Wikipedia

Talk:The New York Times/Archive 7

< Talk:The New York Times
Latest comment: 8 months ago by XMcan in topic New lead is not an improvement
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Liberal?

Latest comment: 1 year ago26 comments11 people in discussion

A few edits have been made recently that add to the first sentence of the article that NYT is liberal. Is this accurate or do we need consensus before we can add this claim? X-Editor (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is the most recent edit in question. The Fordham ref looks like a blog, whose author conflates the NYT with National Geographic magazine for rhetorical effect, with some handwaving about how NYT readers ostensibly expect it to be "sensitive about notions of language and power". That's an essay, not a source for the paper's editorial slant. The CJR ref looks like a Marxist's complaint that the NYT doesn't lean far enough to the left. Neither of those refs seems like a solid definitive source for the claim that the Times is a "liberal" paper.
If this discussion is going to get anywhere, the first thing to do is reach agreement on a working definition of "liberal" in this context. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Just plain Bill: I was able to find this article from WaPo that says that NYT’s audience is more liberal according to Pew research, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the content in NYT itself is liberal. X-Editor (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
That 2014 Pew study shows up on media article talk pages every so often, but extrapolating from an audience survey to saying, in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence of the lead, that a publication has a "liberal" editorial slant is more of a stretch than WP policy allows. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Just plain Bill: Agreed. X-Editor (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted. Consensus for such a characterization should be obtained on the talk page since it's historically been a controversial thing. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Left or Left-center would be an appropriate description of the current paper. Keep in mind they've never endorsed a Republican Presidential candidate.
[1] (just 3 days after this discussion)
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
I mean I can go on, but these are all clear indications of leftward bias. There's no need to omit it. The overall facts are generally accurate, but the manner of publication is an issue. Buffs (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Buffs: Some of the sources you have provided are unreliable, but you would still need to get consensus first for claiming that the NYT is left or leaning left based on the reliable sources you have provided. X-Editor (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Those are almost all unreliable sources (New York Post, Media Bias Fact Check, Allsides, Adfontes, the Heritage foundation, a student paper, Fox on politics), or opinion pieces (the NJ.com piece, the Reason piece, the heritage piece, the WSJ piece), or in some cases opinion pieces from unreliable sources. Most of them are also severely biased (The Post, Fox, WSJ, the Heritage Foundation, Reason). None of them are usable for statements of fact in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"People don't feel that way"
"Here are some examples of how they feel"
"Those aren't reliable sources"
"How aren't they reliable sources? That's LITERALLY them saying how they feel"
  • Does this mean they are 100% accurate across the country? Of course not. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Buffs (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    It was not Aquillion who "unilaterally decided that they are untrustworthy" but consensus through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. They are not reliable because they may lack fact-checking, get key and uncontroversial facts wrong, etc. There may well be a liberal bias but certainly not in the way you interpret it or in a left-wing way, and most generally reliable sources are able to remain reliable because their bias does not affect them to get most things right. All sources are biased but the ones you used are either self-published, lack fact-checking, and their bias affect them in a much bigger way that simply does not make them reliable for facts. Davide King (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    "there may be a liberal bias...but not in a left-wing way"? DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
"Is the New York Times a liberal newspaper? Of course it is." This quote is taken from Daniel Okrent in a New York Times editorial. The paper itself claims to be liberal; I don't understand the reticence to use a label that the newspaper uses to describe itself. (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html). I note that Blaze Media is properly characterized as a conservative media company, and Pod Save America is properly characterized as a liberal political podcast. Why should Wikipedia refrain from using these labels when appropriate? Other evidence:
Two sentences after "Of course it is [liberal]" Okrent addresses criticism of the paper from the left. If you want to call the New York Times "liberal", that would be fair. However, do not conflate that with the left. 71.185.178.141 (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
"liberal" and "left" generally refer to "Democratic" in the United States. Are you saying you'd agree to add "liberal" to the lede? DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Allsides characterizes the paper as "Lean Left". I suggest we add something along those lines to the lede. Pakbelang (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO please comment. Pakbelang (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
My view is that such labels are frequently misleading and iimprecise. The Times' editorials may be liberal but readers are likely to think we are (baselessly) saying its news reporting is biased. So I don't support such a description in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Your worry about readers not understanding the literal interpretation of the text is not relevant. Many, many news organizations have their political slant listed in the lede. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The news reporting is not documented by RS as having such a "slant". SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
It absolutely is: moreover, sources at Times have said as much.
1. When it became clear that there is good evidence that the Times leans to the Democratic Party (point 1), you brought up a separate point about being misleading (point 2).
2. I'm speaking to the substantive point (point 2) you attempted to make about being misleading.
3. You ignore this, and switch points again rather engaging in substantive discussion about point 2.
You are toggling between objections, unable to justify any of them. 17:41, 26 August 2023
This is not substantive discussion. (UTC) DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I want to offer my summary of the discussion so far about adding the possibly-true fact "the New York Times has a liberal slant" to the lede (statement X)
1. No editors have offered reliable sources against statement X
2. The debate has been purely about the reliability of sources corroborating statement X
3. Editors for inclusion have stated and shown reliable sources
4. Editors against inclusion have stated that corroborating sources are "almost all unreliable", not that there are no reliable sources.
On almost any other page, this is well past the point statement X would have been included. DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
More reliable sources:
The New York Times is generally regarded as having a liberal slant. DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I support adding a short sentence along the lines mentioned by @SPECIFICO: The Times' editorials have been characterised as tending to "lean left" (using the sources cited by @Denvercoder9. We can also add something along the lines that its news reporting is considered to be reliable. Pakbelang (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I second your original suggestion of adding "lean left" to the lede and not limiting the discussion of slant in the body to editorials.
Many of these reliable sources do not limit their analysis to the editorial section.
It is a broad point about the Times coverage. DenverCoder9 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
What sources do you have for your assertion? SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

