Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New York Times and the Holocaust (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. since this already has an appropriate eight of coverage in teh NYT article there is no need to merge content tainted by accusations of POV pushing Spartaz Humbug! 03:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times and the Holocaust

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Quite frankly, I fail to see why The New York Times and the Holocaust needs its own article at all. The fact that many of the folks who have been working on it are calling each other names (one user even falsely accused another of being a Holocaust denier; see the ANI record here: ) and generally acting in extremely uncivil and obnoxious ways makes me doubt whether such an article can ever truly satisfy NPOV, or whether it, by its very nature, is bound to remain a magnet for POV-pushers and general ne'er-do-wells. The very title of the article could be construed as inflammatory, and that is probably why this article has caused so many problems for the Wikipedia community. In general, I don't like articles with titles of the form "X and Y", since such articles by their very nature run into problems with SYNTH; when Y is something as emotionally and politically charged as the Holocaust, the problem is only magnified a thousand times, since the article essentially becomes an attack page on X. I think that any content that is worth keeping could be merged into other articles, like that of the New York Times or Criticism of The New York Times. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge any genuinely valuable content into relevant articles. The New York Times may have an interesting, perhaps unique, view of the Holocaust. That belongs in the New York Times article. It is unlikely that articles on the Holocaust require a section on coverage in the New York Times. Once an article has proved divisive, and this one has, then it ceases to have encylopaedic value. This article displays none anyway. It is a brief opinion piece, and pushes some sort of veiled POV Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UNDUE and as a POV fork. An entire article based on the opinion of two authors?  Throw a paragraph into Criticism of The New York Times if you like, but this does not merit a standalone article. Resolute 14:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, Content_forking. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. My impression is that the topic is expanding upon detail in accordance with our guidance to do so when the detail would otherwise overwhelm a more general article.  This is not forking, it is natural growth.  For there to be forking, there needs to be a comparable and competing tine of the fork. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Content_forking. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That guideline advises that we should be getting rid of the Criticism of The New York Times article, not this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Show me a sub-article and I'll show you either a PoV fork, or a PoV-driven "banishment" fork meant to hide sourced content away from readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gwen Gale — this isn't criticism of the New York Times. This is an investigation into the causes behind subdued news reporting where heightened news reporting would be expected, focussing on the New York Times because of its stature. The Times is treated compassionately by the sources. This is, after all, an even of over 60 years ago. The sources raise questions. "How was it possible for so much information to be available in the mass media and yet simultaneously for the public to be ignorant?" This isn't typical criticism. "What kept American journalists from recognizing the significance of the systematic murder of six million people?" These are questions. This is not simple criticism. This is compassion, not necessarily criticism: "The press alone could not have altered the currents of public discourse that swamped the news of the Jews’ destruction, and certainly a single newspaper by itself could not have accomplished that." It is a misconstruing of the nature of the sources that support this article to simply say that this material should be part of an article on criticism of the New York Times. The quotes I am providing are from here Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, the US, British and German governments kept folks from knowing about the industrial slaughter of concentration camp inmates, most of whom but not by no means all were Jewish, by the National Socialist leaders of Germany as their military defeats began mounting up in the early 1940s. This belongs in the NYT article. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gwen Gale — but are sources saying that? I am finding this at the same source I linked to above: "But the media had enough credible information to treat the news of the extermination of the Jews as important." And: "The result: The New York Times was in touch with European Jews’ suffering, which accounts for its 1,000-plus stories on the Final Solution’s steady progress. Yet, it deliberately de-emphasized the Holocaust news, reporting it in isolated, inside stories." Also, you are mentioning governmental suppression of information. The same source says this: "The Roosevelt Administration’s determination to downplay the news also contributed to the subdued coverage." (That of course is in complete agreement with what you said.) Shouldn't we just be writing the article that develops from a certain realm of sources? Other sources can be brought to this article, to expand it, perhaps. But I fail to see the reason to confine this particular subject matter to an article that it does not properly fit into. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is, it doesn't belong in this PoV fork. Sourced text about this can go in the NYT article, if PoV patroling tag teams along with other sundry WP:Systemic bias doesn't keep it out, which will likely happen, but that's for another talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - It should be a section in the Criticism of The New York Times. If the day comes when that section becomes overly large (more than, say, 60% of the Criticism of The New York Times article) or when the Criticism of The New York Times article itself gets too large, then it should be split out as a content fork. --Noleander (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence given that the Times' coverage of the Holocaust was any more notable than any other American paper's. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarek, that's actually quite wrong, but you might get that impression from the current locked article. Two many ecs to fill out right now, but its on the talk page.--Milowent (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am not opposed to discussing a merger.  Technically this really isn't appropriate for an AfD because the topic is notable, though it might be treated better within Criticism of The New York Times.  A little background, the original article creator was rebuffed from trying to include the content in the NY Times article and so created a separate article (and then those against its inclusion argued for its deletion in the first AfD).  A few editors seem to consistently ignore sources and the Times own admissions regarding its Holocaust coverage which has resulted in a poor article at this point, in my personal opinion.  But I also believe that the subject can be covered in about two paragraphs within Criticism of the New York Times.  Some others would prefer a more lengthy treatment, which sources would also allow.  I have tried to mediate a bit on the talk page but it goes nowhere.--Milowent (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the editor was rebuffed when trying to add the content into Criticism of The New York Times, I think that after this AfD is finished (assuming it ends with a Delete/Merge recommendation) that the editor can go back to Criticism of The New York Times with this AfD as evidence of community consensus that the content should be in that article. On the other hand, if the editor was trying to put it into the The New York Times article, that probably was the wrong article.--Noleander (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was the latter IIRC, and you're right.--Milowent (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 *  delete and take Salvageable content to Criticism of NYT Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * delete and attempt to salvage the reputation of wikipedia. (Oh, reasons. Obvious POV fork and totally WP:UNDUE.)--RegentsPark (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wiki reasons you give seem to be secondary to support what you deem to be the reputation of Wikipedia. How does deleting this article salvage Wikipedia? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Salvage the reputation of wikipedia (not salvage wikipedia). POV fork and undue are the main reasons for deleting the article. The rest was tongue in cheek though I stand by my opinion that it is articles like this one that make wikipedia look like silly. (Sorry, but if you don't see it that way then I can't explain it to you!) --RegentsPark (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When you try to put yourself in the shoes of those effected by this, then you too won't really see it that way. Tongue and cheek about a subject like this, is callousness, and it isn't funny. You make it sound as if WP reasons for deleting this article isn't really necessary, because to you an article like this damages the reputation of Wikipedia and that is sufficient to delete this article. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if I have to explain this to you, you're not going to understand it anyway. Give it a rest unless you want to keep making a point for no particular, um, effect. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

*Merge per Milowent and llywrch - Some of the content the creator wanted to add may also be appropriate for expanding Buried by the Times. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep At least two books have been written on the subject and numerous articles cover it. It has also been written about extensively in the Times itself. Closer should note that the delete voters are calling for a merge, which certainly doesn't require deletion. Also, this version of the article is disputed and an expanded text is only visible in the article's history. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per and . ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► prorogation ─╢ 15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Warrants a few sentences in one of the articles on the NYT. There may be some wider article yet to be written on the treatment of coverage of the Holocaust in the US during the early part of the war, and the part this played in America's initial neutral stance, in which coverage of the two books covering the subject should have an expanded role.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per Milowent. This event is notable, but not significant enough to stand on its own. If not Criticism of The New York Times, then is there a Contemporary media reporting on the Holocaust? (And why not an article on that subject? The WP:AN/I discussion raised a number of questions about the subject in my mind.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and add a graf of two to Criticism of The New York Times. POV fork, inherent synthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhGustaf (talk • contribs)
