Talk:American Atheist Magazine

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Controversy section

Most of the controversy section reads as if it is quoted rather directly from some source. In any case, I don't think that it is appropriate here to cite excruciating detail like file numbers and such. Also, does "later this year" mean "later in 2013"? I think it could and should be shortened to what happened. The whole letter/file thing seems unnecessary. --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial board

The magazine article writing guide clearly says that an editorial board (and lists of contributors) should, "in most cases", be left out articles. The exception that is referred to here are cases where there is an extra, sourced reason to include editorial board members and authors. For example, if there was some conflict within the board or if an article by some author generated a lot of excitement (whether positively or negatively) and these events were covered in independent reliable sources, that would justify including board members/authors. As far as I see, we have here just the normal case, where it is not necessary to repeat the magazine's masthead in our article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have clarified this in the writing guide. --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Atheist Magazine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118160820/http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/04-02-01/2001040207_s03_Waters.html to http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/04-02-01/2001040207_s03_Waters.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]