Talk:The Atlanta Jewish Times

January 2012 editorial

I've moved the following insertion here for discussion:

In January 2012, Mr. Adler wrote an editorial in the paper suggesting that the State of Israel assassinate President Obama as a way to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran. He later apologized, but also stated "I'm definitely pro-Israel to the max."

As I noted in my edit summary, the Atlanta Jewish Times is over 85 years old, and this is one editorial. There was more space devoted to this single editorial than there was to the entire first 60 years of the newspaper's existence. WP:UNDUE is quite clear about this exact issue:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

The links in that paragraphs are to WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, which are obviously also quite relevant here. This material might belong in an article about its author, Adler (though I doubt even that), but it certainly has no place here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't know who you said was stalking who, but you really shouldn't put that sort of hostile thing in an edit summary. Let's not forget Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you think someone is stalking someone you should bring it to their talk page. Do you agree??

Second, I confess I failed to look at the history before adding my material. It was so new it didn't occur to me someone had put something in. I put mine in as a complete overview in a nuanced way and not just a slam. I certainly am open to cutting and tweaking it. Given that there were over a hundred news stories about this, far outweighing anything in the past, or likely anything in the future, it's not undue to have 3 or 4 sentences on the topic and not including them an a couple references that will lead to more info might look like wp:whitewash or whatever the equivalent is. (IE whatever it is people keep screaming on Gilad Atzmon talk page.) CarolMooreDC 00:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Carol, I don't see where you have in any way responded to the points I have raised in my initial comment above. To quantify the issue, the article devotes 10 words to the first 60 years of the newspaper, 124 words to its next 25 years, and 176 words to an editorial published last week. Please respond again, this time directly addressing the points raised above regarding WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, and whether this belongs in an article on the newspaper or one on its editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. I think the way to use this story to our advantage is to see if any of the major news agencies running the editorial story writes some history of the paper that we can insert. Joe407 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've NPOVd the text, and reduced it to 62 words. It's still WP:UNDUE, but for now the article devotes only 6 times as much space to this editorial as it does to the newspaper's first 60 years. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the biggest thing to happen to the publication with hundreds of mainstream media covering it. So it's quite notable. But the amount of text is fine with me. CarolMooreDC 00:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

References