Talk:The New York Times

Senate Denies General Officer Promotion

Would Your News Agency be interested in a story about the U.S. Senate denying a general officer a promotion from one star to two stars based on a Department of the Army (DA) Inspector General (IG) investigation in Wiesbaden, Germany, if there is a cover-up? Hi— I’m contacting your news agency because I’ve tried to provide this story to larger news organizations and I believe their postal mail, email, and text messages are being censored. A similar story about a Navy admiral took years to get in the news, so I’m not terribly worried. The basic story will eventually break (basic story: In 2016 the U.S. Senate denied a general officer a promotion based on an IG investigation and, wow, is U.S. Army Europe/USAREUR still doing a lot to cover it up). I used to work in Wiesbaden, and I was there when the general had his promotion denied. I sat in a session in which civilian employees were essentially asked if they were being forced to do things they didn’t want to do, and I am fairly certain that’s how the DA IG investigation report will read – once we get our hands on it (I've been trying to break this story for the past two years). If you can obtain a copy of the DA IG report, please post a PDF copy of the report online along with the story when you break it. I can expand on the story once it hits AP newswires. I’m sure it will be redacted, but I can fill in a lot of the blanks. Feel free to call U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) Public Affairs Office (PAO) at this number: +49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Outside Germany, add your country's International Direct Dialing code plus "49" before the desired number. It’s usually 011, but some telephone carriers have different ones; so, normally dial the whole number like this: 011-49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006 Keep in mind that anything the USAREUR PAO says may be part of a cover-up. For instance, if they don’t confirm the basic story, they are perpetuating a cover-up that’s been ongoing since 2016. For some reason they really, really, really do not want the DA IG report to get in the news. Don’t know if this is Pulitzer-level stuff, but it might be.

Current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request status and how-to: If you would like to be the first news agency to break the story:

• Email the DA IG FOIA Office here: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mbx.saig-zxl@mail.mil
• Ask for a copy of the “calendar year 2016 IG investigation report that caused the United States Senate to deny promotion to major general officer rank (O-8) for the Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Army Europe, headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany (DA IG FOIA Records Release Office knows the name of the general officer, because I emailed them the name).
• An alternate method to obtain the IG report would be to re-initiate the FOIA request by going here and using a Department of Defense (DOD) IG FOIA account to request the report: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home
• I initially requested the Wiesbaden report through DOD IG FOIA, and they responded by re-directing me to the DA IG FOIA Office. That’s how I know the report is at DA.

I’ll contact your news agency to talk about the cover-up after the basic story finally gets in the news. -- The reason I’m asking for assistance in obtaining the IG report is because I believe my FOIA requests have been blocked as part of the cover-up. Whoever you talk to can say whatever they want, but the key to this story is the DA IG report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:9BD8:C141:81E1:A85E:A969:7ECD (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, there. We are not, and do not represent, the New York Times. We're all volunteers here at Wikipedia, a volunteer encyclopaedia, and undertaking reporting in our roles as volunteer editors is a bit out of our purview, wouldn't you think? Perhaps Wikinews would be a better venue. Thank you for your inquiry, and I'm sorry we are unable to help. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavour. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 20:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourced content

An anonymous editor added this content. The references need to be formatted and the sourcing and writing sorted out, but notable content should be included in the encyclopedia.

Early in the 2008 presidential election, the New York Times published an article alleging that Republican candidate John McCain may have had a relationship with a female lobbyist, but the article was criticized by the Times' ombudsman for not being accurate.

The ombudsman wrote: "The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics -- sex -- it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance."

The New York Times was also accused of spiking a story about Democratic candidate Barack Obama's relationship with the group ACORN during the election. Times reporter Stephanie Strom had been working on some stories about ACORN, using a source within the organization named Anita Moncrief. A phone call between Ms. Strom and Ms. Moncrief had Ms. Strom saying, "Hi, Anita, it’s Stephanie. I have just been asked by my bosses to stand down. … They want me to hold off on coming to Washington. Ah, sorry, I take my orders from higher up, ah, sometimes." The Times responded to inquiries by saying, that "Political considerations played no role in our decision about whether to cover this story."

