Talk:The New York Times

"The New Orc Times" listed at Redirects for 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)

230,000+ char change

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)

Courtesy ping @ElijahPepe sawyer * he/they * talk 19:15, 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. Reywas92^Talk 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)

• • I will say that I don't think I agree with Epicgenius's suggestion of 19th, 20th, 21st centuries for how to split - the problem is that the 19th century would be too short and the 20th century would be too long. Maybe 1851-1945, 1945-1999, and 2000-present? So History of The New York Times, 1851–1945, History of The New York Times, 1945–1999, and History of The New York Times, 2000–present. (The split in 1945 being the end of World War II in August, which is a pretty standard splitting spot - e.g. contemporary history uses it.) SnowFire (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah, 1851-1945, 1945-1999, and 2000-present makes sense. I was honestly just spitballing dates. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 19 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)

• I’m happy with any just so long as the policy is to convert out of style citations, not to delete. Snokalok (talk) 01:02, 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)

Not second largest circulation as claimed..

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

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

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) [1], but the necessary and added citations were removed by ElijahPepe 3 hours later [2], 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)

Criticism section text - for reference

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. 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. 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. Some of the Times' articles have been cited in state legislatures attempting to justify criminalizing gender-affirming care. 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".
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. 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. Some of those articles have been cited in legislation restricting or outright banning gender affirming care. 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." Snokalok (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

• 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)

Deciding the content within the history section

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)

Getting the article to GA

I think I want to help make this article GA. Does someone with more experience have a quick checklist for all the things we would need to do to get there?

I assume step 1 would be deciding the many subarticles this gets split into, right? Soni (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

First off, the lead should be condensed to four paragraphs as per MOS:LEAD. Numerous empty and short sections, such as #The New York Times Magazine and the #The New York Times International Edition respectively. Also get rid of 1 sentence paragraphs. I don't know much about the WP:GA process, but those are my comments. Consider seeking feedback through a WP:PR as well. 750h+ (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

So the lead is something I think we should tackle last. There's no sense re-writing it while the rest of the article is in flux, as the lead's role is to summarise the key points of the article's body. I do think you're right that it should be condensed overall, the current lead has five pretty lengthy paragraphs, and brevity is something we should keep in mind when we get to the point of rewriting it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The following sections need to be expanded:

• Opinion
• Newsletters
• Political position
• Crossword
• Style guide
• Website
• Applications
• Podcasts
• Virtual and augmented reality
• Magazine
• International edition
• Awards
• Recognition
• Criticism

Please use shortened footnotes and "generally reliable" sources at WP:RSP should you use sources outside of the Times. Books and journals are preferable. Let me know if you need access to an article from the Times. David Dunlap has plenty of articles written on the history of the Times. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

So there's a bunch of things we'd need to do to get this article to GA quality. FA is eventually possible, and I think we should be writing the article content with the FA criteria in mind, but right now it's not realistic. The two most immediate issues preventing an FA are WP:FACR#1e and 4.

To address FACR#4, I agree that we need to look at what articles should be split from this one. Splitting the history section into its own series of articles is a good idea, but it's been badly implemented. The current time delineations don't really make sense. In my opinion there should be four history articles, each covering a roughly 50 year period (ie founding - 1900, 1900-1950, 1950-2000, 2000+). The content we have remaining is also problematic, it's far too long and far too detailed. The history content that remains here should be a summary style overview of each of the history sub-articles. As WP:SUMMARYSTYLE states, the purpose of those dedicated articles is to go into the details that we can't go into here. If people want to read the full extent of the origins, or Ochs Ownership, or whatever, that's why we have those dedicated history of articles. The only detail that we need to go into here is briefly (as in no more than a sentence or two) summarising the key points of each of the time periods from the history of articles.

We also need to look at what other content should be spun out into their own stand-alone articles, and make a definitive list of that here. In a section above, Elijah suggested that we should spin out the website section, but I think that is too narrow to be notable in its own right. Instead we should look at spinning out the online platforms section as a whole. That's already a pretty lengthy section, and one that I believe there is more content we could add. However, again per summary style, we should not be adding that content here. We should add it to a dedicated spin-off article.

We should also look into creating a dedicated Critical reception of The New York Times article. The paper has a very long history, and has received both significant praise and significant criticism over the years. Having an article on just the praise, or just the criticism would be a NPOV violation, however we can avoid that by presenting and integrating both together into a critical reception article.

The absolute last thing we should be doing right now is adding more content to this article. At the time of this reply, the article contains just under 13,000 words, which is very much in SIZESPLIT territory. What we should be focusing our efforts on right now is identifying what sections can be split into sub-articles, creating those sub-articles, and then summarising or transcluding their leads (and only their leads) here. Once we do that, we will have trimmed sufficient wording to be able to expand briefly upon the sections that are left behind.

That takes care of FACR#4. For FACR#1e, that just needs time and for edit warring to stop. Editors need to stop going off and doing their own thing, unilaterally making decisions on content size and scope. It is not conductive to establishing consensus for any one editor to dictate terms. Wikipedia editing is a collaborative process, sometimes your ideas will find consensus and sometimes they won't. We need to hash out a plan first, so that we can all go and implement changes taking into account our own respective strengths when writing or copy-editing article content.

I also think we should discuss the citation style. I hate shortened footnotes as a citation style. I don't think they are conductive to either a good reading experience or a good editing experience. As a reader, if you want to find the full citation information you need to click at least three times before you get a link to the original article. As an editor, they're just unwieldy to work with. Personally I much prefer using named references, and using the {{rp}} template where page numbers are needed. I do however like that the Works cited subsection is clearly delineated along the lines of where each citation was published, and if there is a consensus to move away from SFN I would suggest we keep that separation as the reflist template allows for that. We should see if we can significantly cut down on the number of citations to the paper itself, as per policy we should not be relying this heavily on non-independent primary sourcing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

To facilitate what I've said above, if there's a consensus for it, I'd suggest we make some subsections to this discussion to just try and keep discussions around specific pieces of content organised. I'd imagine this taking the form of something like subsections for each substantive spin-off article/spin-off type, and for each major remaining content section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have the lede for History of The New York Times (1851–1945) and I'm writing the ledes for the other two articles now. Would it not be possible to transclude the ledes onto this article? I intend to split the Online platforms and Critical reception sections. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! Transclusion of a sub-article's lead is something we can very easily do, and something that'll help us keep this article in sync if the sub-articles change content in the future. As long as we keep those leads short and concise, that'll also help with keeping this article at a reasonable reading length.

I have concerns about the time delineation of the History of articles however, and exactly how many of them we have. Of the articles I'm aware of, currently there's History of The New York Times, History of The New York Times (1851–1945), History of The New York Times (1945–1998), and History of The New York Times (1998–present). Are there any others that I've missed? If not, for the three articles with years in their titles, how were the time periods for each of those selected? Why do we have an article covering roughly 90 years, another covering roughly 55 years, and the final one covering roughly thirty years? Were there key changes that happened to the paper in 1945 and 1998 that make those natural break points? Or were they chosen arbitrarily? Is there another way we could structure those articles, perhaps so they each cover a more uniform time period (eg, roughly 50 years per article?) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The time periods were determined based on article size. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Cool, is there another way we could split those articles? Are there any natural temporal milestones where we could say content after this point goes into this next article? Like say when Adolph Ochs purchased the paper in 1896? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, though this would throw things onto the longer side per article, I think the most elegant solution would be dividing it up by century. NYT in the 19th century, 20th century, etc. Just a suggestion though. Snokalok (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

On the Online Platforms and Critical Reception sub-articles, I'm glad you think those are good ideas. We shouldn't start writing those immediately however. Let's give it a day or two to see what other editors think, and then if there's a consensus we can start a subsection to this discussion so that we can start planning their scope and a rough outline of their structure. Once that's done we can then each identify sections of those articles that we can all contribute towards, in line with our respective strengths as editors. Some of us are going to be better at writing certain types of content than others, and some of us are likely better copy-editors than article drafters. Let's take some time to figure out the best way that we can all contribute to making these good and comprehensive articles, and so that we're not stepping on each others toes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I really like the idea you suggested of a critical reception dedicated article but then a short summary list on the main article with a wikilink subheader to make sure it’s not just going into the void, I think that’s a really excellent balance between cutting down space and giving due weight.