230,000+ char change

Latest comment: 8 months ago59 comments12 people in discussion

What's going on with the change today? It looks like contemporary topics were cut down to a bare minimum (with some pretty bad summaries), while the history section was expanded with ridiculous amounts of detail. This size edit is pretty much impossible to properly review. I think it should be reverted and proposed changes should be made incrementally. And for that level of detail about history, it should be a separate article. Hist9600 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Changes cannot be made incrementally because the citation system goes against what has already been established; I used shortened footnotes to divide the topics. The length of the history section has already been discussed and it will be split once the article is finished. If you have an issue with content, WP:BEBOLD. I have deliberately avoided contemporary coverage of the Times because the paper is nearly two hundred years old. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Should be split now, rather than later, imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll echo what Eddie891 said. On one hand, it's an impressive amount of work. And normally, there's a fair amount of leeway for people remodeling an article to go nuts. But this is wildly, WILDLY too large, a rendering issue too large (which makes teling other editors to BEBOLD awkward when one of the effects is making it harder to edit!). It really needs to be split sooner, rather than later - ideally before it was even moved into the namespace. The split doesn't have to be perfect - you can absolutely keep working on it after the split. SnowFire (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding history, I agree that it should be split, preferably into at least one article but more likely two or three. (I suggest separate articles for the NYT in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.) – Epicgenius (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
(In particular, the prose size of the History section alone is 28,000 words. If this were split out, and a 7,000-word summary added to this article, you'd still have 14,000 words: 7,000 summarizing the history and 7,000 for everything else.) – Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the sheer size of this article, echoing the comments above. The article, which is a high-traffic & important topic, is (as of writing this) over 464,000 bytes and nearly 36,000 words. To be frank, I don't think this size is appropriate for mainspace, and it's rendered this article pretty inaccessible to both readers and editors. I can't properly load diffs because of the size, making reviewing changes to the article nearly impossible. ElijahPepe's work is genuinely very admirable and impressive, but this desperately needs to be split, ASAP. sawyer * he/they * talk 03:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving the new history content to a single subarticle and restoring the original language of that section here, with adaptations for summary style. It's an excellent contribution but I agree too long and warrants its own page. Reywas92Talk 15:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed (though we almost certainly need more than one article for the NYT's history). – Epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe I think there's a pretty clear agreement in this section that this content should be split, and sooner rather than later (especially because it raises accessibility concerns with how large the page has gotten). Are you willing to do so? If not, I will do it in the next few days. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I have established a general framework for how the history articles should be spread out. Removing content should be discussed for each section in this article and the main history article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
No, it doesn’t make sense to discuss every single thing to be split. The point here is that this is a highly visited article, and leaving it so long impeded the reader’s experience. We shouldn’t wait until a perfect split is achieved, but do it and reassess. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Callousness will also impede readers' experiences. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I find myself in agreement with Eddie891 here, this article pretty urgently needs splitting. The current length comes in at 471,003 bytes and because of the length and number of citation and SFN templates, the page takes a very long time to render and edit. The history section alone is around half the page length at 218,923 bytes, and there's absolutely no reason for it to be that long when History of The New York Times was created almost a month ago. Even that article is too long, currently coming in at 366,627 bytes, but that's a discussion for another talk page.
Rather than adding new content to other sections, I would strongly suggest as a matter of urgency re-writing and condensing the current history section in summary style, so that this page becomes slightly more manageable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th, regarding The history section alone is around half the page length at 218,923 bytes, and there's absolutely no reason for it to be that long when History of The New York Times was created almost a month ago. Even that article is too long, currently coming in at 366,627 bytes, but that's a discussion for another talk page, I and SnowFire proposed splitting the history section into three pages above. However, it seems like all of the info in the "History" section of this page was merely split out to the History article. The History article really should itself be split into three articles, and these articles should be summarized here.
By the way, the reason that wikitext of the History article is 360,000 bytes, while the wikitext of this page's history section is only 210,000 bytes, is because the pages use shortened footnotes. The "Works cited" section alone is 165,000 bytes of wikitext, which actually loads pretty quickly. It may be the images that are slowing down loading times. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
It may be the images that are slowing down loading times I don't think it's the images. If I use my browser's developer tools in network capture mode, it takes a little over 10 seconds for the article text to be generated by the server before being sent to my browser. The actual transfer of the article text and all of the images takes about less than 50ms, once the article text is generated.
I'd agree that the history article also needs splitting in to three or four parts, depending on how you want to delineate the 20th century content. I'd probably split it into four; 19th century, first half 20th century, second half 20th century, 21st century, as the 20th century content seems quite long in and of itself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding image loading times, that is interesting. Might just be my Internet connection - the whole page loaded within 3 seconds for me earlier this morning.
Splitting the history into four pages may be a good idea as well. SnowFire proposed three (19th, early 20th, and late 20th to present), but we're barely in the third decade of the 21st century, so a dedicated page on 21st-century history may well be appropriate. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The fun coincidence with splitting History of The New York Times into four articles, is that each article will cover a roughly 50 year time period; 1851-1900, 1900-1950, 1950-2000, 2000+. Honestly I think there's enough content on just the 20th century history of the paper to have two lengthy articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Seeing clear consensus here, I've re-added the History as it was before this addition. There were a couple copyedits I did during that re-add, happy to discuss those as well. There is already a nearly identical history section at History of The New York Times so no article content is being lost. Soni (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oh and full disclosure, I learnt about this page from seeing Sideswipe9th's edits and discussing this article offWiki. However I was not asked to edit this, just decided to edit of my own interest. So we should be pretty clear from canvassing or similar. Soni (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    I see ElijahPepe has reverted your edit. On the one hand, the history section does need to be seriously trimmed, but on the other, I don't think just restoring the pre-expansion version is the best way to go about it. Prior to ElijahPepe's expansion, the history section put undue weight on certain aspects of the NYT's history. For example, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) and The Pentagon Papers (1971) each got their own subsections—the latter with four paragraphs—while the period between 1935 and 1963 got a single paragraph.
    My suggestion would be to take some text from the existing History of The New York Times article and try to summarize each section as, at most, one paragraph with 100-150 words. That article has 33 subsections, so summarizing the history article that way would probably result in this article having a History section with 3,000-4,500 words. This would still be a lot, but not enough to overwhelm readers; the rest of the article combined has 7,000 words, so it would be on the long side of WP:SIZERULE (10,000-11,500 words total). Nonetheless this would be drastically more readable compared to the 35,000 words that this article has now; WP:SIZERULE says a page should almost certainly be split at 15,000 words.
    I also understand that summarizing the history section could take a while, so I'm not opposed to restoring the old history section for a short time while the History article is summarized. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Epicgenius I was happy to do that, but it's nearly impossible to edit an article when there's 450K characters to work through, basically crashing my browser while editing. It took me about 20ish mins just to get the basic restoration done, that's how badly the load and readability was being.
    I think we absolutely should do this, summarise each section from History in the main article. I just believe that while we complete said summary (probably a few hours to a couple days of work), the article needs to be in pre-expansion version, or it becomes literally impossible to edit. Soni (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
    My bad, I did not realize it was literally crashing your browser. Yeah, in that case, restoring the old history section for now might be the best way to go about this. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @ElijahPepe I am confused by your comment asking to "discuss in the talk page" when that's exactly what I did, just here.
There are 6 editors in the above discussion that requested first reverting to 250K char article - @Hist9600, Eddie891, Sideswipe9th, Epicgenius, Reywas92, and Sawyer-mcdonell:, and just you who preferred we work from the 450K+ char version first. (Sorry for unnecessary ping, please correct me if I misrepresented your takes)
You cannot both invite others to edit the article above, while reverting any changes without discussion. And finally, like I said above, the article contents are nearly identically present in History of The New York Times as well, so we should not be replicating the content doubly regardless. If the article is under work, it should be in draftspace. If it's not under work, the mainspace article should reflect consensus, which is clearly in favour of readability (while we continue to fix simple enough errors such as shortened vs not reference format).
Please do not revert again without consensus.
Soni (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This is not how this should be done. The article is significantly worse and this is not what this article should look like. I now need to drop everything that I'm doing on this article to deal with this. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I have now reduced the article size to 11,000 words. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@ElijahPepe Seeing the discussion below... Nobody except you seem to think the article should stay in it's current state. I am reverting back, if only to actually allow myself to physically edit this page. I am happy to work with you to re-add the content that needs to be added, but we need to start from the pre-data dump version. Or we use a Draftspace page instead of throwing everything into mainspace. Soni (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Please consider reading WP:OWN. No one person has full editorial control over any article. You seem to consider your preferences on editing style more important than others, which is unhealthy at best and detrimental to articles at worst. WP:CONSENSUS might also be helpful to read.
To me, both wordcount and the overall character size matter. One helps readability, while the other helps browsers. And the article after your 2nd revert fails both. At first glance, I am seeing "just" the History section at 23K words, so this is very obviously not 11K words for the "entire article". It is also not 'roughly 100-150 words per decade' as @Epicgenius: suggested above. Just 1850-1900 seems to be roughly 3000 words alone.
All you've done is restored nearly a large proportion of the parts that needed to be cut, while completely ignoring my request to not crash browsers "while we edit this down". Roughly 15 mins into loading this, my browser still fails. I request another editor to revert this change while we sandbox this, rather than locking editors out completely. Soni (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@ElijahPepe: the history section of this article badly needs a drastic cutdown, as Soni stated above trying to edit this article is causing his browser to crash. That is not a good sign for article length. You also don't have to do all of this alone, there are other editors here, like Soni and myself, who are willing to help with this. But as with the section below on transphobia, you're saying that you're having to "drop everything" to work on this. That is also not a good sign. Wikipedia is fundamentally a collaborative environment, but between statements like this and the requests in edit summaries to other editors that they should "hold off on reverts or significant overhauls" collaboration with you on directly improving the article seems incredibly difficult.
Perhaps you could explain to us what your intention is with regards to the article and its content? Just under a month ago you added 230,000 characters from your sandbox to an article that was already over 221,000 characters long. What is your long term goal here? Are you wanting to bring this article to GA or FA status? Are you trying to re-write the article so that it is more up to date and more concise? What can other editors do achieve this goal faster? Is this perhaps such a significant undertaking that we should instead restore the already lengthy version of the article from 1 January 2024 despite its flaws, and instead work on this together in a sandbox so that when there's a consensus that the draft is in a good enough shape to "go live", all of the changes can be made to this article in a single edit? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm looking to take this article to featured article status. I don't need help in taking it there, but I'm willing to try to reduce the article size. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@ElijahPepe: Ok, that is not a good sign. As I said in my last reply, Wikipedia is fundamentally a collaborative environment. We are at our best when we're working on content together. No one editor has ownership over an article, article content is always decided via consensus.
Now wanting to bring this article to FA status is a great goal, however based on just the content you added on 14 January, even in isolation from all of the rest of the content in the article, I would quick-fail at FAC per WP:FACR#4 alone, without even needing to look at any of the other criteria. The content that you're adding is far too long. The history section goes into a lot of unnecessary detail, and even prior to the creation of the history of article did not comply with summary style.
Additionally, the review process that's required as part of FAC is collaborative. You will receive a lot of feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the article, and in most cases will be required to act upon it. It is not an easy process to go through at the best of times, and being resistant to letting other editors help like in this discussion is not going to help that.
So with that all said, again I ask, how can we help? Staying out of your way is not a realistic option here. Even if those of us who are here now disengage from the article and talk page, there will always be some new editor coming along to edit the content. And if you resist those changes, I guarantee that in the medium to long term it would not end well, and I don't want to see that happen. So, how can we help? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The only two things that need to be done are expanding several sections that have little to no content and reducing the size of the history section. Reverting to the old history section is not an option. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Even if we completely excised the history section, this article would still be borderline too long per FACR#4. There is around 10,000 words all of the other sections combined. Adding more content elsewhere isn't going to help the page length issues and is only going to compound the issue. If you're wanting to bring this article to FA, then per summary style you need to bring the article down to between 8,000 and 12,000 words total across all sections. That means a lot of content will have to go into dedicated spin-off articles, the history of article is a good start but even that needs to be split into at least 3 or 4 parts. To adapt your phrase, adding more content is not an option at this time.
So, how can we help with that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Up to your interpretation. Re-adding content that ruins the citation style and breaks several citations is not the place to start. I am done trying to argue this. It is patently obvious reducing content over time is not an option. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Restoring that version is only a temporary measure, while we work collaboratively on an improved version either here on the talk page or in a sandbox somewhere. It's an interim measure so that folks like Drmies can actually just load the article for reading. Blanking an entire section, as you did in this edit is not helpful in this circumstance. While blank sections are acceptable in a sandbox or draft space while an article is in the process of being created, they are never acceptable in a live article. That's why we have orange templates like {{blank section}}.
It is patently obvious reducing content over time is not an option. That's because you're not letting us help you. You're not giving us any of the information we need in order to share the load. You want to take this article to FA? Great, lets do that together. Collaboration is a fundamental part of the FA process, and the more you work well with others now, the easier it will be to eventually pass the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not looking for help at the moment. Condensing the history section is a great idea, because the history section at present is insufficient. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User talk:ElijahPepe, if you want to bring this up to FA status you will have to a. trim this considerably (I can't load it or read it) and b. give up ownership, since FA review is the clearest example of collaborative editing. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


Discussion about deleted citations

  Moved from Talk:The New York Times § Reference Formatting Style
 – Soni (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
In that circumstance, I deleted the citations because there were three of them when one was sufficient and I prefer Vanity Fair for coverage of The New York Times. It was quicker for me to copy and paste one of the references I had written for Klein already than to write a new one. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Three is better for a contentious topic, which this very much was, and deleting citations simply because they’re from the guardian and not vanity fair is, kinda insane without any further logic? Snokalok (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Especially because your citation was, as others had said, an opinion piece, compared to stronger reporting from non-Vanity Fair sources Snokalok (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I deleted your citations because they weren't in shortened footnote form. I used the opinion piece to cite a figure that had not been updated in other sources. If quotations are truly contentious, might I suggest {{Efn}}? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Snokalok @ElijahPepe Can I request both of you to take specific past edits to another section? The main reason we created separate sections for each of this is to not get bogged down by wall of text when deciding big picture overalls for the article. The exact references in the previous edit will not affect whether we use SFN, Harvard FN or something else. Soni (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe, today you removed a citation from The Guardian saying that it was "yellow-tagged in the JavaScript script I'm using". WP:RSP lists The Guardian as green-tagged for "generally reliable", with only its blogs yellow-tagged for limited use. It's also one of the UK's newspapers of record. The article you removed does not appear to be a blog post, but a news article. Your rationale for removal appears to be flawed.

