D900:DD0B:9A7B:5208:4B50 (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I have replaced the written text with the standing consensus version of the events from Sarah Jeong. This should not be construed as any sort of endorsement of including the content or taking sides in the dispute, but Citing is correct, the text was clearly written to portray her in a derogatory and negative way using Wikipedia's voice, such as using the label "racist", and leaving out key aspects of the story such as the fact that she claim she was "counter-trolling" and the fact that the NYT has addressed the Tweets beyond simply "defending her". This is unacceptable behavior. Swarm ♠ 23:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like grovelling goblins." "Oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” "#CancelWhitePeople" But sure, you criticise me for my "derogatory and negative" use of the label "racist" when someone is being a racist. --2001:8003:4023:D900:61C9:713A:838F:D37B (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand why you would feel that way, but it is always inappropriate to use Wikipedia's voice to apply contentious labels such as "racist", unless available sources are completely unambiguous, and even then the text should usually not apply the label in its own voice, but rather refer to the fact that something is "widely described" as such or something along those lines, in order to remain neutral. Given that we're dealing with a living person, we need to be exponentially more cautious about how we report negative information, such as allegations of racism. It is inappropriate to decide unilaterally how to report this situation here, given that it is still being extensively discussed at Talk:Sarah Jeong under strict page restrictions. I wholeheartedly urge you to join the discussion! But, please keep in mind that talk pages are not a forum for personal views, and any such commentary will most likely be deleted. Swarm ♠ 00:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The above quote is completely and unambiguously racist. Any attempts to frame it as anything else is merely apologism for racism. I will gladly join that discussion you cite above. DiverseSynergy (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No reference to controversies before 1990s

This article consists entirely of controversies from the last two decades. The New York Times has been the subject of controversy for as long as it has been in existence. An article titled "The New York Times Controversies" ought to span the entirety of the newspaper's history. At minimum, twentieth century content (e.g. Walter Duranty's denial of famine in Ukraine) desperately needs inclusion. 00:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.66 (talk)

I strongly agree. The main New York Times Article already has some sections on more recent criticism and controversies (The_New_York_Times#Criticism_and_controversies) which could be a good starting point. Tovlyd (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Leaked audio of Baquet

Is there a revision pending about the 2 controversies this past month Aug 2019 ? 1) The NYT changed a headline (after the El Paso shooting when President Trump condemned white supremacy and bigotry from the White House) at the insistence of Twitter mobs. 2) NYT Dean Baquet caught on recording saying their paper was focused on "one story" for more than 2 years and now had to make any future news regarding President Trump to focus on "racism angle" for the next year. Markvrb (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Title Change

I think this page should be renamed to "The New York Time Criticism and controversies". "Controversies" alone implies contention about specific events while this page contains more general (temporally and topically broad) criticism (e.g. "Corporate-influence concerns"). This rename would also match with the subsection of the main New York Times page. Tovlyd (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

@CaradhrasAiguo: per WP:BURDEN you need to make an argument for each of the sources you just added to the page. None have a consensus of reliability and as far as I can tell none satisfy WP:VERIFY. Also just fyi for next time, you need to get consensus *before* adding the contentious material to the page not after. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: please respond in full before editing further, you need to satisfy WP:BURDEN first. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed Baijiahao as being deprecated per Chinese Wikipedia consensus. Chu News appears to be an aggregate for all matters Hubei, in a similar matter to Zhejiang Online is for Zhejiang. And Sina News reliability should not be impugned in any case. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Its reliability has never been established in the first place to impugn, this academic source "Independent commercial news portals or news sites such as Sina or Tencent do not have the autonomy to produce original news content, and instead can only reprint news articles from state-run news outlets (Esarey and Qiang, 2011; Stockmann, 2011)”[4] says its no good though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Also when it comes to Chu News we don’t consider aggregators reliable in their own right, we would need to see where the story is actually from. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge the section of Accusation of anti-Chinese bias and China into one

I think these two sections should be merged since they are essentially covering the same thing. The merged section should contain more information from Chinese media accusations as well. There are many more instances of accused bias from China which should mentioned, which I was surprised to not be mentioned at all. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weird green frog (talk • contribs) 00:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A separate proposal

[ A separate proposal: that some qualified editor(s), please add a link to the page, "List of controversies involving The New York Times", in among the related topic-links listed in the "See also" section of the main page re the New York Times.