Also ref cites ftw still but honestly I would not mind footnote citations if newly added (better than the current citation) refs were converted instead of unilaterally killed (@ElijahPepe) Snokalok (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: I think that we should give a lot more weight to the Holodomor than it currently gets Snokalok (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The appropriate amount of weight we give to all of the criticisms is something we can assess when we're actually planning the scope of that article. Keep things here high level for now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Holodomor is something I was planning on adding to the section. Rest assured, if there is a controversy involving the Times, I have likely read and have sources for it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hist9600, Sawyer-mcdonell, Eddie891, Epicgenius, Reywas92, SnowFire, Soni, Drmies, Snokalok, SPECIFICO, Softlavender, Kusma, and Moxy: Courtesy ping to editors who have contributed to the talk page since the start of this year, and who haven't already contributed to this discussion. If you're interested in helping get this article to GA and eventually FA, this is the place :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer if I could retain good article credit. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason I'm aware of that all of the substantial contributors to the GA and eventual FA process can't get credit for this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Shall we give this another 24 hours, to see if anyone else wants to chime in on the current sections below, and then start to assess their consensuses and plan the next steps? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't start removing content from the Online platforms section now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

We haven't discussed the full scope or structure of that article yet. Down below you said that we should expand the Online platforms section, if we're putting that into its own article, how do we want to expand it? For example, do we want to have a dedicated section or subsection for the paper's purchasing of Wordle? What else can we write about their social media presence and requirements? Those are the types of questions we need to ask and answer to plan that article's content. There will come a time in the near future when it's time to write content, but we're not there yet. Let's get a plan in place so that everyone who is contributing here knows what they're doing and what the overall picture is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The article structure is fine now. The only sections that need expansion are the Website, Applications, Podcasts, and Virtual and augmented reality sections. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Remember, you're not the only person working on these articles Elijah, this is a collaborative process. Other people might have other views, and other people might be able to take the lead on some of this content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Exact Article Splits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think let's use subheadings to decide on individual subparts of this entire discussion, so we can establish consensus quickly and move on to the meat of the article editing.

In that spirit, Q1, which of the sections need splitting into articles/which can stay as it is? Soni (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• I personally favour Critical Reception and 4 History articles (1851-1900,1901-1945,1945-1999,2000-present) but not strongly so. I'm ambivalent on most other suggestions. Soni (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• I favour a Critical reception article that contains all of the positive and negative reception of the paper, an Online platforms article initially starting from the current Online platforms section, and 4 History of articles (1851-1896, 1896-1945, 1945-1999, 2000-present) The reason I've chosen 1896 as the end/start point of the first and second articles is 1896 is when Adolph Ochs purchased the paper, and the time period 1896-1945 covers the entire time period where he owned the paper up to his death in 1939 and the end of the Second World War. To me it kinda makes sense to keep all of the Ochs content in a single sub-article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why we would need to divide 1851–1945 further. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why 1851-1945 should be a single article? I thought ~50 years each is neat + apparently it coincides well with Ochs ownership so that's two reasons to split Soni (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Article size. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: Primarily I favour a four way split so that each sub-article has a uniform length of approximately 50 years. I personally like consistency where possible in structure. Assuming the paper continues to be published well into the future, it makes ongoing maintenance of the most recent History of article more straightforward as assuming there's no changes in consensus, when we hit 2050 we just create a new sub-article for the later half of this century. It also gives each of the sub-articles more expansion room should there be other notable historic events that cannot be included in the current 1851-1945 and 1945-1998 articles due to length, and otherwise keeps them at a reasonable prose length. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Anchor points in time have historically been used for subdivided history articles, such as for the history of the United States. I believe the 1998 to present article could be split prior to 2016 as a turning point in how the Times presents itself and how it is viewed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Skimming through history of the United States, leaving aside the mammoth 700 pre-revolution section and sub-article, the largest single sub-article covers a roughly 60 year span, and most of the articles are much shorter. Many of the anchor points themselves are historical events specific to the US' history, and not simply key points in world history like the Second World War. If the anchor points represent a key event in the topic's timeline, then would the period prior to and then following Ochs' purchase of the paper not be two distinct eras? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that splitting Ochs' purchase could be a possibility, though the transcluded lede would be one paragraph. I am now beginning to question whether splitting based on the Sulzberger eras could be viable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it? I would envisage the end of the sub-article that begins with Ochs' purchase in 1896 to either end in 1945 with the conclusion of World War 2, or 1961 with Sulzberger's resignation. With the 1945 end point, we'd be using a major geopolitical event as the anchor point. With 1961 as the end point, we'd be covering two distinct ownership periods; Ochs and Sulzberger 1. Either way, there would be some content post-Ochs' death that would need summarising. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Admittedly, World War II was not a major event to the Times. Advances were certainly made in printing and journalistic ability, but I would argue the Sulzberger eras represent a larger shift in the paper. With the first Sulzberger era, it was attempting to expand the Times through wire photography, investments in radio, and facsimile. The second Sulzberger era saw a paper that held tradition inviolable but [adjusted] to nascent technologies and [adapted] to a precarious newspaper industry, the third era saw nytimes.com, and the fourth era saw Trump's rhetoric and diversification. The question remains where Dryfoos would be, but I could certainly see an article pick up where Dryfoos' death leaves off. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so how about the following split then:

