Talk:The New Yorker/Archive 2

Gigi Mahon Link
I finally got around to listening to the Gigi Mahon interview (here). Note that the university website says her book is called The Last Days of the New Yorker, which is actually the book by Renata Adler. The correct title of the Mahon book is The Last Day of New York. The interview is worth hearing, but she does get some of her names wrong... k72ndst 06:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, "Days" is correct. "Day" must be a typo that took on a life of its own. The word "Days" is spoken several times in the interview, and a photo of the book's spine on eBay shows that the title word is "Days" not "Day." Pepso 10:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to mention, uh, the book itself. - Jmabel | Talk 08:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thin
The article just seems thin. I don't claim to be expert on the topic, and I don't think I'm the one to work on it. Still... Barely a mention that it had owners before Newhouse (or of the business side in general). Not a mention of the ad-free "pony edition" produced for the troops during WWII. No real discussion of how it stood almost alone for decades in being a commercially successful literary magazine, or in how it was for several decades nearly the only major magazine in America that targeted an elite (and somewhat geographically focused) audience rather than a mass audience. No real discussion of the unusual culture of the editorial side during the Ross and Shawn years. Little discussion of the enormous amount of important fiction and journalism that has appeared there over the years (yes, individual examples are given, but nothing that really indicates the tone or magnitude). Not a mention of either Janet Flanner or Jonathan Schell. - Jmabel | Talk 09:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

New Yorker segments
I was surprised to learn that this article makes no mention of the titles TNY uses for its segments, as well as which topics they refer to, e. g.: ... etc. I'd vastly appreciate it if someone could write this in, thanks. Maikel (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Goings On About Town
 * The Talk Of The Town
 * Letter From ...
 * Literary Lives

Sensibility of the magazine
The article would be strengthened by some discussion of the sections in the New Yorker. Some important parts are covered, such as the cartoons and fiction. But it would be nice to see an explanation of the Talk of the Town, the spots (those little drawings throughout the pages that often tell their own story, the advent of the letters column, the beloved, quirky little ads on the later pages (for cat pins, B&Bs, etc.), the advent of the cartoon contest and so on. All of these things together add up to the New Yorker.

And how is it possible that nothing is there about the poetry? There was a funny piece a while ago in the New York Times about the magazine only publishing poems with allusions to or imagery from water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossil50 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In future, please sign your posts with four tildes. I agree with what you say, the New Yorker is a sum of several of its sections and someone new to the magazine will undoubtedly be confused with what purpose each section serves. I would add to the article myself, but since I've only be a subscriber for three months now, I think this one is best left to somebody with more experience with the magazine. -- AS Artimour (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with the previous statement. It would be nice to have short characterizations of the regular sections, such as A Reporter at Large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.78.51 (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable Articles
This wikipedia page feels like it's missing a section on some of the notable articles that have been published in tNYr. For example, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was originally serialized in the magazine. I'm sure there are other great examples like this, but I don't know what they'd be. Maybe Atul Gawende's recent piece on healthcare? I've heard it discussed a lot, I think the president even mentioned it at some point. Obviously this needs someone more dedicated than me to do this. aubrey (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mideast conflict
It would be interesting if we could gather information on the New Yorker's editorial policies on the Mideast conflict, which is a disputed topic in contemporary journalistism. ADM (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's hard to generalize, since it can vary a lot from article to article, but I do think it's fair to characterize them as having a generally center-left stance on most issues. aubrey (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any such reiteration of content, especially non-notable editorial content, could possibly contribute to this article.Jarhed (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

2008 Obama cover satire and controversy
The section is way too long and contains way too much detail about things other than the magazine, especially some things that are just silly to mention here, such as what Stephen Colbert might have to say. The best solution might be to break out a sub article exclusively about The New Yorker's covers.Jarhed (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that my suggestion has already been discussed above. Good job and I obviously agree.Jarhed (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

History
I think it might be a good idea to add some to the early history of The New Yorker. The article doesn't mention much about the founding or earliest history. 24.131.136.96 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Jpatros

Delete Spinoff Section
I do not think the mention of the New Islander publication is appropriate. It is not connected to The New Yorker in any way other than a pun on its name, and the title spinoff implies that it was created from The New Yorker. If anything, the most mention it ought to receive is a link at the end mentioning similar magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.194.250 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. It's clearly self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.232.199 (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Got rid of it. -128.59.34.116

I LIKE THIS ARTICLE A LOT
THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA. YOU DID REALLY WELL ON THIS ONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor the trevoire (talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

9/11 cover
I can't believe that there's nothing in the article about the arguably most famous cover of all, Art Spiegelman's 9/11 illustration. Any specific reason not to include it? 80.216.29.79 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spiegelman-cover.jpg


 * Why is that the most famous cover? I couldn't find anything on it. Talktrue (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This sentence, "Mouly repositioned the silhouettes so that the North Tower's antenna breaks into the 'W' of the logo.", seems to me to unnecessarily evoke G.W.B. 9/11 conspiracy theories. Is there a reason that the description notes that the "antenna breaks into the 'W' of the logo"?; is breaking into the text of "The New Yorker" on the cover an especially extraordinary occurrence? Or, did Spiegelman react to 9/11 conspiracy theories in this way as his book details (see this website: http://www.culturevulture.net/Books/IntheShadow.htm, as I haven't read his book myself)? I think it's important, if we're to include the detail about the position of the North Tower's antenna, to indicate why this detail is relevant. Gedankenhoren (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

RSN:The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, and the Koch brothers
Please see: WP:RSN.  Will Beback   talk    23:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wolfe Attack
I find nothing about the "Wolfe Attack" (1965) in this article. It has a whole chapter in Yagoda, About Town, but maybe it is not important enough for Wikipedia (and no importance for the article about Tom Wolfe). --13Peewit (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC Discussion on lede section

 * Note: There appears to be a consensus that an article-content RfC is not required to address the issue that TreasuryTag has raised here prior to his being blocked. Therefore, I have removed the RfC header. Ordinary talkpage discussion, of course, may continue, and improvement of the article and discussion toward that end are always welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Should passages such as, "The magazine is well known for its rigorous fact checking and copyediting," be referenced? 20:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ''Please place your comments in a named subsection and avoid threaded discussions within subsections.

Comment from (involved) TreasuryTag
WP:WORDS identifies phrases such as, "some people say," "and, "it is widely thought," as weasel words, and states that "claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." Therefore, I can see no reason why there should be passages along the lines of, "The magazine is well known for its rigorous fact checking and copyediting," without a citation: if it's as true as suggested, it shouldn't be difficult to provide a citation. However, thinks otherwise. In amongst their personal attacks on my talkpage, Orlady suggested that material in the article lede doesn't need referencing. However, this seems inconsistent with Lede, which seems pretty emphatic that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged should be supported by an inline citation. There is not an exception to citation requirements specific to ledes." I would say that glowing praise of a commercial magazine would come under this heading. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► person of reasonable firmness ─╢ 20:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to all comments below regarding "why was there no discussion before filing this RfC?" etc.—irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevent. Irrelevant. Do you have an opinion on the topic of this RfC, which is whether or not the lede paragraphs should be cited? Yes or no? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► voice vote ─╢ 20:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to —irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevent. Irrelevant. Please provide concrete reasoning for your view that the material doesn't need citing. Not, "It's been there a while." Not, "No-one's complained before." Not, "The article gets read a lot." Actual, clear reasoning. Or don't you have any? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► voice vote ─╢ 20:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also to be put into the record— and   agree that the lede needs references. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► constabulary ─╢ 20:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from (uninvolved) Eraserhead1
This seems a little over the top... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not reading the instructions. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from (uninvolved) The Rambling Man
Do we normally RFC things that just need an agreement over whether a lead comment needs a citation or not? Presumably there's some extensive discussion on the article talk page and with the major contributors that failed to reach a consensus before this course of action was taken, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from (involved) Orlady
Treasury Tag showed up at The New Yorker, a long and well-cited article with an extensive history of editing by numerous contributors and where TT had no previous edit history (much less a history of discussion of concerns about the article), and summarily deleted half of the lead section as WP:Peacock wording. I have only one previous minor edit to this article, but I have it watchlisted, and when I saw the large deletion, I said "WTF?" and I reverted him. When I reverted him, and after that in the message on his talk page, I pointed out that the content was well-supported by citations in the article body, consistent with WP:Lead section. TT also deleted my message on his talk page, where I suggested that his edits were POV-motivated vandalism (rather than defense of article quality, as he claims), then came to my talk page to tell me that I was violating every policy in the Wikipedia book for reverting his edits twice. All this looks to me like deliberately disruptive behavior on TT's part. --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from (uninvolved) Ravensfire
Absolutely insane to go this route rather than bring them up on the talk page. At least some of the questioned statements I agree aren't supported in the article. Take the first one - well known for illustrative and often topical covers. The cover section in the article is about specific covers, not the covers in general (which is a shame). I wonder if the information used to be in the article, but was removed, as the covers certainly are a famous aspect of The New Yorker. But going about it this way is beyond disruptive. Standing behind policy pulling crap like this is beyond disruptive. Odd that ALLCAPS spaghetti can be tossed around and somehow, in the RFC page, in the section titled "Before requesting comment", there's this little point: "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved." My view - toss the RFC as out of process and actually post on the talk page. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from (completely uninvolved) Black Kite
Well, TT is absolutely correct. The lede states that the New Yorker is well known for its fact-checking, but the only reference to that is actually in relation to an issue where its fact-checking was thought to be dubious. It should be removed, to leave it there unsourced is clearly incorrect. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from (uninvolved) AmpersandEstet
I concur with RavensFire inasmuch that the last comment on the lead was in 2006 and there was no discussion held on the matter. As TT has not made an attempt to follow up along that same vein, this RFC is premature and ultimately dilatory. The article, as it were, is getting awfully close to WP:3RR.
 * Close the RFC In addition, seeing as how TT has been blocked due to seemingly similar behaviours, I request that this RFC be closed and any further discussion be moved to the appropriate forum. Ampersandestet (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit by Will Beback
I've added sourced material to the "history" section stating that the magazine has a reputation for fact checking. I don't believe that citations are necessary for intros, but any who does feel that way can copy the citation there.  Will Beback   talk    22:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe this should suffice for the purposes of the lead. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Tryphaena
It seems to me that Mr Tag was correct. The statement about fact-checking was not a summary of anything else in the article; it was not supported by a reputable source; and it was puffery. Orlady could and shoud have addressed those issues, preferably dirctly in the article or by discussion here on the article talk page, rather than immediately accusing Tag of all sorts of misconduct. Bad show. Tryphaena (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You Norker external link
I have removed the external link to You Norker, which was supposedly a forum for readers of The New Yorker. The forum was organised by weekly issue and hasn't been updated in over a year. There appeared to be very few members throughout its history. If anyone wants to return the link, the code is pasted below:

* You Norker: A Forum for Readers of The New Yorker Magazine

Stjep (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Header reads like an advertisement
It's not informative and only confused a chance reader like myself. I didn't even give the rest of the article a chance after reading that mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.153.186 (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The New Yorker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140607042847/http://www.census.gov:80/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html to http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080731163939/http://cnews.canoe.ca:80/CNEWS/MediaNews/2008/07/14/6151776-ap.html to http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2008/07/14/6151776-ap.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on The New Yorker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131107183533/http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/timeline to http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/timeline
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150908114825/http://www.allworth.com/book/?GCOI=58115100176530& to http://www.allworth.com/book/?GCOI=58115100176530&
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090427075552/http://www.ew.com/ew/inside/issue/0,,ewTax:1014,00.html to http://www.ew.com/ew/inside/issue/0,,ewTax:1014,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091227041719/http://www.slate.com:80/id/2195347 to http://www.slate.com/id/2195347/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * All seem to be useful links. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Error in infobox
"First issue's cover with dandy Eustace Tilley, created by Rea Irvin. The image, or a variation of it, appears on the cover of The New Yorker with every anniversary issue." This statement is incorrect. The 2017 anniversary issue was the first to not feature an image of Tilley, in protest of Pres. Trump's Executive Order 13769. I'm going to add this information into the infobox so it is no longer factually incorrect, even though I don't believe it's necessarily the best place for that information to be listed.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Not citation needed, but false
In the intro, The New Yorker is praised for "its rigorous fact checking," which might have been true in the past. But recently a person employed as a fact-checker smeared an ICE agent as a Nazi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_oV77XH0Lw https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/19/new-yorker-apologizes-after-writer-smears-ice-agen/ Nikolaneberemed (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * However, this doesn't seem to be about something that made it into the magazine itself. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Op-Ed
Would it be appropriate to include that the lead-off article in "Talk of the Town" usually is a current events opinion, AND that under editors Brown and Remnick the POV of the opinion pieces has been reliably liberal? 17:23 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea. -- Viajero 20:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Focus
Deleted "Political news is not the main focus of the magazine, and it is rarely brought up in the ongoing battle over media bias." Could we please rather describe what the real "main focus"? And what is the second sentence supposed to indicate? Get-back-world-respect 22:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A Category?
I was thinking of creating a category, something like "New Yorker people", to encompass the writers, cartoonists, and editors associated with the magazine. Any thoughts? PedanticallySpeaking 18:10, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

There's already a "Contributors" list at the bottom of the article -- why not just expand it by putting them in there. Any of the people you mention above would be contributors one way or another. Hayford Peirce 20:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeast heir
"Yeast heir" sounds like a perfect non sequitur. I'll either remove it, or try to clarify. Mr. Billion 19:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Yorker's Use of Umlaut
I have always been struck by the editors' use of the umlaut on words with two consecutive vowels, usually Os as in cooperation which, well the umlaut is not part of modern English typography so I can't replicate it here (part of the issue), but it seems like cooperation or co-operation are entirely correct. The usage of this Germanic convention by this publication comes across as a pretentious and sophomoric tic not employed anywhere else I am aware of; and not sure it conforms with standard English usage at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:ed11:5300:7d56:c409:a035:d7fe (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's a diaeresis not an umlaut: there's an amusing piece about it from The New Yorker here. JezGrove (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)