Talk:Ami Magazine

"Banned"

The statement about being "banned" in Williamsburg needs at least some clarification; it makes it sound like the magazine is legally barred, rather than just having certain branches of the Jewish community asking dealers not to carry it. Some reference here. Also, it isn't clear which Williamsburg. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope I addressed this adequately in the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed an improvement. (At the very least, it doesn't leave people surprised that there are so many rabbis in Colonial Williamsburg!) Thanks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed description of editors as Satmar chasidim

Despite the reference that seemed to indicate that the editors are Satmar chasidim, they aren't. Mrs. Frankfurter is, indeed, the daughter of a Satmar chasid. Rabbi Frankfurter has good relations with Satmar, but is not himself Satmar. This is based on speaking with them, so I don't have a reference, but I felt that removing the incorrect information was correct nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseKirly (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Provocative"

Hi. I saw that my edit was reverted in the removal of the word "provocative." That's a non-neutral word, which states that the subjects the magazine covers - such as child abuse in the Orthodox community - is just that. While I'm sure it is, this word doesn't quite fit into Wikipedia's neutral way of writing. What is provocative to the Wikipedia who wants to keep it, might not be provocative to those who read the article. I suggest it's removed, to keep things neutral, and to allow the reader to make their own decision. But, I'm not here to edit-war, just suggesting ways to follow Wikipedia's policies. SarahStierch (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for giving a reason for your edit. On other pages, this paragraph would be included under a "Controversy" section. As you can see from the sourced content of the paragraph, many of the articles are indeed controversial. Yoninah (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Lev Tahor

I removed the paragraph about the Lev Tahor article because it cited no sources other than the magazine's own article, and was therefore OR. Yoninah (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

So what if it's NOR? My citation allows the readers to see the original article and judge for themselves the Ami viewpoint towards Lev Tahor. Queens Historian(talk) 12:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the essays (in blue links) that were posted on your talk page when you were welcomed to Wikipedia. WP:NOR is one of the pillars of the encyclopedia. Moreover, everything that you post has to be verified by independent third-party sources. The blog that you added is not a reliable source. We are also not in the business of writing a newspaper, so you cannot just report that Ami printed a provocative article and then printed a retraction. If you will look at the preceding discussion, you will see that independent sources are being cited for the backlash on previous articles, not the magazine itself. If you can find a newspaper or magazine article that speaks about Ami's Lev Tahor coverage and the backlash, that would work as a reliable source. Yoninah (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like the sources I used for the Lev Tahor article, fix it, don't erase it. Help me find additional sources. This is why I'm jaded with Wikipedia. too many folks here act like censors and lawyers, citing polities that could take years to learn.

Queens Historian (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If you knew how much time I spent searching Google, trying to develop this article and find the sources that are in the article right now, you wouldn't say that. And last night I did another round of searching for reliable sources on the Lev Tahor article, but came up with nothing. Yoninah (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

June 25 edit

I reverted this edit because the source does not support the assertion that Ami "shies away" from reporting on child abuse. The source is describing a different kind of "reporting": that of reporting sexual offenders in the Orthodox community to the police. Yoninah (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

IP's edits

NatGertler and Ajraddatz, an IP keeps making these edits. Also see these edits at the Mishpacha article. What to do? Historical Mensch (talk · contribs) also seems related to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You mean this hasn't all gone away just because I looked at it and thought "ach, I've not the time to deal with this!" Dang, that usually works. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Most widely read claim

I just removed (again) the claim that "Ami has become the most widely read weekly in the Jewish community" - this is a boastful claim that is not in either of the sources listed. It should not be readded until there is a reliable third-party source for it. I encourage editors to raise their issues here and find consensus on it, and not just readd the claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the continued addition of unsourced boasts, I have placed the advertising tag on the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is problematic per what I stated above, but I have not had good time to throughly address this. Needs more eyes on it from experienced Wikipedians. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Reported. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Circulation statement

@Bloger: has repeatedly tried to insert a statement about the circulation to the introduction. The source indicated appears to be a private log-in situation, there is no visible way for outsiders to access it, and thus it runs into a WP:VERIFIABILITY problem. Even if were verifiable, the statement was promotionally phrased (Ami is not circulated "all over" the country, I assure you there are plenty of cities and towns that do not receive it.) Being that multiple editors have now undone the addition, it should not be readded until a consensus is reached to include it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Although two times is technically “repeatedly”, I just want to clarify that I only once tried reverting the change back to my edit as opposed to what “repeatedly” may look like. I did so because I felt it gave a clearer picture of the magazines reach.Bloger (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Understood. However, this seemed like a situation that called for WP:BRD treatment, and so I started the conversation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

In any event, the sentence "The magazine is Based in New York and distributed to communities all over the United States and different countries as well." is inordinately verbose and clumsy. If a decent citation was available, something like "The magazine is based in New York, and distributed in the US and overseas." would be better. Edwardx (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Careful with the "overseas" use to indicate other countries, as it leaves out at the very least other North American countries. If it is distributed to, say, Canada, then "to other countries" is better than "overseas". Also, if it is distributed to Atlantis, that would be underseas. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)