References

Contradiction within introduction

The intro states "The New York Times is ranked 18th in the world by circulation." The link within this sentence states that Nanfang Daily is ranked 18th in the world by circulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdjfhaskdf (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 DoneFixed to say 17th in ranking.Eschoryii (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

Do the M.I.A. complaints from 2009 and the Irish student controversy from 2015 really merit inclusion? They seem minor compared to the others listed and are not really adding much. Are we giving them undue weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.119.94 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Employment of open racists"

The provided source does not say that Jeong is an "open racist", and I have therefore removed the edit. PaulCHebert (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the sources not supporting the wording most people seem to be using, I have serious WP:DUE issues. We don't list every twitter brouhaha concerning a writer on the page for the publication they write for. This might be appropriate for her article, but currently it's far below the level of notability necessary to mention it on the article for the Times. --Aquillion (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Left wing paper

Left Pretty clear the paper leans to the left me thinks. Needs to be in the info box under 'political alignment' like wiki does with other papers. Reaper7 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it reads Left-Center. Also, tell me more about this organization. Should take them seriously? PaulCHebert (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

'Leans to the left' means centre Left. Yes the paper is left or centre left. Depends on which one you think it is more appropriate and which links you wish to use. Reaper7 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think that that site passes WP:RS. It doesn't have any reputation that I'm aware of; at the very least, it would be WP:UNDUE to place the opinion of such an obscure site so highly on the page. The debate is already covered in the "accusations of bias" section, and this source's opinion doesn't seem to add anything to that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Aquillion comments above. I don't see that the quoted website is WP:RS and in any case this whole case is WP:UNDUE.David J Johnson (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If we find a decent source - would you be open to stating the paper's political affiliation like other papers have done on wiki - or are you fundamentally against the New York Times having a political affiliation section in its info box like other papers do like The Guardian, Chicago Tribune and the New York Post for example? Reaper7 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I question the need for and utility of such sections in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

--> I keep running across Wikipedia stuff that is just plain agenda driven. Obviously, staff members of the "Gray Lady", the "Newspaper of Record, have read this posting yet none have bothered to cite references or help with a neutral description of the paper. > "The cyber security breaches have been described as possibly being related to cyberattacks that targeted other institutions, such as the Democratic National Committee.<ref>{{cite "CitizenDaveS (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Styling of short name

The article is inconsistent as to the Times or The Times, and this should be corrected. Note that there is a newspaper called The Times, but it isn't this one. For that reason, and because it just seems more natural to my eye, I favor the Times and I will make those changes in about a week per WP:BRD unless there is a consensus here for The Times. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done - [1] ―Mandruss ☎ 04:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, I have made this edit as a no-brainer. The Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't state that it's sometimes abbreviated as The Inquirer, Chicago Tribune doesn't state that it's sometimes abbreviated as The Tribune, The Washington Post doesn't state that it's sometimes abbreviated as The Post, and Miami Herald doesn't state that it's sometimes abbreviated as The Herald. I could go on until my fingers were numb. Show me three separate cases where NYT is called The Times in a fresh context. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Mergefrom Daniel Andrew Gross and Steven Goldstein

There is a WP:1E/WP:BLP1E article solely concerned with the New York Times and not much else. It's a short stub which should be merged into the NYT history section. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support I am the nominator -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Alternately, the article Daniel Andrew Gross and Steven Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should just be deleted, since it is only about a low-notability NYT social page. If it isn't deleted, then it needs to be merged here, since it is only about the changing of the NYT column title and listing criteria of that social page. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggest a merge to a more specific page: LGBT culture in New York City. Klbrain (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2019

The Weekly is a new television series from The New York Times, set to air on FX and stream on Hulu. Every Sunday, The Weekly will cover one story at a time with Times journalists who have reported on that issue for months, and, in some cases, years.

The half-hour show has a 30-week commitment with FX and will premiere on June 2, 2019 at 10 p.m. ET/PT. The show will also exclusively stream on June 3, 2019 on Hulu. The series trailer is available at nytimes.com/theweekly.

Citations: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ny-times-ceo-talks-new-fx-hulu-doc-series-weekly-1190415 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/the-weekly/the-weekly-premiere-trailer-date.html

I am Laura Kim, and I work at The New York Times. I am a senior digital strategy editor for "The Weekly."

valereee I've made the changes, as you advised. Please let me know if there is anything more I need to do.

Laura Yuree Kim (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Television show The Weekly is a new television series from The New York Times, set to air on FX and stream on Hulu. Every Sunday, The Weekly will cover one story at a time with Times journalists who have reported on that issue for months, and, in some cases, years.

The half-hour show has a 30-week commitment with FX and will premiere on June 2, 2019 at 10 p.m. ET/PT. The show will also exclusively stream on June 3, 2019 on Hulu. The series trailer is available at nytimes.com/theweekly.

Laura Yuree Kim Welcome to Wikipedia! I've left a message on your talk page, which you can access from the inbox icon above, third from the left at the top of every page. --valereee (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)