Talk:New York Post
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New York Post article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about New York Post. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about New York Post at the Reference desk. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Banning NYP as cited source.
[edit]The problem with New York Post is that when it comes to politician (ex. Jamaal Bowman, Ilhan Omar, etc.), it has high bias towards them, favoring the rights. In review, the New York Post tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wording [1]
It is very biased that this should not be allowed as cited sources. the headline misleadingly exaggerates the actual story they are reporting.
New York Post - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com) 174.135.36.220 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Censorship requests are normally made on Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard, the most recent discussion of New York Post was in March. This is the wrong talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppsie. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, @Peter Gulutzan. It is archived meaning I can no longer response. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- If it's a consolation, the Wikipedia article now says "In 2024, the Wikipedia community reached a consensus that the Post should not be used as a source, especially with regard to politics." This is false, but sourced, so I think it will stay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- So, The Post is banned as source. in Politics, now that a win. The Problem is that it always wrote negatively about the squad or any progressive or even democratic politician in general. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- If it's a consolation, the Wikipedia article now says "In 2024, the Wikipedia community reached a consensus that the Post should not be used as a source, especially with regard to politics." This is false, but sourced, so I think it will stay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, @Peter Gulutzan. It is archived meaning I can no longer response. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppsie. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Thread opened at WP:RSN about actions here
[edit]See WP:RSN#When RS document Wikipedia's actions... -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Pinging: @Isi96, LeadPoisoning, Arcturus95, Objective3000, and TanRabbitry: -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this is really a question for WP:RSN (surely we all agree that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is reliable?), but I agree that this should be included. There is no policy saying that we have to pretend Wikipedia doesn't exist; see Category:Wikipedia for instance. That the English Wikipedia community considers the New York Post unreliable is a relevant, significant fact supported by a reliable source. I see no reason not to exclude it.
- I would say "English Wikipedia" rather than just Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The WP:RSN thread has been archived. Some (most?) editors seemed dubious about putting it back in, and I took the opportunity to note again that it's false, but now an IP has put it back in and nobody's denying that it's sourced, so I guess we're done here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- The inaccuracy is worse than anyone realised. The RfC actually decided that the Post was "more reliable" before Murdoch bought it in 1976. The Post was a broadsheet until 1942. There was no discussion of the broadsheet and there was no suggestion that it was not reliable. James500 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Murdoch Propaganda Rag.
[edit]Let's stop beating around the bush. NYP is propaganda. Lizard1959 (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class New York City articles
- Mid-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- C-Class Newspapers articles
- High-importance Newspapers articles
- C-Class Journalism articles
- High-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles