Talk:Ami (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Banned"[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Provocative"[edit]

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[edit]

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[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)