(Meanwhile, til that's either done or decided against, perhaps someone who knows how to do so might want to properly re-format even this proposal itself?)

--Thanks! ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1516:4565:9054:3723:2E44:59A4 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. - Station1 (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Organizing chronologically

Maybe it would make sense to organize the whole article chronologically - sometimes it's unclear when the incident happened. I think it helps understanding whether situation is improving or getting worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolframiac (talk • contribs) 17:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I second that, with a preference for more current controversies before less current ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.31.76 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian famine?

The New York Times, and specifically it's then chief correspondent in Moscow, Walter Duranty, has been widely criticized for his reporting during the Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933 (holodomor), specifically his outright denial that it was happening and even at times apparent support for Joseph Stalin. Duranty has also been alleged to have lived in such a way and had access to such things that, at the time, would have been impossible without Stalin's knowledge and explicit approval, leading to accusations that he may have been a propagandist for Stalin.

I'm honestly surprised that nothing about that controversy is present in this article and I believe that it should be added. EPicmAx4 (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Bizzare focus on Douglas Murray

One of the longest sections in this article is "Anti-British sentiment," but most of the section is from one article by some political commentator on an obscure magazine. I don't think the Manchester bombings part and the part about swamps fit in the section either. Ardenter (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

What happened to that long section on "Anti-British sentiment"?

As at the time of writing, it no longer exists. Very odd that the section is now absent, particularly given their recent highly controversial piece about the death of Queen Elizabeth II. DiverseSynergy (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent controversy on a job recruitment application in India

Just in July, 2021. A new controversy has started where NYT was allegedly recruiting Indians who would write with anti-Modi sentiments or something like that. Full confirmation is needed. SReader21 (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak censorship

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/

New York City’s hushed-up lead poisoning epidemic of 1848 to 1992

This section seems to have been added in 2006 to provide information about a book published in 2006. It's sourced almost entirely to the book that it purports to be about. There are no independent sources cited that discuss the purported controversy. I propose removing this section if such sources cannot be found. MPS1992 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Two Issues with this Entry

I notice two issues with this entry:

1) The endnotes refer to the "Caliphate" podcast scandal (which is the one I was looking for), but the actual body of the entry does not mention this scandal at all. I would assert it not only deserves mention, but its own section.

2) The section about the obituary of the Mormon leader contains a very long first-person quote -- so long it is easy for readers to lose track of the fact they are in fact reading a quote (except for occasional uses of the word "I"). I suggest rendering this entire quotation as a block quotation.

I leave it, however, to those who regularly monitor this particular entry to decide if these issues warrant action.

Sincerely,

Skb8721 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I see now the text does refer to the Caliphate scandal, but under the header "Abu Huzaifa al-Kanadi".

I suggest this header be changed to read "Caliphate Podcast" or words to this effect, which is more commonly used in reference to the scandal than "Abu Huzaifa al-Kanadi". Also, the section about the Califate scandal seems lacking in substance (indeed, the title of the offending podcast is mentioned only once), implying this journalistic lapse was not as major an issue as it actually was. The section could be expanded.

--Skb8721 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Trans coverage

I have multiple WP:RSP green sources directly using the word “controversy” to refer to the backlash over the NYT’s reporting on trans issues, both of which I cited in my edit, in addition to the rest of the documented backlash, not to mention the - in the time since this was reverted - open letter signed by 370 NYT contributors calling out their coverage.

I would point out that no other section on this page has had to clear nearly so high a hurdle, as best I can tell.

With respect, what about this is not sufficiently a controversy? (Please tag me in reply so I don’t forget)

User:SPECIFICO Snokalok (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Tagging user User:Sideswipe9th to get their thoughts on the matter, I feel they might have a useful perspective. Snokalok (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how much help I'm going to be right now, I've mostly been focused on another article the last few days and I've not had a chance to read up on the open letter and the responses to it. I'll try and read up on this tomorrow or the weekend and get back to you all on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s alright, it’s more or less moot at this point. I’ve been trying for a while to get their trans coverage added to this page, citing the widespread criticism and direct description of it being controversial over pieces like Twohey’s and Paul’s, and it’s always been shot down with the response of “That’s not controversy” (???), but now with the letter, the editorial consensus is more or less sold, so Snokalok (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, so the letter is receiving increased WP:DEPTH coverage, and at this point hands down meets the criteria for born controversy and notability. Here’s my proposed section.

The New York Times’ reporting on trans issues has in the past of been the source of “controversy”.