You also said it was done "per talk page" - where is the consensus for this? There's this thread from several days ago with @Snokalok where you guys were going back and forth about the citations in this section, but the discussion peters out with no consensus. Certainly not one where I would say "per talk page". I understand wanting to convert the citation to sfn, but removing it entirely seems unwarranted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I got buried in work stuff. Anyway yeah, just, convert it if you want that citation format so much. I don’t see the issue there Snokalok (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure your blanket revert was the best idea either. Can people please discuss things rather than just blindly removing content or reverting changes? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I mean I’ve discussed this at length, general consensus has consistently been that the sources I implemented are better, but Elijah has repeatedly “determined” on his own that a Vanity Fair opinion piece is a better source and repeatedly kills any other source.
@ElijahPepe Snokalok (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Look, Elijah, you’re the one who wanted and implemented SFN in the first place. I’m not opposed to that. But if a necessary source isn’t in that style, convert instead of deleting it, because the last time you deleted, we got like three citation needed tags and the entire paragraph had to be blanked AND like three editors in addition to myself all simultaneously wrote ANI posts about it because you wouldn’t discuss. You repeatedly deleting instead of converting and asserting that any source that’s not in that style has to be killed even if it leaves info unsourced, makes it seem like a possessive ownership thing, as was discussed at length on ANI.
So just, convert it. Easy solution. Snokalok (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleting the sources had nothing to do with shortened footnotes; three citations for quoting a letter is excessive. The Vanity Fair article was not an opinion piece and fairly summarized the content. I chose it because I had already written citations from Klein and it was easier to copy and paste one of those than to write a new one. This is a moot argument because the references have been converted, though I still question why one citation would not be sufficient enough. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
1. Everyone else seems to agree the vanity fair citation isn't enough and the ones I implemented are. Three citations isn't unreasonable. If it was more, I'd perhaps agree with you, but there's nothing wrong with deploying three sources for something like this.
2. Yeah I'll be honest I tried to write a new citation for the other sources as well, it was so much more difficult than an inline ref citation, and honestly the system implemented is not my jungle to navigate so I didn't want to throw a wrench in things. I figure, it very much is both a jungle you created and unilaterally implemented, and one you thus know how to navigate, so you actually know what you're doing in writing this, and the burden should more rightfully fall on you to perform. But really more than anything this is a "Do the dishes" problem, I don't care who does it, just so long as someone does. But smashing the dishes in favor of everyone sharing a small side-plate because it's already clean, is not the answer.
@ElijahPepe Snokalok (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@ElijahPepe Sorry, html error. Try reading it now. Snokalok (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I’ll add that until this is settled, too many citations is wildly preferable to too few Snokalok (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Everyone else has not agreed on that. Not sure why you're still reverting my edits when I have already converted those references to shortened footnotes; are you looking at the edits themselves? WP:CITEVAR explicitly states to follow the citation style. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm agreeing to the fact that the sources I implemented are better sources than yours, which everyone but you has been in agreement on. As for WP:CITEVAR, I agree, we need one citation style, but until then, having no sources for something is worse than having mixed-style sources for it. Again, it's your jungle, just convert it, no one will stop you. Snokalok (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
WAIT OMG YOU CONVERTED THE SOURCES. I DIDN'T NOTICE BECAUSE THE CHARACTER COUNT WAS THE SAME BUT OMG. THANK YOU @ElijahPepe Snokalok (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"The New Orc Times" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect The New Orc Times 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/2024 January 8 § The New Orc Times until a consensus is reached. —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Not second largest circulation as claimed..

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The claim links to the wrong page.

It seems to have the 17th largest circulation, if this article is right.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_by_circulation 77.22.202.206 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Not incorrect. The Times has the second-largest circulation in the United States. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Transphobia section

Latest comment: 9 months ago8 comments3 people in discussion

To add to my point, @Elijahpepe, a single article defending JK Rowling from criticism is so much less notable when the NYT puts out an article like that at least once a week now. Compare that to the letter, which discusses the overarching trend in coverage and the legal impacts it’s had. Snokalok (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw your footnotes style is absolutely artistic, if *very* hard to modify. Snokalok (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Also I am adding back in the wider impacts on GAC ban legislation, because that is genuinely better than just pointing out Alabama Snokalok (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The reason why I didn't include anything past that is because it would take several days to properly assess the entirety of transphobia within The New York Times. The article was included because of its timing.
For what it is also worth, I regularly read the Times and can only recall two times in which the paper itself has had a transphobic article on the front page. I am aware of several conservative opinion writers who have written opinion pieces, but I disregard the opinion section for the weekends. This is a situation in which I need to determine the extent of the information that will be put in and an edit that only mentions a few events and does not include shortened footnotes—which are not difficult to implement, see H:SFN for a guide—is going to be subject to rewrites. That extends to the work that I put here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I’m sure you’ve only encountered two front page articles yourself, I am certain that there are more than two. As for opinion pieces, those I believe are worth considering for the reasons that
A. They’re still cited in anti-trans legislation
B. Even if the views are treated as opinionated, them being published in the NYT is used to give the underlying reasons for them factual credibility. An example is Pamela Paul saying that 80% of trans people desist. In reality, she’s referring to a widely debunked study from the 1980’s, but because she’s saying it in the NYT, it’s assumed to be factually credible, and the Times has said as much themselves (see the whole “Our transphobia is well researched” statement in response to the open letter) Snokalok (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I was referring to my personal viewpoint on opinion pieces. Publishing in The New York Times's opinion section is not an impressive honor; it is a gamified process that has been tainted by James Bennet's desire to turn it into The Wall Street Journal's opinion section. I don't doubt that this is something that should be included, but it will take time. As for how many articles there are, that will also take time to determine. I'm sure it could be more than two, because of the letter, but I'm not sure it could be a weekly occurrence, because I would have observed it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: The above conversation may also apply to you. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
You'll need to be more explicit as to the reason you notified me here. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

