This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New York Post article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article makes an emphasis where it sweepingly claims that NYP censors stories if it is negative towards China. That is disinfo at best given the paper is constantly talking up Lab leak theory more so than other outlets long after scientists debunked it - and so is relatively hawkish towards China. lol just in the past months alone, it's been spreading the China peril gossip. Regardless I looked closely at the provided source making such a dubious claim and found out it was written in 2007 and is only in regards to Page 6 (celeb gossip section). I also found another source confirming the same thing but it also primarily adds that the allegation was that it hide negative stories about Clintons. This seems to be a past incident where it concerns only a few stories in a particular year and yer arguably the Wikipedia article MISLEADS greatly - as if implying in the larger scale it still censors anti China stories despite it obviously doesn't. I nonetheless added the year (2007) and specified the allegations was in regards to celeb gossip section and the name of the singular accuser. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