 * Delete/Merge - Per content fork. Any neccesary information can be merged into the criticism article. DiiCinta (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course this article should not be deleted. There was a period of time when the Holocaust was taking place. The New York Times was a functioning newspaper at that time. Surprisingly little coverage of the Holocaust found its way into the New York Times, at least not prominently placed, such as on the front page, except in a few instances. In retrospect that seems odd. Commentators have looked into this. Laurel Leff is one, writing a book called Buried by the Times. Also, Deborah Lipstadt has studied the subject. There are sources specifically on the scope of this article. Its parameters are delineated in these sources. In what way is the article in violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV? How is it an attack page? It is not "created primarily to disparage its subject." It is documenting the news coverage of a very sensitive event. The sparse news coverage of that event by one of the most prominent news outlets at that time is a well-sourced phenomena. Why subsume it into another article? Isn't it a stand alone subject? The failure of the Times to cover that event is a topic in its own right. WP:NPOV in this case means providing counterbalancing material to the notion of "failure" to to cover an eminently newsworthy event, if such material is available. Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT wrote about "what was happening to the Jews in Europe every other day, on average, during the war." -- Laurel Leff, who's quoted in the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bali ultimate — that is deemed to be low coverage, for an event of that magnitude. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's good form to have a an article about the lack or relative sparsity of something (in this case, the relative lack of coverage of the Holocaust in the NYT compared to most other newspapers). That would be like having an article about Humans and Tails dedicated to the fact that humans don't have tails, and saying the subject was notable because most other mammals do. It just doesn't seem like good form to me. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stonemason89 — sources are of paramount importance. It would probably not be a good idea to write an article on "Humans and tails" because sourcing such a topic might prove difficult. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see why we should have a separate article for this. The whole thing seems like an attack page based on SYN. Although there are sources, it just seems totally unnecessary. Dave Dial (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave Dial — there is no violation of WP:SYNTH. That would be the case if for instance sources supporting separate assertions were brought together by editorship to present the argument that the Times dropped the ball as concerns providing coverage of what in retrospect was an enormous event. But editors are not reaching that conclusion by their own devices. Sources are reaching that conclusion and sources adequately flesh out that assertion. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Obvious POV fork. Ample room in existing articles for any useful content.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wehwalt — this is obviously a stand alone article on a phenomenon just like any other subject covered by Wikipedia. In this case a phenomenon supported by at least 2 books devoted to the subject of the failure of the New York times to adequately report the Holocaust as it was unfolding, or at least to place stories in its newspaper prominently to convey the urgency that in retrospect seems conspicuously absent. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into criticism sub article. --Tom (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge While I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of "Media coverage of the Holocaust" article, of which the information herein could form a part, this article seems far too pointy, even in its current, improved form. Why single out the NYT?  There's a bevy of information out there about media coverage of the holocaust, and that's an article I could endorse.  This just doesn't work for me. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Throwaway85 — we are not singling "out the NYT." Sources are doing that for us. We are only reporting what sources have have made a point of. You may find the material presented "pointy." But sources exist that that are unambiguously puzzled by the sparse coverage of mass killings in what was even at that time the newspaper of record. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My suggestion for that article was based on my own perception of what I think people outside Nazi Germany either knew or suspected was happening to the Jews, which was no one believed a respectable society would think of doing that; all evidence to the contrary was either downplayed or ignored until the truth came out. (Yes, the Soviets had their Gulags in Siberia, but they weren't "respectable".) The NYT's their failure to uncover what was happening was not unusual, nor prevented any other US media from learning the truth, had they thought to look. When the truth came out, everyone -- including Jews in the rest of the world -- were shocked. Now either my perception is a fair & accurate summary of the situation -- or it's wrong in part or whole -- which I admit can be the case. But until we have an article on the matter (hopefully without too much of the inevitable edit wars, WikiDrama, & kooks on either side making a reasoned collaboration difficult), this will be yet one more hole in Wikipedia's  exhaustive coverage. -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It just makes no sense to me that the NYT be the only outlet for which we have an article. I'd be willing to help merge this information into a larger Contemporary media coverage of the Holocaust, but it seems like an attack to have this article and this article only.  Certainly, it could form a major part of the new article, especially as new sources are being found, but it just doesn't work for me as a solo article.  At any rate, I'm travelling for the next couple weeks.  If this article is still around when I get home, I'll grab some sources and get cracking. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Middling, agenda-driven, non-notable criticism. Why one newspaper?  Why this newspaper?  The sources do little to justify the significance of the subject matter.  