There are three uncited sentences in the paragraph about transphobia

Latest comment: 8 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

There are three uncited sentences in the five-sentence paragraph on transgenderism in the Criticism section of this article. This is unacceptible. Either the entire paragraph should be cited with confirming references, or the entire paragraph should be removed (and possibly moved to this talk page until it is properly cited). I cited two of the sentences 24 hours ago (and made corrections per citations) [12], but the necessary and added citations were removed by ElijahPepe 3 hours later [13], and when I restored them the editor edit-warred to remove them again. Now the five-sentence section has three "citation needed" tags. If this situation is not remedied within 24 hours, I will likely draw it to the attention of administrators so that it will be. (BTW, pinging SPECIFICO because they tagged the Criticism section recently as well.) Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've just filled all three citation needed tags with already existing citations from the article. I did however partially revert the insertion of "transgenderism" from this edit. Transgenderism is not a neutral nor appropriate word to use in this topic, having been co-opted by anti-trans activists in the last 9/10 years (GLAAD, ADL, BuzzFeed News). Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This is exactly what I wanted to avoid. I'm going to ask editors hold off on editing this paragraph, because this has now been made the utmost priority for this article and I'll have to halt my work on finding references for the website section to deal with this. Fortunately, the paragraph looks fine enough to not warrant administrator action. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, after filling those CN tags, and the partial revert, I too don't see any issues with that section. From looking at the history, the major issue from a week ago was that the content was pretty seriously outdated, having not been substantially changed since circa-2018. It looks fine to me now though with the citations in the correct places. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Because someone (@ElijahPepe) keeps deleting citations because they don’t fit into a footnote style that no one else uses Snokalok (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The criticism section is UNDUE recent events in the 175 year history of this publication and should not be in its own section, or possibly anywhere in this article. Some of it is recent trivia - e.g. Crossword Puzzle bit. I should have removed it instead of reinstating the tag that has long been on that content. Apologies to those who took the time to add refs, but I am going to remove it now and will copy it below in case editors want to work on reusing any of it in the narrative of the article, which may or may not be appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

So skimming through the content of List of The New York Times controversies, I think some sort of content on the criticisms the paper has received is due. There have been complaints about antisemitism going as far back as the Holocaust, and anti-Israeli propaganda since at least the early 2000. Likewise for the transgender content, we have at least a decade worth of criticism to cover. Where UNDUE really comes into this for me is that we're only focusing on two specific pieces of criticism. The list of controversies is significantly longer and broader than just those two issues.
The difficulty overall is, how do you work this into the article content, to avoid a criticism section? A lot of the criticisms don't really fit neatly into other sections because of how the article is structured, but overall the criticism of the paper's content on numerous issues is notable in its own right. If this article is to be a summary style overview of the more topic specialised articles, then including a summary of the criticism is due. It might be better for us to transform the List of controversies article from a listicle into something with a more coherent narrative and structure, and then include a transclusion of that eventual article's lead here. Maybe something like Critical reception of The New York Times, as something with that scope would allow us to cover both the negative and positives of their content in a far more balanced way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Deciding the content within the history section

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The history section that we are left with after the events of last night—which cannot happen again—is insufficient for an understanding of The New York Times. At four thousand words, it is an appropriate size for continuing forward, though I note that I intend to add additional content and will likely split the website section into a separate article. I have determined the following events to be notable to the Times:

  • The founding of the paper
  • The Tweed Ring
  • The Panic of 1893 and Ochs' purchase
  • The first Sulzberger era
  • World War II
  • The 1962 and 1963 newspaper strike
  • New York Times v. Sullivan
  • The Pentagon Papers and New York Times Co. v. United States
  • nytimes.com and an online shift
  • Donald Trump

elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is, you're making all of these decisions without allowing for any of the regular consensus based process to occur. I feel like I have to remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, no one editor can make unilateral decisions about the scope and content of an article. How have you determined that these specific events are the most notable parts of nearly 200 year history? Are you weighing this based on sources? If so, what sources are you using for that? Prior to this decision, have any other editors provided input on what should or should not appear in that section?
You've said that the 4,000 words of the history section is insufficient for an understanding of the paper. WP:FACR#4 requires articles to stay focused on their topic without going into unnecessary detail and use summary style where appropriate. We have, or will have three or four separate history articles, each covering a specific time period in the history of the paper. Per summary style why are we not simply transcluding or summarising their leads? The purpose of those specialised articles, which also could be FAs in their own right, is to go into greater detail about a narrower facet of this overall topic. We should not be repeating huge swathes of their content here, let those specialised articles contain that information, and let this article provide an overview of it.
Splitting the Online platforms section as a whole into something like Online platforms of The New York Times seems like it would be a good idea, rather than just the website subsection. The Online platforms content seems to be a notable enough topic as a whole to support a full article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Criticism section text - for reference

Latest comment: 8 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Criticism

Main article: List of The New York Times controversies


The New York Times has been accused of transphobia. In August 2015, Weill Cornell Medicine professor Richard A. Friedman authored an opinion piece in the publication intended to be a scientific perspective on gender identity.[1] Vox's German Lopez criticized Friedman's assessments as being incorrect, such as his implying that conversion therapy is beneficial to youth with gender dysphoria despite evidence to the contrary.[1] In February 2023, over one thousand current and former Times contributors wrote an open letter to the newspaper highlighting their concerns with the paper’s coverage of transgender people.[2] Some of the Times' articles have been cited in state legislatures attempting to justify criminalizing gender-affirming care.[3] Contributors wrote in the open letter that the Times has "treated gender diversity with an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language" and "publish[ed] reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources".[3]
SPECIFICO talk 12:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that looks good Snokalok (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh I see Snokalok (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Right, posting here for reference also, the paragraph before a certain someone deleted all the citations because they weren't in footnote format.
The New York Times has been accused of transphobia. In August 2015, Weill Cornell Medicine professor Richard A. Friedman authored an opinion piece intended to be a scientific perspective on gender identity. Vox's German Lopez criticized Friedman's assessments for being incorrect, such as stating conversion therapy is beneficial to youth with gender dysphoria despite evidence to the contrary.[1] In February 2023, almost 1,000 current and former Times writers and contributors wrote an open letter addressed to Philip B. Corbett, associate managing editor of standards, in which they accused the paper of publishing articles that are biased against transgender, non⁠-⁠binary, and gender-nonconforming people.[4] Some of those articles have been cited in legislation restricting or outright banning gender affirming care.[5] Contributors wrote in the open letter that "the Times has in recent years treated gender diversity with an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language, while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources."[6][7][8] Snokalok (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Lopez 2015.
  2. ^ Strangio 2023.
  3. ^ a b Klein 2023a.
  4. ^ Klein, Charlotte (February 15, 2023). "Nearly 200 New York Times Contributors Are Denouncing the Paper's Anti-Trans Coverage". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on February 20, 2023. Retrieved February 19, 2023.
  5. ^ "Nearly 200 New York Times Contributors Are Denouncing the Paper's Anti-Trans Coverage". Vanity Fair.
  6. ^ Oladipo, Gloria (February 18, 2023). "Nearly 1,000 contributors protest New York Times' coverage of trans people". The Guardian. Archived from the original on June 17, 2023. Retrieved February 19, 2023.
  7. ^ Migdon, Brooke (February 15, 2023). "NYT contributors blast paper's coverage of transgender people". The Hill. Archived from the original on February 20, 2023. Retrieved February 19, 2023.
  8. ^ Yurcaba, Jo (February 15, 2023). "N.Y. Times contributors and LGBTQ advocates send open letters criticizing paper's trans coverage". NBC News. Archived from the original on February 18, 2023. Retrieved February 19, 2023.
  • NOTE: As yet, the first sentence is still uncited. Unless a reliable original or neutral source can be found that states that the NYT has been accused of transphobia or as being transphobic (and specifically uses one of those two words, and as a direct accusation}, then that sentence needs to be reworded or dropped. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Softlavender
Perhaps we change it to “The NYT has received criticism for its coverage regarding transgender people”? Snokalok (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
That would work, as it neutrally summarizes the paragraph. Softlavender (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Protected

Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Per a request at WP:RPPI I have fully protected the article for a week. I forgot to select the reason but it was for the edit warring. Please notify me or any other admin when that problem is resolved to have the previous protection restored: indefinite edit semi-protection + indefinite admin move protection. @Soni and ElijahPepe: When full protection expires, please be sure to not do any changes without a clear and positive consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: There was clear and positive consensus for all my edits, as seen above. Every time I did a revert, it was after confirming other editors agreed to the change (and all but one always agreed).
Furthermore, this is already at ANI, and the edit warring is hopefully (thanks to the ANI post) in the past. So the full page protection is, imho, a few days too late. Now it's likely to stall any gnoming and collaboration on the article between all of us. Please reconsider, or at least put this through ANI. Soni (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I just skimmed the ANI report. Initial comments seem to support one point of view while some more recent comments may be supporting another. While I think full protection of this article could be removed, that would be on the understanding that anyone repeating contested edits (without a clear and positive consensus) would be blocked. There is no WP:EW exemption for being right or for having others who agree to the change. It is much better to politely engage in discussion here. I know that is irritating during article development but it's how Wikipedia works. I am very happy for any admin to remove full protection (but see "previous protection" above) now or in a day or two. No need to consult me. However, I would want to wait until there are new comments here that indicate that one state of the article has support. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@Johnuniq There is no WP:EW exemption for being right or for having others who agree to the change. It is much better to politely engage in discussion here This confuses me. There was polite discussion and consensus. If that is still ignored, what do you expect editors to do? I'm not disputing that there is value in edits, that's the entire reason I want to collaborate and move forward and put the edit conflicts behind us.
It's just that... At the time of the edit warring, one editor was ignoring consensus and discussion. And everyone else was in fact politely engaging in the discussion. 3RR was not crossed, consensus and discussion were sought at all points, and there was a clear technical need for the revert (allowing the article to load for all editors). An appropriate venue (ANI) was sought when the warring continued. And said venue resulted in a de-escalation and editors returning to talk. This is exactly all processes working as intended.
Either way, this seems to be a moot point so happy to drop it, and wait for article permissions to weaken, so we can continue editing. Soni (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I think we can use the full protection to our advantage here, as it gives us the space to plan without worrying about the current content changing. If we get the plan ready before it expires, then we can request a protection decrease through the regular channel for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for the Criticism section

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

What criteria or consensus is being used for the inclusion of the [currently two] items (out of the 32 items currently in List of The New York Times controversies) in the Criticism/Controversy section or whatever it will be called? The selection should not be based on recentism or personal choice; it should be based on some sort of threshold or historical impact, and/or a consensus here or on the talkpage of List of The New York Times controversies. Also, two items out of 32 seems a bit odd. If we are only going to use two, perhaps SPECIFICO is right that instead of this section those two items should just be factored in chronologically into the History section. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

So right now I'd consider that section in a state of flux. One of the ideas mooted above is to create a Critical reception of The New York Times article, which would contain all of the content on the paper's reception, positive and negative. I agree that neither the current section nor the List of articles are in an ideal state. If there's a consensus to create the Critical reception article, I would envisage all of the content in the Awards and recognition section, which includes the current criticism section, to be replaced with summaries from that new article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with the concept of a critical reception article, but I think the exact implementation is something that should be carefully planned here before execution. Snokalok (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Should not be a section but incorporated into the article as a whole WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure"Moxy-  20:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"Occassions"

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the History section it says the word occassions. The correct spelling is occasions. Please fix. Thwaluigi (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Already done via an edit to a child article that wasn't protected. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Latest comment: 8 months ago37 comments8 people in discussion

ElijahPepe, please explain each of your edits in detail via edit summaries. Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

ElijahPepe, if you continue to fail to explain your edits in detail in your edit summaries, and continue to edit war instead, you will very likely be reported to another administrators noticeboard and possibly blocked from editing or blocked from this article. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