In February 2023, over 370 NYT contributors signed an open letter expressing “serious concerns about editorial bias” in the newspaper's reporting on transgender people. The letter characterized the NYT’s reporting as using “an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language, while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources”, and raised concerns about the NYT’s employment practices regarding trans contributors. Of particular criticism was a piece referring to trans children as “patient zero”, and describing transness as an illness to be contained. The letter highlighted that many of these pieces have been directly cited in anti-trans legislation by republican lawmakers.

That same day, a separate but coordinated letter was delivered to the NYT, signed by more than 130 LGBT advocacy groups with similar concerns, as well as numerous celebrities.

Within a day the NYT issues a response, saying “Our journalism strives to explore, interrogate and reflect the experiences, ideas and debates in society – to help readers understand them. Our reporting did exactly that and we’re proud of it”. The next day, the NYT published an op-ed piece entitled “In defense of JK Rowling”.

That same day, an internal memo was sent by the editors, saying “Our coverage of transgender issues, including the specific pieces singled out for attack, is important, deeply reported, and sensitively written. We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums.”

Snokalok (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Split proposed

Coverage in major reliable secondary sources regarding the NYT's coverage of transgender issues has continued for days, with The Guardian publishing an article about the controversy earlier today. I think this particular controversy is notable enough for its own page. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we should have a section here, with a "main article" bar and then its own article Snokalok (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Do you think the transgender coverage section should be split into its own article? 05:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC) CJ-Moki (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Several days" is not our criterion for whether to create a standalone page or WP:POVFORK. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No but depth of coverage is, and several days worth of coverage, while not the exact same metric, is not so worthy of rebuke as so Snokalok (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Particularly @SPECIFICO -- if there isn't space for the long-term (10+ years) of critique of coverage related to trans people that's been building up to this moment either in the main page or in this list -- then by your own standards it should be its own section, no?

Please remember to be productive (i.e. edit for improvement) rather than destructive (i.e. revert other peoples' work wholesale. Thanks. Eikko (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't base our decisions on the quantity or amount of time spent. It's the quality and significance of content. Editors' disappointment or annoyance at having to generate consensus is not germane. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO

Whether I am or am not annoyed and disappointed, to use your words, I would appreciate it if you did not use character attacks or assumptions to undermine my request that you be constructive. By the way, "We don't base our decisions on ... " sounds like you own this. I don't believe you do. You suggested I read WP:BRD. It provides, in relevant part: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary ...[and] be specific about your reasons in the edit summary..." I did not see specifics in your edit summary reverting 4000+ words (from the main NYT article).

To return to the actual content: I agree with @Snokalok and @CJ-Moki. This subject seems best served as (i) a mention in the main page with the other controversies, (ii) a short version in the List of controversies article, and (iii) its own article. Certainly parts of what I wrote in the main page could be moved there. Eikko (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If you make the page, tag me so I can help Snokalok (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki @Snokalok @SPECIFICO @Eikko (pinging all editors who commented in this discussion): there appears to be no consensus here. I personally don't see a need to split this given the content currently under the subheading (no good argument for a split based on length, and this is already a controversy article). Is there any objection to removing the psplit tag and closing this? Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dylnuge: This controversy attracted significant media attention and lasted for days, though you're right that it probably isn't quite long enough and it's already a controversy article. I would be okay with just keeping it as a section of the article. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh for sure, not arguing against inclusion, just doesn't strike me as something that needs an independent article. Honestly my suspicion is that if there is an appropriate independent article here, it's something like Media coverage of transgender issues, in line with articles like Media coverage of climate change, covering not just the criticism of the NYT but other major publications as well. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections, your arguments and reasoning are sound Snokalok (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Chronological organization?

Just reviving the convo here ("Organizing chronologically"), but wouldn't it make more sense to chunk this out by decade? Yes? No? Trying for WP:CONSENSUS here before I just do it, haha. Cheers! ɯɐɔ 💬 23:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it absolutely would make more sense, as it is I can't even guess at how this order came about, it seems like people just randomly inserted new sections wherever they wanted. XeCyranium (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Relationship with Elon Musk

I suggest adding a section on NYT's acrimonious relationship with Musk. This is well documented. I proposed the following edit: [5] User:SPECIFICO reverted it, stating that the withdrawal of the Twitter checkmark as trivial. I accept that point but feel that the more general spat is worth mention. Pakbelang (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)