I was for a merge at first, but on second glance through all this now, not even sure if it is worth a mention at the "Criticism of..." article after all, but that can be taken up later.  It is an unlikely search term, so not even worth retaining as a redirect. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tarc — "why one newspaper?" Because sources assert that the New York Times failed to adequately report the Holocaust in a timely manner. Wikipedia adheres to what sources say. If you find sources on a closely related topic, perhaps you could add material based on those sources to this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A pair of sources does not a notable criticism make, certainly not for a standalone article at any rate. And speaking of "perhaps"...perhaps you could stop responding to just about each and every entry made here; an AfD doesn't need one editor's personal attention to this degree. Tarc (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tarc — it is not "criticism," as you refer to it in your first post. Wikipedia should not have have "criticism of…" articles unless sources exist supporting specifically that. The subject of this article relates to a specific newspaper. Sources exactly delineate the topic covered. You say that "sources do little to justify the significance of the subject matter." Isn't that an argument of I don't like it? Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, the article being mentioned as a merge target is Criticism of The New York Times, so I have no idea what you're getting at there. And no, it isn't an issue of liking or disliking it; the point is, why is the Times at fault?  Was this criticism widespread or notable?  Did other leading newspapers of the time have more coverage? Tarc (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tarc — I don't think this article is a "criticism" article. While it does not put the New York Times in a good light, the primary subject is not the criticism of the New York Times. The primary subject is the failure to report the Holocaust while it was unfolding. The sources that we have focus on the New York Times, so we follow sources and the result is this article. To me it is noteworthy that the Times did not extensively report on the death camps that are now called the Holocaust. That is a lacuna in news reporting and sources are identifying it as such. You are asking good questions concerning other newspapers of the time and their coverage. But we can only go by sources. As I said above, I think if you find related material, for instance concerning other news outlets, or the general availability of information about the Holocaust at the time, I would think such material would logically fit in this article. But this article can only be built around the sources that we have at hand. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And no other newspaper could have reported this in a timely manner? IIRC, the Times wasn't even the premiere newspaper in New York during the 1940s -- the Herald-Tribune was. And there were many other newspapers across the US which had the resources to uncover this story -- had they thought to look. -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable enough of a topic to be mentioned by Marvin Kalb in a formal speech. Egregious enough to be acknowledged by the paper itself. Influential event in history. The article at present has been sliced and diced by people who want it gone. It needs a careful expansion and sourcing, not deletion. &rarr;  Stani Stani  18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – This is a story of epic proportions which shouldn’t be suppressed or minimized either by deletion or merging. It is of extreme importance to the study of the holocaust, how it happened and who let it happen. The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to educate not censor. We need more detailed articles not less. As much reliable information as possible and convenience to access them, should be our only focus. The New York Times was the newspaper of record, which not only New Yorkers but the entire United States including the White House read, and it surely deserves its own article. Instead of deleting or merging, more articles of this kind should be written, not only for the Jewish holocaust but for the Armenian, Kurdish, Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia and all other holocausts and genocides. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wishing and hoping for coverage of related topic you think are important does not make a substantial argument for why this article should be retained. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My last comment was not part of my argument. It seems like you missed my point. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork and UNDUE weight. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect into Criticism of The New York Times.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete undue weight POV-fork and historical revisionism. The New York Times press coverage has been criticized, if one reads the material, for insufficient emphasis. During the war in europe it wrote about the holocaust every other day -- more than any other US newspaper. The problem with forks like this is they are little watched, and can allow novel ideas, agendas and interpretations to be transmitted and amplified. What's next Los Angeles Times and the Holocaust? The Times of London and the Holocaust? Etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bali ultimate — what does "insufficient emphasis" refer to? Isn't that the underreporting of death camps geared toward the elimination of noncombatants? We go by sources. You may have your understanding of how well various newspapers performed in this regard. It is original research until you add it to this article with a source. Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the conclusoin of all of the sources in the article and the newseum stuff which was under discussion on the talk page but may not be in the current version (i suggested an addition with it; it's at the bottom of the talk page). The complaint was that the Holocaust coverage was not on the front page enough, that the suffering of Jews was not treated as substantially different from the suffering of other victims of the war. That is, it's a complaint about emphasis. At least that's what the few sources say.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Holocaust was not just about Jews. As you know others were eliminated in the extermination camps. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Holocaust was not just about Jews. But one of the sources specifically complains that the "plight of the Jews" was insufficently emphasized, which is why i mentioned it.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Clear and obvious POV fork. AniMate  23:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a pure POV fork at best, and a thinly-veiled attack page at worst. Why does the opinion of a couple of journalists merit its own article? This could be mentioned in a couple of sentences at the main NYT article. This article ought to be deleted and salted to prevent recreation. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, it already has two or three sentences at the main NYT article.  Consensus was they're enough. PhGustaf (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is a clear POV fork based on flimsy ground. Sure, a couple of authors have been critical, but per WP:UNDUE we do not base a whole article on that. Where is the secondary source with an analysis of what other media outlets were doing at the time? In some other article dealing with broader issues, it may be suitable to mention the claims re the NYT, but if a large claim is made, WP:REDFLAG applies and strong sources are required (sources with an analysis of the overall situation). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge content to Criticism of the New York Times, possibly a section on this subject. in the seminal book The Abandonment Of The Jews, author david wyman does make numerous mentions of the Times' importance in holocaust coverage (or their paucity), and speculates that their approach to coverage (in his analysis, somewhat decent coverage but buried off page 1, to not appear too jewish to counter being jewish owned) may have influenced other newspapers to lessen coverage (this is from my reading of the sections the actual books index points to, not our article, which i have not reviewed). he does NOT have a chapter devoted to the new york times, despite the times being the newspaper of record at that time for the US. This is an important subject, which deserves carefully collected information here, but i dont see it warranting its own article. with more npov details added, an article called "newspaper coverage of the holocaust" would be a possible article, or "us newspaper coverage of the holocaust".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems easy to find scholarly sources covering this topic such as On the Inside Pages: The Holocaust in the New York Times, 1939-1945. The topic is therefore notable and so it is our editorial policy to find a place for it.  Forcing the material into a criticism article would be contrary to our core principle of WP:NPOV as this would, by its title, frame the issue as a criticism rather than a matter-of-fact study of the editorial judgement of the day.  And, under whatever title we choose to cover this topic, we should not delete the current title as it seems a good neutral search term and the edit history is needed to attribute the contributions in accordance with our Creative Commons licence.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mindboggled - How is an accusation that a leading media outlet of the Western world purposefully gave short shrift to the murder of over 6,000,000 people not a criticism? Tarc (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your loaded language is not the language of the source I cited. It seems to present the matter in a neutral way and we should do likewise.  And your position on the matter seems confused.  If the issue was a big deal then why do you want it deleted? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is nonsensical, there is nothing "loaded" about calling this a criticism; it is a fact. And I don't think it was a big deal, as I have noted above that it is not a notable, significant, or widely-held criticism.  Anything else? Tarc (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That you don't think that it was a big deal is regrettably your own opinion; but those who were effected by the holocaust think it is a very big deal that the NYT chose to bury this information out of everything they found "fit to print". The matter this article deals with is very notable, extremely significant, and not just widely held but the New York Times even admits it. Our opinions of this, either a big deal or a small deal, is irrelevant; only reliable sources is what counts. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The basis of my argument here is not personal opinion, as you wrongly suggest. What this article amounts to is a fringe criticism of the NY Times of the time, a criticism not widely held outside a small circle of conspiracy theorists.  Perhaps it is worth a mention in the main "criticism of..." article, but it is not worthy of a standalone entry in the Wikipedia.  Such an article gives unduie weight to the criticism.  I hope that clears up some misconceptions for you, regarding my point of view. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Undue weight means that undue weight is given to one opinion over another. Here there are no opinions that say that the NYT did cover the holocaust fairly; such an opinion does not exist and understandably so, because even the NYT admits it. On if the holocaust happened or not, for that there is two opinions (one of them fringe) and there you would correctly argue that we can’t put undue weight in stating that the holocaust didn’t happen, and you would also be correct in arguing that stating that it didn’t happen is considered fringe. Regarding the NYT there's no weight here to be undue, and no alternative view to be considered fringe.