From a watchlist POV what is being seen is the mass removal of sourced content with the mass addition of unsourced content....whole history section lost every source. But apparently people are working on this? Moxy-  01:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Not the situation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
You are planning to source the history section very very soon right? As of now it has zero research value.....as our purpose is 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. Moxy-  01:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this attempt at stonewalling and introducing arbitrary limitations is; the second edit's summary is sufficient enough. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Then you do not understand what "explain what you did" means -- because you left no edit summary for a mass deletion and mass change, and then in your edit-war revert you still did not explain what you did, much less in detail. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
You want me to add edit summaries, then you keep reverting when I don't. Not sure what you're looking for and I can't see how ANI is a rational avenue for not including edit summaries. Reverting an edit with an edit summary, which you requested, is not an edit war. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
If you do not explain in detail a massive deletion plus massive change, especially on a WP:VITAL article, then you should be, and will likely be, reverted. If you edit war rather than explaining precisely what you did, in detail, then you will likely be reported to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@ElijahPepe This is not complicated. Any edit that is not obvious minor and uncontroversial, requires some kind of edit summary. It doesn't need to be book length. But a brief summary of what you are doing. Even if it's just copyediting (c/e) for grammar. Making major changes to articles w/o explanation can lead to confusion and unnecessary questions and discussion. (See above.) Doing so persistently, especially after being advised of the need for edit summaries can be seen as disruptive. Thank you for your contributions to the project and your cooperation in this matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
"[I]n detail" is a subjective term. I would argue I've explained enough in both edit summaries. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Admin note: I'm contemplating a page block for you until you work this out. Major changes require consensus. Find consensus first. If you can't even explain what you're doing to the satisfaction of other editors, you shouldn't be editing the article. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
The two edits I reverted did not have explanations of what you did. This mass deletion and mass change, which removed nearly 13,000 bytes of cited information, had no edit summary at all. This revert of my revert had some kind of a self-justification for the revert as an edit summary, but no explanation of what was actually done in the edit itself. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
How about this revert? I'm not sure what you're looking for, and I'm not sure why this is an issue when it has never been at any point prior. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
That wasn't a revert, that was an edit, and you explained it in an edit summary. No one reverted it, but what is going to happen to the nearly 13,000 bytes of relevant cited information? It just disappears? From a WP:VITAL article? Did you get consensus first for deleting 13,000 bytes of cited information? Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Seems like you're misunderstanding the situation. I wrote the information and split it out into another article because it was adding to the article's size. The consensus is that the article is too large and I'm taking initiative to resolve that. Likewise, the excerpts—which, as far as I know, do not need to have a tag explaining that they do not have citations—are uncited. I began the process to resolve that. Not sure how trying to reduce the article size warrants this response. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
You didn't answer my questions: (A) What is going to happen to the nearly 13,000 bytes of relevant cited information? It just disappears? From a WP:VITAL article? (If you moved it in its entirety to another article, you need to state that your edit summary.) (B) Did you get consensus first for deleting 13,000 bytes of cited information? In terms of your other two statements: (1) All edits on this article need an edit summary. (2) All statements in the article need a substantiating citation. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Seems like you're misunderstanding the situation - two admins have blocked or were going to block you from the article for a week, and another thinks a month is more appropriate. You need to step back and consider that you're not going about this in a way that inspirs confidence, rather than telling other editors what you think they should be thinking. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I made an edit, Softlavender reverted it, I thought that my edit summary was sufficient—it was not, I corrected the mistake, and the situation was resolved. Is there something I'm missing? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, a lot. Your conduct in this article has become disruptive, and you don't appear to be listening effectively. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
ElijahPepe, you continue to misstate the situation. Before Acroterian blocked you from the page, you made two more edits with zero edit summaries, one of which was a 17,000-byte change. These deliberate misstatements of self-justification are adding up to a pattern, which is one that, when combined with the apparently repeated deliberate flouting of instructions you have been given (i.e., continuing to omit edit summaries even after being warned and re-warned and re-re-warned to provide them), is one that usually leads to being banned from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I apologize that I did not write an edit summary for the edits I made to the History section. I rarely write edit summaries for non-reverts. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
It's a very good habit to get into to write descriptive edit summaries for every edit, barring the occasional reversion of vandalism, or where edit summaries are contra-indicated per policies like WP:REVDEL, WP:OSPOL, or WP:BLP among others. It prevents this exact sort of situation, and makes it easier for people when reviewing substantive changes to an article's content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@ElijahPepe: I've blocked you from the article so you can present an organized rationale for your changes on this talkpage, and find consensus. Your responses here do not give me confidence that you understand that your conduct has been disruptive. The block is nominally for a week, but its final term is not fixed. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Good idea. I noticed this a few minutes ago and was planning a week-long block. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  • ElijahPepe, please explain each of your edits, in detail, via edit summaries. I'm stating this outright here for the fifth time and pinging you on it for at least the third time (see the top of this thread). If you need help remembering, go to Preferences > Editing > Editor and click "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I will try for this article, but I'm page blocked now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I find using talk page discussions as a superior alternative to edit summaries. The key here is just having your edits properly explained "somewhere". That way, editors who are confused can ask for more clarifications or pipe in.
Or join in the editing, it's much easier for us to edit this article if we know what exactly you're doing.
So while you're page blocked, we might as well discuss the previous (and next) set of changes. Explain your edits and planned edits, quick establish consensus, move on to next bit Soni (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I intend to work on the remaining sections that are not complete. The most beneficial course of action would be to trim History of The New York Times, which you have already done a great job at, though do note missing citations and short paragraphs. I have a list of approximately three hundred sources I have yet to read, if that would be helpful. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I would advise for edit summaries and talk page discussions as you do those as well, else we will punt the exact same problem to that article. I'll rather you not be page-blocked from all NYT articles because of just discussions. Soni (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Laying my cards on the table: the stagnant process of the past three weeks has eroded much of my motivation to edit this topic beyond a few paragraph expansions on the main article. I am considering ceasing further edits to the article—I would rather not go there, but it is an option. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Understandable, we have progressed a bit too slow for my tastes as well. But I will point out that some of it is expected and healthy, based on how Wikipedia currently stands. "Quick establish consensus then move with next big change" allows everyone to contribute and improve instead of just one or two editors. This specific article is WP:VITAL which makes some of the sticklers particularly important (Not leaving the article uncited or too long for the 2-3 weeks until we finish editing).
If you are still motivated to edit, I would suggest using Drafts. By putting everything on Draft:The New York Times and using Draft talk:The New York Times to discuss anything of significance, you can get the best of both words (enough discussion/consensus for others, actual fixes and article writing for you, live version looks stable as we make edits, others know why some edits are made) Soni (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Article should be restored to the version with sources Moxy-  16:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is not missing sources. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I simply don't think you have the competency to edit here. You don't seem to understand simple instructions, guidelines or be able to comprehend what other editors are saying to you. So far the article has lost 1/3 of its research value. I'm not sure how lqnking all the sources in the history section helps anyone.Moxy-  03:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Correct. When an editor works within the vague parameter of "in depth" and attempts to resolve that resort in page blocks, there are going to be elements of confusion and points of contention. It's abundantly clear that achieving consensus has not been the goal of the past three weeks and that my assistance is unwanted. My intentions to take this article to good article status are marred, not by technical inability, but by stylistic disdain. I cannot overcome that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Could you point out a version of the article that is good for sourcing? I would prefer not mass reverting if it's still possible to merge the citations back or something. Ngl I have also kinda lost track of what got edited when in the recent flurry of so many changes Soni (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

