Talk:New York Times Co. v. United States

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)

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)

475,000 American soldiers had died
Surely this is not correct? 87.112.225.199 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What's in a name?
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)