• 1851-1896 - This covers the origins of the paper, up to the point of Ochs' purchase. Covers a 45 year period.
• 1896-1961 - This covers Ochs' ownership of the paper, up to his death, World War 2, and the first Sulzberger era. Covers a 65 year period.
• 1961-2001 - This covers everything from Dryfoos' takeover, through to the dot-com bubble bursting. Covers a 40 year period.
• 2001-present - This covers everything from September 11 attacks, to the present day? At present covers a 23 year period.

Or

• 1851-1896 - This covers the origins of the paper, up to the point of Ochs' purchase. Covers a 45 year period.
• 1896-1928 - This covers Ochs' ownership of the paper, up to his death. Covers a 32 year period.
• 1928-1992 - This covers both Sulzberger Sr. eras, from his initial appointment up to his retirement in 1992. Covers a 64 year period.
• 1992-present - This covers all of Sulzberger Jr's time as publisher, his appointment of A. G. Sulzberger to replace him, up to the current day. Covers a 32 year period.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Second suggestion works, but 1928-1992 is too far of a span of time. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's lengthy, but it does cover all of Sulzberger Sr's. tenure in a single article. If you were to keep the same 1928 start date, where would you suggest ending the article and starting the subsequent one? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't start it at 1928 because Ochs died in 1935. I would end it at 1961. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "end it at 1961". For the sake of clarity, could you list the start and end years for each article you're envisaging, and a single sentence summary of what content will go into them? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• 1851-1896: The founding of the Times to Ochs' purchase.
• 1896-1935: Ochs' ownership to his death.
• 1935-1961: The first Sulzberger era.
• 1961-1992: The Dryfoos era and the second Sulzberger era.
• 1992-2018: The third Sulzberger era.
• 2018-present: The fourth Sulzberger era.

elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Ehhhh, I think 6 is too many sub-articles. If you're going to split at Dryfoos, then you're better combining Ochs and Sulzberger 1. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Or the suggestion by Epicgenius below:

• 1851-1896 - As before, this covers the origins up to the point of Ochs' purchase
• 1896-1945 - This covers Ochs' ownership, up to his death, the start of the first Sulzberger era, up to World War 2.
• 1945-1998 - This covers the post-war part of Sulzberger 1, all the way through to the creation of the paper's website.
• 1999-present - This covers everything from the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, through to the current day.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the following articles:

• 4 history articles
• Critical reception
• Online platforms. I am suggesting this additional article because there is quite a bit about the NYT's online presence, which may be notable enough to warrant its own article (especially considering the fact that the "Online platforms" section covers NYT Games, social media, and other stuff, not just the website).

– Epicgenius (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For four history articles, along what lines would you consider splitting them? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably 1851-1896, 1896-1945, 1945-1998, 1999-present. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait I just saw this section.

I suggest The New York Times in The 19th Century, 20th Century, etc

The articles would run on the longer side, but I think as far as making a split goes, it’d be the most elegant division. Snokalok (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Fewer divisions is better. Reywas92^Talk 01:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference Formatting Style

Q2, What format should we use for citations and references?

• I am happy with whatever style we choose, as long as we stick with the same one for all subarticles for NYT. Soni (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• I agree that a consistent style for all of the sub-articles is ideal. Personally I'm not a fan of the SFN citation style, as I prefer reuse of named references and using the {{rp}} template where page numbers are necessary. But I'm maybe in the minority with that, so as long as we pick a single consistent style I'm happy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  If the choice is between Harvard and SFN, I weakly prefer SFN. Either way, consistent citation style is important. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Since this is the parent article and the overwhelmingly largest one, we should take our cue from it, in my opinion. Right now all but a tiny handful of the citations are in SFN, which is not my favorite (I've never used it), but unless we find there was a distressing lack of consensus when that format was used and conformed to on this article, I think we should keep it that way. NOTE: Above all, if a style is chosen in consensus in good faith, if someone adds a cite in a different style, do not revert them, just conform the style for them. (Also of note is that most all FAs use SFN or Harvard FN.) Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  (Also of note is that most all FAs use SFN or Harvard FN.) I was not aware of that, and would soft prefer SFN instead then. Soni (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would prefer a consistent style but am neutral on which style should be used. Personally, I seldom use {{rp}}. Instead, I generally use inline citations where one page range is being cited or where the source is a website, and I use shortened footnotes where multiple page ranges are being cited. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• I’m happy with any just so long as the policy is to convert out of style citations, not to delete. Snokalok (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:The New York Times § Discussion about deleted citations

 – Soni (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sections needing trimming or removed

Q3, What sections or subsections, that are not being split out into their own articles, should be trimmed or removed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd consider trimming the Design and layout subsection, as part of our rewriting and copy-editing sweep. That section has quite a few issues in general, an over-reliance on non-independent primary sources (ie citations to The NY Times), some heavy proseline issues in its second paragraph, and a lot of uncited sentences. But it is also reads longer than it feels like it should to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue with this section. I have personally ensured that each sentence is cited. There should be no issues with using primary sources here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the section has ten sentences, but only three citations and a footnote. The third paragraph has six sentences, and two citations. The fourth paragraph has five sentences and only one citation. Only the first and last paragraphs of the section have a reasonable number of citations in my opinion.

Unless you're using a different interpretation of WP:WTC than I am, I would suggest that every sentence should have at least one citation after it. Even if it's the same citation that's being reused throughout the paragraph, the section currently reads as though it contains large amounts of unverifiable text.

As for overuse of primary sources, per policy and guideline, Wikipedia articles are based on independent and reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can be used, but only in moderation and with a great degree of care. That section has 15 citations total, 9 of which are to the paper or its parent company, and only 6 are to independent sources. Overall in the article we currently cite the paper 240 times, and its parent company an additional 38 times, for a total of 278 non-independent sources. That's more than all of the other source categories combined, as we cite independent sources only 268 times. Were I reviewing this article for GA or FA, I would at minimum tag the Design and layout section with {{primary sources section}}, and strongly consider tagging the article with {{primary sources}} depending on what the other sections looked like. That would be a quick-fail at both GA and FA reviews. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:WTC is an essay, not a policy. I see no purpose in duplicating the same citation. As for primary sources, the references are cited to David Dunlap, who is a Times historian. There are no controvertible statements that would warrant concerns over citing from Dunlap. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

WTC might be an essay, but it is one that's relevant to the FA criteria. WP:FACR#1c states that a Featured Article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate, with where appropriate directly linking to WTC. As a rule of thumb, based on the FAs that I've worked on, I tend to believe that every sentence outside an article's lead should have at least one citation at the conclusion of it. This is important because every citation to a source with page numbers should include those page numbers, and some of the information we're citing will be spread across multiple pages in a single source. Also some sentences, particularly where the content is either controversial or where there's multiple conflicting accounts for a piece of information, require additional citations within the sentence. That doesn't mean that every citation needs to be unique of course, reuse of citations is perfectly acceptable.

On Dunlap, my concern is that he's not an independent source. According to his own article, he was initially a journalist at The Times, and almost all of our citations to his work were from the time period of his employment. There is an inherent conflict of interest when you are writing about your employer, doubly so when the content you are writing about them is also subject to their own editorial processes. There's also the question of, how many of these sources are WP:RSOPINION? Dunlap, 2023c for example is arguably his opinion given the language used, and so subject to RSOPINION. That's not to say that citations to Dunlap, or any other journalist employed by the paper cannot be used, just that they have to be used in moderation. Having the majority of sources in a section and the article be to non-independent sources would be something that is brought up at GA and FA reviews, and would lead to a failure. Where possible we must look at replacing those citations with sources that are independent from the paper. Remember, we're not here to write about how the newspaper describes itself, we're here to write about how others describe the newspaper.

And before you say it, yes INDY is an essay, but that doesn't matter. WP:V is policy, and it states clearly that we should Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy., directly linking the policy to that essay. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts about this section. On the one hand, yes, it is fairly long (5 full paragraphs without breaks). Here's what I'm getting out of the sections:

• The first paragraph talks about the number of issues, as well as, um, issues with the actual number of issues.
• The second paragraph talks about the size of the print edition. And then it talks about a newsprint plant in Quebec.
  • I feel like that aside about Donahue Malbaie might fit better in another paragraph, or another section.
• The third and fourth paragraphs talk about headlines.
  • I would probably trim these paragraphs slightly to avoid going into too much detail about specific headlines. For example, do we really need to know about the ligatures between the E and the A in "Impeached"? That might fit well in a sub-article, but maybe not here.
• The fifth paragraph talks about two specific editorials that were displayed on the front page.
  • I would probably trim the bit about the San Bernardino headline. It is covered disproportionately compared with the other editorial headline (the anti-Harding editorial, which is given one sentence).
  • Also, since we're on the topic of non-standard front pages, did we mention the COVID deaths front page?

– Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The COVID-19 front pages are mentioned in the history article from 1998 to present. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sections needing expansion

Q4, What sections or subsections, that are not being split out into their own articles, should be expanded? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The following sections probably should be expanded:

• Circulation - particularly with regards to historical circulation figures (it doesn't have to be extensive, but mentioning circulation in the 19th/20th centuries would be great)
• Political positions
• Crossword
• The New York Times Magazine
• The New York Times International Edition
• Awards

In addition, I would check whether the NYT has published in languages other than Spanish and Chinese; if so, I'd add info about these as well. For example, I know the NYT posted an article about the New York Hasidic education controversy in Yiddish. There may be others. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

These are all good suggestions! There's definitely content from the dedicated crossword article that we can copy over and adapt to expand that section. Same is true for the Magazine and International Edition articles.

From a quick look on their website there doesn't appear to be any current non-English editions beside their Spanish and Chinese editions. I'm not finding any historical non-English editions from a quick Google search. Perhaps someone more familiar with the history sourcing might be able to help answer this. ElijahPepe any thoughts on historical non-English editions of the paper?

