Talk:New York Post

Peter Gulutzan, I don't see how an editorial by a notoriously unreliable source, in which it doubles-down on its lie after multiple reliable sources called it out, negates the reality that its G7 story was a significant fabrication, and this reality warrants inclusion in the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Post&diff=prev&oldid=1229385950 soibangla (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The issue here is that soibangla added on 15 June 2024 a section about a story that New York Post produced on June 13, on X which later was in an article: Biden wanders away at G7 summit before being pulled back by Italian PM. A Washington Post Adriana Usero / Glenn Kessler "fact check" Right-wing media outlets use deceptively cropped video to misleadingly claim Biden wandered off at G7 summit and a CNN article Right-wing media outlets use deceptively cropped video to misleadingly claim Biden wandered off at G7 summit said the story was a lie, as they say Mr Biden was going to greet people outside the published picture. The New York Post responded with an editorial Democrats’ denialism of Biden’s cognitive decline isn’t just unconvincing, it’s cruel saying Fine. There is nothing usually wrong with going a little off-script. But what was most telling was the “what is he doing?” reaction of his peers: Video shows them looking concerned and confused by Biden’s behavior, as they all shuffled to close the gap with him until Italy’s Giorgia Meloni steps in to guide him back to the group. So we have the US usual: a negative story, a negative story about the negative story, a reply to the negative about the negative. Some of the things wrong for Wikipedia in this case were: (1) in fact the New York Post does include a video that shows the group and the parachutists despite the claim about cropping, as shown in what I linked, and I linked to the earliest wayback-archive copy (2) we don't know whether a story from a few days ago will last 10 years, (3) exclusively the New York Post's critics were brought in at length and not New York Post's original story or editorial, (4) this sort of thing goes on all the time in both directions, e.g. New York Post condemnations about WaPo and its ‘fact-checker’ embarrass themselves yet again with latest ‘update’ of their Biden-corruption report, Washington Post quietly ‘updates’ Hunter Biden laptop story after Devon Archer testimony. -- but I'm not trying to force it into the Wikipedia article about the Washington Post, because I believe it's inappropriate to take one newspaper's word about another's, and because all articles would be bloated by uproar-of-the-week stuff. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I cannot fathom why an editor would repeatedly cite a source that our community concludes "is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics" and "editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication," including an editorial, as a means of criticizing The Washington Post, a fully reliable source. I really just don't get that at all. soibangla (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree with soibangla. The NYP has rightly been determined as unreliable by Wikipedia. Hardly a surprise. I live in NY and see it in the grocery store checkout. The front page is laughable. Suggesting that all papers behave the same with a comparison with WaPo is odd. WaPo has won 76 Pulitzers. NY Post, zero. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That says more about the Pulitzer than the (NY) Post. Obviously the Hunter Biden laptop story, as well as the stories about Biden's cognitive decline, have been since proven to be true. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't treat it as an (at least occasionally) reliable source also says more about WP than the NY Post as well. The NY Post is three-quarters century older than the Washington Post, and yet, perhaps because of its low-brow format and propensity for sensationalism, it's usually ignored by "real" journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.219.189.224 (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The material that was added was well sourced, and I've certainly seen it covered in many other reliable publications. It fulfils notability requirements. I feel inclined to restore this myself, since I don't think that the reason for deleting it was policy-based.StoryKai (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

StoryKai has restored with edit summary = "Most people on the talk page feel that this was a reasonable addition." I agree that I'm outnumbered and won't pursue this without support. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Update: Bruteforce7700 removed on 7 August 2024. Prolog re-inserted on 17 August 2024. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply