359:
Leff (which also accounts for almost all of the cites in the article). The claims and opinions of that author are repeated as fact, producing ridiculously non-NPOV language like "...Sulzeberger’s firmly held personal beliefs that it was wrong to ever treat Jews as a people" or "The paper of record deliberately hid the
Holocaust from the American people." Since this article exists to simply repeat the thesis of a single book (with a little original research thrown in as well) it's not possible for mere editing to make it compliant with Knowledge policies.--
454:
Perhaps a broader (better written, better sourced, more neutral) article about US press coverage would be notable. But this article is focused exclusively on one news outlet. Actually, it doesn't even really focus on the Times so much as
Sulzeberger personally. It's just one long attack rant against
416:
this is effectively a topic made up one day by a wikipedia editor. It is not treated in any depth by any reliable sources as a topic of its own. Allowing this kind of amateur scholarship to be invented here (and a bad job of it, I agree with loonymonkey) is a constant failing of wikipedia. To take
358:
issues) but it's difficult to imagine how this could be corrected through editing. If it were boiled down to the notable and the reliably sourced, it would just be a stub of an article, a paragraph or two in length. Really, the entire article seems to be a summary of a single source, the book by
455:
him, based on opinion ("Sulzeberger hated being labeled as Jewish, so much that he was willing to distort New York Time coverage in order to fight recognition of Jewish existence as a people in Hitler’s Europe.") If he were still alive, this would have been speedily deleted some time ago as a
398:
The references strongly indicate that this is a notable subject. I do not think it is correct to say that the entire article is sourced to the one book; but the book is over-represented in the article. The article needs some work, but that's no reason to delete
177:
439:
You have to be kidding me -- the subject of US Press coverage of the holocaust is covered broadly, just look around. The article needs work, no question, but if you look for press articles about this subject, they are
265:
Well sourced? Almost the entire article is sourced to a single book, repeating the claims and opinions of that author as fact. What little else is referenced is cited to a single editorial or something called hnn.us
312:: I haven't looked at the quality of the sources myself yet, though I can tell the article needs some improvement. It appears the article was created after it was rejected from inclusion on
171:
105:
100:
109:
487:
Bali
Ultimate has put a lot of effort into removing the most obvious POV and synthesis, but it's still too big an article about too little. Maybe the matter is worth a section in
92:
132:
137:
421:
hid the reality of the holocaust is the sort of rank distortion of the historical record that occurs whenever this kind of invention/OR is allowed to pass.
96:
192:
159:
88:
80:
551:
522:
504:
482:
468:
449:
430:
408:
386:
368:
329:
300:
275:
256:
235:
217:
74:
153:
149:
17:
199:
510:
488:
473:
There have been many changes to the article over the last two days, so I hope that voters will take another look.
165:
566:
36:
565:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
426:
377:
Well, I will give improvement a try. There are sources far beyond what is currently cited in the article.--
317:
464:
404:
364:
271:
243:
Well sourced and a notable topic. This article gives more depth of coverage than would a paragraph in
478:
296:
252:
185:
52:
and essay-like attributes can be fixed, and the discussion has shown that the topic is moderately
547:
518:
500:
445:
422:
382:
325:
313:
244:
213:
346:
As currently written, it's just an essay (and not a very good one at that). It's plagued with
57:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
460:
400:
360:
267:
231:
474:
351:
292:
248:
542:
An article on a notable subject backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources.
355:
338:
543:
514:
496:
492:
456:
441:
378:
321:
320:. I deprodded this article because it seemed notable enough to merit a discussion.--
209:
53:
49:
417:
one slanted book and paint the entire sulzeberger family as raging anti-semites who
347:
126:
509:
I don't see how this controversy is "certainly less important", but I agree that
291:- I agree that there are POV issues with the article, but the topic is notable.
227:
491:, though. It's certainly less important to understanding the NYT than the
459:
violation. So why should we lower our standards just because he's dead? --
337:
An important subject about the reactions of US mass media to
Holocaust.
559:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
513:
would be another potential landing place for this content.--
318:
Talk:The_New_York_Times#new_section_on_nytimes_and_holocaust
122:
118:
114:
184:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
569:). No further edits should be made to this page.
198:
8:
226:An important subject, worthy of coverage. --
354:problems (as well as clear ax-to-grind
208:Rambling essay with dicey citations.
7:
89:The New York Times and the Holocaust
81:The New York Times and the Holocaust
24:
511:Criticism of The New York Times
489:Criticism of The New York Times
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
552:16:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
523:03:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
505:05:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
483:05:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
469:02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
450:00:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
431:22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
409:22:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
387:06:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
369:02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
330:19:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
301:06:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
276:02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
257:19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
236:18:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
218:18:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
75:03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
586:
495:story or other scandals.
562:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
314:The New York Times
245:The New York Times
44:The result was
577:
564:
203:
202:
188:
140:
130:
112:
72:
34:
585:
584:
580:
579:
578:
576:
575:
574:
573:
567:deletion review
560:
145:
136:
103:
87:
84:
68:
64:
58:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
583:
581:
572:
571:
555:
554:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
434:
433:
411:
392:
391:
390:
389:
372:
371:
344:Strong Delete.
341:
339:User:Lucifero4
332:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
281:
280:
279:
278:
260:
259:
247:main article.
238:
206:
205:
142:
138:AfD statistics
83:
78:
66:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
582:
570:
568:
563:
557:
556:
553:
549:
545:
541:
538:
537:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
494:
493:Judith Miller
490:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
458:
453:
452:
451:
447:
443:
438:
437:
436:
435:
432:
428:
424:
423:Bali ultimate
420:
415:
412:
410:
406:
402:
397:
394:
393:
388:
384:
380:
376:
375:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
357:
353:
349:
345:
342:
340:
336:
333:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:article, see
315:
311:
308:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
277:
273:
269:
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
237:
233:
229:
228:Steve, Sm8900
225:
222:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
143:
139:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
82:
79:
77:
76:
73:
71:
70:
69:
55:
51:
50:Point of view
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
561:
558:
539:
419:deliberately
418:
413:
395:
343:
334:
309:
288:
240:
223:
207:
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
61:
60:
59:
56:. Regards,
45:
43:
31:
28:
461:Loonymonkey
401:Mkativerata
361:Loonymonkey
268:Loonymonkey
172:free images
475:Racepacket
293:Racepacket
249:Racepacket
65:rbitrarily
440:legion.--
544:Alansohn
515:Milowent
497:PhGustaf
442:Milowent
379:Milowent
352:WP:SYNTH
322:Milowent
210:PhGustaf
133:View log
356:WP:NPOV
310:Comment
289:Comment
178:WP refs
166:scholar
106:protect
101:history
54:notable
457:WP:BLP
414:Delete
150:Google
110:delete
399:it.--
348:WP:OR
335:Keep.
241:Keep.
224:Keep.
193:JSTOR
154:books
127:views
119:watch
115:links
16:<
548:talk
540:Keep
519:talk
501:talk
479:talk
465:talk
446:talk
427:talk
405:talk
396:Keep
383:talk
365:talk
350:and
326:talk
297:talk
272:talk
253:talk
232:talk
214:talk
186:FENS
160:news
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
46:keep
200:TWL
135:•
131:– (
550:)
521:)
503:)
481:)
467:)
448:)
429:)
407:)
385:)
367:)
328:)
299:)
274:)
266:--
255:)
234:)
216:)
180:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
48:.
546:(
517:(
499:(
477:(
463:(
444:(
425:(
403:(
381:(
363:(
324:(
295:(
270:(
251:(
230:(
212:(
204:)
196:·
190:·
182:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
152:(
144:(
141:)
129:)
91:(
67:0
63:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.