Talk:Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.

Looks like an Obama campaign worker heavily edited this page. And why is it obvious, as the article says, that Sulzberger Jr. is anti-Obama?

Its fairly obvious that this article was written by a partisan of the right whose intention is to smear the NY Times. Not a particularly balanced article.

The Trust

Kudos to the person who tried to smear Sulzberger by using an out-of-context, incorrectly-quoted scene regarding Vietnam from "The Trust." The two men were drunk after a night on the Boston Common (not arrested after an antiwar protest, as cited) and Sulzberger Jr. said something negative about Vietnam in order to deliberately provoke his father, who was a strong supporter of the war (page 499, "The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind the New York Times," by Susan Tifft and Alex Jones). You may not like The Times (there is some justification in your viewpoint), but please, let's stick to the facts, shall we?The Invisible Man 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's Not What You Know...

How many Times ataffers got -- or at least kept their jobs -- thanks to some association with the Sulzbergers, and Arthur Jr. in particular? There was a grossly incompetent picture editor (initials YAA) who was moved from one desk to another but was kept on due to her having Arthur Jr. as a "rabbi" (newspaper term for a mentor). She only recently retired at age 69, but had been drawing down a salary of $75-80K a year. A clerical supervisor (essentially a thug of the masthead) with the initials ES got her job at the Times after having met Arthur Jr. and his wife on a cruise in the mid-90's. She's now kicked upstairs to some cushy make-work job on the business side, earning $60K annually. RexTyler 13 January 2007

Deletion due to WP:BLP

[.... deleted comment that provides no sources for what the commenter "recalls", as per WP:BLP. --NYScholar (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)]

Reference to 52-story day-care needs to be sourced

For the person who wanted a reference to this ... was in a cartoon today: Day-care center joke Once I saw the cartoon, I knew it would end up on this page. Hardnfast 01:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That was me who wanted to know the source. I'm now coming "up to speed" on the whole "Wikipedia Scanner" news story as it relates to The New York Times. Funny cartoon now that I know the context. Given all of the other organizations that have been given more prominent attention in the news coverage I've read about the Wikipedia Scanner, I still don't think this is a major enough event to warrant inclusion into the the Times article, though. First draft of history 01:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, just thought the person who wanted a reference for this would like to know it was a joke not a legitimate edit. Hardnfast 10:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Political Leanings

What are the political leanings of Aurthur Ochs Sulzberger and other New York Times owners?

It seems that this is a key detail and should be a part of this article.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing citations; plagiarism from sources

This article needs proper source citations (notes) throughout to show sources of its statements throughout. It currently shows evidene of plagiarism and violates WP:V and WP:BLP#Sources; see templates and links to WP:POL within them. Those who added material to this article need to provide their sources in citations throughout. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Source citations to the book by Tifft and Jones needs exact page references throughout to document any statements deriving from their book. (See "preview" mode of article for editorial interpolation re: that problem.) Thanks.--NYScholar (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No spam

Amazon.com advertisements for books are not proper format in "References" in place of proper ISBN nos. (Wikified links), which lead to WorldCat and other search facilities for publication information about editions of books. Earlier I substituted the ISBN nos. for links to Amazon.com throughout. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to advertise books or authors; see WP:Spam. The ISBN nos. and precise publishing information are better format for "References" and notes citations. --NYScholar (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This entry is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I was merely seeking some info on the publisher of the nation's paper of record -- only to find a limited and largely uninformative article way below the normal standard I have come to expect and what other editors insist upon in my own contributions to this on-line compendium. I have no axe to grind; I greatly respect the NY Times but realize its limitations in the modern media context. Why isn't this article more informative, complete and better sourced? Where are the senior editors? (Please forgive my limited formatting -- I am editing on an I-Phone.) Theophilus Reed (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)