I would envisage the Awards section becoming a part of the Critical reception sub-article, as the scope of that article should include the good and the bad. Should definitely be expanded either way though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The following sections need to be expanded:

• Opinion
• Newsletters
• Political positions
• Crossword
• Style guide
• Online platforms
• Magazine
• International edition
• Critical reception

As for non-English versions, I am aware of German, French, Portuguese, and Korean reporting. I do not believe these articles warrant a section; they are translations for specific coverage where the bureau might deem beneficial. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps it would be possible to add a sentence or two about stories in languages other than Spanish and Chinese. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

New sections

Q5, Are there any new sections, that are not in scope of one of the sub-articles, that we want to add? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

One thing that jumps out to me from a quick skim of the current NY Times website, they have a Canadian edition that is wholly separate from their International edition. We currently don't mention their Canadian edition in the article, is there sufficient sourcing available on this to create a section for it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The Canadian edition is an identical version to the U.S. edition. As far as I know, there are about four reporters posted in Canada. The Canada bureau does not have a chief since Catherine Porter became a Paris reporter, though I am aware that the Times has been in the process of hiring a bureau chief since October. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

History of article structure

This is a follow-on question from Q1. Q6, which of these specific options should the History of sub-article set be structured as?

1. Three articles: The 19th Century, the 20th Century, the 21st Century. Suggested above by Snokalok
2. Four articles: 1851-1896, 1896-1945, 1945-1998, 1998-present. Suggested above by Epicgenius
3. Four articles: 1851-1896, 1896-1961, 1961-2001, 2001-present. Suggested above by Sideswipe9th
4. Six articles: 1851-1896, 1896-1935, 1935-1961, 1961-1992, 1992-2018, 2018-present. Suggested above by ElijahPepe

Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I will note that I do not have objections to the current structure. If the articles were to be split, I would prefer the option I proposed, but I currently see no issue. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I prefer Option 2 (Epicgenius) followed closely by Option 3 (Sideswipe9th), followed by option 1 (Snokalok), followed by status quo (1851-1945, 1945-1998, 1998 to now). Option 4 is my last preference. Soni (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

After much consideration, I find myself preferring option 2, followed by option 3. I equally dislike options 1 and 4, as I think a three sub-article structure will have the second sub-article being too long, and a six sub-article structure is too many over all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Critical reception article skeleton and structure

This is a follow-on question from Q1. Q7, what should be the rough skeleton structure for the Critical reception of The New York Times sub-article? What existing content from this article are we copying over? What new content and sections do we want to add? Note, this sub-article will require close attention as it will be tricky to ensure that content is presented in a WP:NPOV complaint manner. To that end, please do not suggest a raw criticism section, and instead think about how negative critical content can be more naturally spread throughout the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Scope wise, I think this article should encompass everything currently in the Awards and recognition section. We should significantly expand the awards section, summarising some of the most notable individual awards the paper has received.

The current recognition section should also be expanded and reorganised, with the critical reception integrated into it. This would also likely result in a name change, and additional subsections being created, though I'm not sure right now what those will be exactly. We should work prominent examples from List of The New York Times controversies into the prose of this new section, particularly those drawing from academic sourcing. We should search to see if there's any sourcing on available on the change in the paper's recognition and reputation across its history. For example, we currently state that the paper is considered a newspaper of record, but when did that happen? What was the paper's reputation prior to that? Is it still considered a newspaper of record today, or has its reputation been tarnished by scandal? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Online platforms article skeleton and structure

This is a follow-on question from Q1. Q8, what should be the rough skeleton structure for the Online platforms of The New York Times sub-article? What existing content from this article are we copying over? What new content and sections do we want to add? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

All content should be copied. The Website, Applications, Podcasts, and Virtual and augmented reality sections need to be expanded and I will attempt to begin that process later this week. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Could we add a dedicated section or subsection (sourcing dependent) on the purchase of Wordle and any concerns and fallout from that? At the moment it's a paragraph in the Games subsection, but I think this could be expanded to a fuller subsection with content from the Wordle article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

No. The information in that section is enough. The acquisition of Wordle is not important to the Times's overall operations. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Aaah, but on that article we're not talking about The Times as a whole, we're talking about their online presence as a whole. Wordle was an important acquisition to that specific facet, one that cost them a seven figure number, and one that in the words of their chief product officer was their fastest acquisition. As the Wordle article states, this was part of a broader plan to bring digital subscribers up to 10 million by the year 2025. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The structure of the article is that each column of the online operations has a section. Wordle is covered by video games as a broad topic. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for the Criticism section

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)

Protected

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)

"Occassions"

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

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)

@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)