New lead is not an improvement

Latest comment: 8 months ago27 comments6 people in discussion

The proposed new lead here is drastically worse than the previous one. In particular, it massively overemphasizes blow-by-blow details of the Times' history, which is not really a significant part of its notability; specific details of things that happened in the 1800s or when the Times adopted color photography (!?) don't belong in the lead. In general the rewrite was not an improvement (the problem of overemphasizing the blow-by-blow of the history, which belongs on a sub-article, was an issue throughout), but the lead was the most glaring, since it was previously quite good; and as the most visible part of the article, it needs more discussion. Also, why was the short description changed from "American daily newspaper (founded 1851)" to "National daily newspaper" - the latter is clearly a problem for regional-bias reasons, surely? We can't just say "national" without a nation. -- Aquillion (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The lede was part of the discussion process and that was completely side-stepped here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any dedicated discussion of the new lead above, only people complaining (rightfully) that it was too long. In any case, you need to slow down. This is a level-4 vital article; you're not just going to rewrite it by yourself, drop your rewrite in, and expect people to have to discuss each of the massive innumerable changes you made individually with no discussion before undoing them. Focus on individual incremental edits, one sentence at a time, not sweeping rewrites. --Aquillion (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I did not expect anyone to discuss any of these changes. In the here and now, what should have taken three weeks is now projected to take three months. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I got the sense that you didn't expect to discuss them, yes; but, again, this is a high-traffic article classified as vital - the previous text, while it certainly has room for improvement, was the result of massive amounts of editing and discussion by many editors over an extended period of time. Expecting a massive rewrite that completely replaced all of that work with your own rewrite to go through without discussion was not realistic. Even if you had gotten it absolutely perfect (and if nothing else, as I've said, I feel the rewrite has an extremely excessive fixation on the blow-by-blow of historical minutiae that probably doesn't need this much focus in the body but definitely doesn't make sense for the lead) it still would have required discussion. I'm not saying that my revert is the end point - if there's stuff in there you think is particularly important from your new lead, or particular problems that your rewrite fixed that need to be implemented quickly, go over it and discuss those aspects, explain why it's important and leadworthy, etc. That process will help avoid bloat by cutting it down to what's most significant, anyway. It's true that massive changes will take time, but not necessarily as much as you're worried about - the flip-side of consensus-building and having more people involved in discussions is that other people will also work to improve the article. If you identify a clear problem, you can have other editors assisting you in fixing it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I was given the impression that this article was the work of decentralized efforts added over time, not an approximation of the discussions that have taken place since I began rewriting the article. I'm not going to argue that the lede was perfect, but I refute that the old lede is better. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I think we should cover some of the history in the lead. Landmark Supreme Court cases, for example. Much of the rest is too much. I've taken your version of the lead and trimmed it down significantly, keeping the broadest strokes and tossing the minutiae. I invite everyone at this discussion to have a look at User:Premeditated Chaos/sandbox, feel free to make changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Too short; the length of Canada could work. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, what would you add? Try proposing solutions, not just complaining that you don't like something. Move the discussion forward. For what it's worth, the lead for Canada is about 430 words, while my draft for NYT is 392, so that's only about 40 more words. The lack of an infobox on my sandbox may make it look shorter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I would like to see more in the third and fourth paragraphs. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I see we're doing the pulling teeth version of collaborating. What content do you, personally, feel is missing from my proposed lead? Keeping in mind that the lead of an article is supposed to be a high-level summary of the body of the article, and not a record of every neat thing the Times has ever done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Elijah, with all due respect, I tried to do you a kindness by summarizing your version. It seems you have difficulty with that whereas I consider summarizing to be one of my strengths. Your response is to take three whole replies to complain that it's too short, but you don't know what's missing. Not even a hint. This kind of response is extremely frustrating. It is absolutely unhelpful. It improves nothing in and of itself and it provides no avenue for others to discuss things with you. It forces everyone else to do all the work of suggesting compromises and improvements, only for you to complain and disagree and stonewall further, preventing any positive change.
I'm implementing my version of the lead, because I think it's an improvement on what we have. Then I'm going to roll back my sandbox and take this article off my watchlist. Make your changes or don't, I don't care. I don't see the point in attempting to assist you any further if this is all the response I'm going to get.
Everyone else here, I am happy to respond to pings and discuss any improvements or suggestions for the lead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
PMC, the first paragraph of your edit looks good to me. I noticed that WaPo and WSJ articles also use the term "American" in the opening, so I will withdraw my previous objection that this descriptor is redundant. That said, I think the accolades from the Pulitzer Prizes should probably be moved from the bottom of the lede to the top paragraph, maybe right after the sentence about the circulation. That information seems more significant than the historical details that precede it.
Additionally, I think the second paragraph could use some selective trimming. The mention of Tweed and Ochs, in particular, feels like too much information for a typical reader and may be best left for the history section. The First Amendment Supreme Court cases should probably be listed rather than summarized, as they are tangential to the lede.
If other editors agree with my observations, I'm happy making the edits myself, but I need to hear from others first. XMcan (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I object to placing the Pulitzer Prize sentence in the first paragraph. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Pulitzer in Paragraph 1 sounds good to me. They're a big deal (when you've got 100 of them at least), and flows nicely with the rest of points about circulation.
I'd also recommend ignoring Elijah's objections unless there's a reasoning attached, given how fruitless the rest of this thread has been Soni (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I opposed the idea because the first paragraph is an overview of the paper, not accomplishments. Is reasoning a facet to decide whether or not an opinion is considered? Who is the arbiter here? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I opposed the idea because the first paragraph is an overview of the paper, not accomplishments. This is useful information for evaluating the strength of your argument. Why didn't you just say this in your original oppose comment? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Not a question of whether or not I have a valid argument. It has become clear that my perspective, of someone who worked on this article for seven months, has been disregarded and any attempt that I have at resolving the issues brought up in this talk page are futile; at best, the changes are reverted and take a week to go through. I do not see the point in contributing to this further beyond minimal edits. Whoever nominates this article to good article can take all of the credit for the work that I did, because the work is irrelevant here regardless. Please do not contact me further for input unless, for whatever reason, I decide to return to this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Elijah, your perspective has not been disregarded here, because we don't really know what your perspective is. You haven't meaningfully engaged with us here on the talk page, and trying to get information out of you is at best a struggle. Wikipedia is built on communication, as it is only through communication that a consensus can be formed. You need to tell us what you're thinking, in a reasonable amount of detail.
Once that happens, sometimes the ideas put forth will be implemented without further discussion. Sometimes they'll be critiqued and refined. Sometimes someone else with a different perspective will have an entirely different idea on how write a piece of content, and that alternate idea will find consensus. Sometimes a suggestion will simply be rejected, because verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. This is all part of the normal editing process. We all go through this every day when working on article content. This is why we say that no one editor has ownership over an article.
You need to talk with us. Or if you are truly done with this article, and are moving on to other content, then you need to talk to the editors on whatever articles you move on to. It is not possible to edit Wikipedia without discussing your ideas and proposals with other editors. This is why Wikipedia is considered a group project. We're all working on it, together. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I have explained my perspective at multiple points. When I have not, I either do not have an opinion or I agree with current consensus. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I like the idea of moving the Pulitzer sentence up to paragraph 1. We already mention how the paper is considered a newspaper of record there, and this strengthens that. Position wise I'd put it after the sentence ending 17th in the world by circulation and before the sentence beginning The New York Times is published by the The New York Times Company. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Elijah there's a bunch of open questions in the section above that you could give some input on. There's also space there for you, or any other editor interested in helping get this to GA to ask further questions to assist with the planning.
Ultimately though we need you to start talking to us more. Tell us what you're thinking, what your ideas for certain sections are, in advance so that other editors can give some preliminary feedback on it and help refine it. That way when you make a 10kb edit, even if you add an explicit edit summary there's far less confusion over what content is changing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm not that interested in this article at the moment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the fix @Aquillion. In the flurry of edits, I seem to have missed the lede as well in my main revert. The lede you removed was significantly worse than the current one. Soni (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Aquillion, due to numerous recent revisions and edits, I am unsure whether you or someone else framed the lead in terms of subscriber numbers. In any case, it's a well-crafted lead, and I hope my two edits will be deemed improvements.[14][15] XMcan (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Okay, I went ahead and moved the sentence about the Pulitzer Prizes to the top paragraph per consensus. During this process, I observed that the information on the "17th in the world by circulation" page is significantly outdated—specifically, by 8 years. What are your thoughts? Should we omit that part altogether and/or replace it with something like: "the newspaper with the highest online subscriber count"? XMcan (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_New_York_Times/Archive_7&oldid=1226085390"