Talk:New York Times Co. v. United States

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vietnam High‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York Times's?

Is it "the New York Times's right" because New York Times is a entity, or is it "New York Times' rights" because, if not a company, "New York Times" is plural? It looks weird to me. --MDonoughe 04:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on which convention you're using. It is not plural in common usage; one says "The New York Times is the paper of record," not *"The New York Times are the paper of record (papers of record?)." In cases like these, one can use the apostrophe alone or the apostrophe with an S; which one you choose depends on which grammar fascist taught you English. The truth is that it's fine either way.

Watergate Box

Someone might want to figure out how to align the watergate box so it sfsfsvdvdbdoesn't float next to the case infobox. Since this page is about a supreme court case, I think the infobox for it should be on top with the watergate box beneath it, but I don't know how to set it like that. -- Johnny06man 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

475,000 American soldiers had died

Surely this is not correct? 87.112.225.199 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been removed as far as I can tell. Garsh2 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'on the 12th'

Beginning of the 3rd paragraph of the 'setting' section. The 12th of what? June? July? March? this needs to be fixed. --24.24.82.93 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this has been removed. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a deletion

I deleted the following sentences because some of the claims are unsource-able, it uses weasel words, and does not attribute the opinions to anyone in particular. It can be re-added when someone fixes it, I suppose.

The Times’ victory strengthened the (whose?) notion that it was not only the right of but also a central purpose of the free press to scrutinize government. This notion has been kept strong (by whom?) since and is still evident today in public criticism of the Bush Administration (according to whom?). The status of the debate in recent years has focused on criminal technicalities relating to First Amendment rights (needs citation), as well as prior restraints against information that has the potential to harm people economically (needs citation). It is still contended (by whom?) that the freedom of the press cannot be abridged through vague speculations of harm (strong POV and unsourced). 216.15.63.39 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request

please provide more background to the case. what was the historical context? what information did the NYTimes print? there is no mention of the pentagon papers in the background section or a description of what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zejoro (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This page has been vandalised https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States&oldid=741762116 but cannot be reverted due to subsequent edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.222.121 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See example " When the case was brought to the supreme court, instead of actually finishing the case, they had a pizza party. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.222.121 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for references since 2007

There are vast unreferenced sections of this article, which has itself been tagged refimprove since 2007. Time for some chopping by a good historian.104.163.155.95 (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name?

@Lafollettio: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a different case, decided in 1964. The only references to Sullivan I find in this article, apart from your changes, was a single reference to this earlier case. I reverted this change. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]