Talk:New York Times Co. v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 New York Times's? 2 Watergate Box 3 475,000 American soldiers had died 4 'on the 12th' 5 a deletion

[edit] New York Times's?

Is it "the New York Times's right" because New York Times is a singular 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.

[edit] Watergate Box

Someone might want to figure out how to align the watergate box so it doesn'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)

[edit] 475,000 American soldiers had died

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

[edit] '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)

[edit] 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)