 * You stated that the subject matter this article deals with is not notable, not significant, and not widely held, and on top of that, no big deal. That is pure opinion and it smacks with I don't like it. My comment to write about all holocausts was only a suggestion not an argument. My arguments to keep this article are based on the rules of Wikipedia as regarding this article. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tarc — no one has suggested "conspiracy," and the New York Times themselves acknowledge inadequate coverage. Properly understood, this is not "criticism of the New York Times." This article is an explication of a phenomenon. I see little indication of blame. I see investigation into a curious lackadaisicalness when one would expect alarm. The conditions can be investigated without implying that anyone acted with caprice. The tone of the sources to the greatest extent possible omit any suggestion of blame or culpability. You refer to wp:undue weight. In point of fact there is no "weight" involved at all. There is no indication of there being "criticism" of the New York Times for an event that is 60 years old. The tone of the sources is one of investigation into the underpinnings of a surprisingly lax response from news reporters in the face of unprecedentedly traumatic events. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * None but a handful of cranks feel that every-ther-day coverage is insufficient. None but a handful of cranks think that the subject matter is not a criticism.  Please stop wasting my time with these pedantic responses. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is serious business Tarc. This isn't trivial or pedantic. The NYT WWII's day to day coverage is subject matter for very serious scholars, not fringe holocaust deniers. It is not cranks that feel that way, but the NYT themselves who feels that way. They never defended nor will they ever defend their coverage of those years. Your argument seems to be that because you deem their coverage sufficient (something the NYT admits wasn’t), therefore this article should go? Why should your opinion about a subject ("sufficiency" in this case) decide if an article is to go or stay? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be very careful when throwing the term 'holocaust denier' around in this debate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting I called someone here a "holocaust denier"? You should be very careful of insinuating that. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a flimsy WP:POVFORK of the already extant and better sourced Criticism of the NYT article. Verbal chat  15:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per Milowent and Mercurywoodrose.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Only purpose is for POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And what is the purpose for those saying to delete? NPOV pushers or NPOV defenders? Your’s is the funniest vote of all. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Widen scope. I don't oppose merging some material summary style into Criticism of The New York Times, but I believe that a much better course of action than a full merge would be to widen the scope of this article to Contemporary coverage of the Holocaust. On top of specific coverage of the NYT's Holocaust reporting, e.g., there is Why didn't the press shout?, a lot of relevant coverage in The Holocaust in American life, also . Deletion would be a very suboptimal response to this article; why are we so quick to delete promising material and see the question as a binary of keep vs delete? Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think many (most?) of the Delete recommendations - including mine - are actually Merge. Meaning that the content is good and worthy, but simply belongs in another article.  Your suggestion of Contemporary coverage of Holocaust is good; but so is merging the content into Criticism of The New York Times. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment My merge !vote above was with respect to the Times-specific criticism. I agree that there is much material about wider press coverage issues which would make a good stand-alone article.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and start over with Contemporary coverage of the Holocaust (I had already come here to make this comment before seeing the one just above). and  are just two examples showing that the contemporary coverage was woefully inadequate among most or all news sources, including BBC and the Jewish press. First Light (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV-fork. Lightly-watched spin-outs such as this are easy targets for POV pushers and when inappropriate POV inevitably creeps back in they can bring the whole project into disrepute. Jack Merridew 23:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject here is not criticism of the New York Times. The subject is the conspicuous absence of news coverage of what is now known as the Holocaust while those events were unfolding. Nobody is particularly concerned that the New York Times is the news source whose failure is being highlighted here. That is of secondary importance. There is little attempt to place blame, in the thrust of this article. There is not a pointed emphasis on any suggestion that the New York Times "purposely" did not report this event. Such notions are of secondary importance to this article. Of primary importance in the article The New York Times and the Holocaust is that years transpired during which, right beneath the world's nose, enormous crimes against humanity were carried out. This is very unusual and deserves to be noted in an article devoted to that. It took place mid-twentieth century. It took place in leading nations of the world in terms of technologies of communication. The sources that this article are built around involve the New York Times, but the thrust of this article is not primarily a "criticism" of the New York Times. We here at Wikipedia can only build articles around sources. Expand the article to include related material. Find sources on the topic of the availability of information on the holocaust at the time it was unfolding. Find sources that shed light on other print news outlets in the United States at that time vis-a-vis their coverage of this event. The conception of this article is separate from the criticism of The New York Times. It may appear to be criticism of the New York Times because we are limited by the availability of sources. Scholarly work is apparently being done on why the news of that event failed to make a sufficient impact on Americans at that time. That is the crux of the article. Why was the news so subdued? There can be many factors, taking place on each side of the ocean. This article should not be placed in a niche of another article on general criticism of New York Times, as that completely misconstrues the thrust of this article, and blunts the main point of this article, which is the surprising silence of reporting emanating from that tragic event and reaching average American ears. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Silence? During the war "articles in the Times and elsewhere described the propagation of anti-Semitic laws in German allied countries; death from disease and starvation of hundreds of thousands in ghettos and labor camps; mass executions in Nazi-occupied Russia; and mass gassings in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek. The articles also indicated that these were not isolated incidents, but part of a systematic campaign to kill all the Jews in Europe." Laurel Leff, the main source for the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Silence was the wrong word. You are correct that sources are not claiming a news blackout. Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Very little salvageable content in both current and previous versions, article seems like an one-man-crusade against NYT. -- Sander Säde 08:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Crusade against the NYT? Sourced or not sourced and WP policy should be the only guide, and should put all opinions aside. Opinions of a subject should not guide policy. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is a ridiculous POV fork. Hindsight is always 20/20 - we don't need articles about what everyone who was around in WWII did relative to the Holocaust. --B (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What, even if those topics are notable due to having received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources? Looks like you're trying to impose a personal opinion instead of going where the sources lead us. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of things that were, at one time or another, covered in reliable sources that we don't include in Wikipedia. I like the idea above of having an  article on contemporary media coverage of the Holocaust or some such thing, but unless there is substantial coverage of their role (or lack thereof), a separate article doesn't make sense.  Just because someone writes a book about a particular gripe or a theory doesn't mean we are going to have an article on their topic. --B (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User:B — the article is not about a "particular gripe." It is the generalized low key to the coverage (of the Holocaust in WW2 Europe) that is being commented upon in this article. And we do have articles on books that may not be particularly remarkable in a grand sweep of history. The Invention of the Jewish People is just one book. Yet a long Wikipedia article ensues from that one book. The New York Times and the Holocaust article has at least two books dealing with the topic of this article. They are part of the sourcing for the article. The intention of the authors of those books I don't think can be said to be focussing upon criticism of the New York Times, so I don't think this article is a POV fork. The article is rather a unique subject not covered in any other article. Even if this article was primarily a criticism of the New York Times, which I think it is not, I don't think there is really another point of view, in the sense that there isn't an argument that the Holocaust was sufficiently reported on in the American print media. And furthermore, we don't see an editorial effort to merge the The Invention of the Jewish People article into for instance the Origins of Judaism article. Preventing POV forks is a valid concern. But recognizing where subjects are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate articles is another valid concern. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because undercoverage of the Holocaust was a worldwide and media-wide phenomena, (even including Jewish journals and press), The New York Times coverage is not "sufficiently distinct to warrant separate article(s)". It only serves to mislead readers (intentionally, in my opinion) into thinking that the Times coverage was unique. In fact, it was most common. First Light (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First Light — but the New York Times was more prominent than any other newspaper. Other news outlets and the population in general took their cue from the Times. It would have taken a maverick publication to buck the trend. The failure was greater at the New York Times due to their position of importance. This article as it now stands is not just ordinary criticism of the New York Times. Articles should be written on subjects distinctly identified by sources. Criticism of The New York Times, in comparison to this article, constitutes an amorphous topic. It is actually arguable that that article should be broken up into articles on its constituent parts. Do sources cover the topic, "criticism of the New York Times," or is it just a topic cobbled together by sources covering only subtopics within that article? I would guess the latter. This is an article that involves the New York Times. It isn't only about the New York Times. And it is set against a backdrop that dwarfs the other issues covered in the Criticism of The New York Times article. This article is not about a scandal, or even a controversy. There have been no court cases over this. This article takes note of an anomaly. It really has nothing to do with "criticism of the New York Times." Bus stop (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT was more prominent than any other newspaper? Like The (actual) Times?? The NYTs aspect doesn't warrant it's own article, as B has said. Verbal chat  20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * after e/c: Bus stop, I see no evidence in the many sources mentioned above that the BBC coverage, the Jewish press coverage, etc., "took their cue" on Holocaust coverage from the New York Times, or that it "would have taken a maverick publication" to buck the Times, or that the Times' "failure was greater". I agree that "This article as it now stands is not just ordinary criticism of the New York Times" - in fact it's extraordinary criticism of the Times, by singling it out and giving an extremely misleading impression that they were unique or responsible for the nearly universal under-reporting of the Holocaust. First Light (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First Light — the sources for this article deal with the New York Times, not the other news outlets you mention. The subject of this article is commentary on a wider event. Its subject matter is not confined to how well the New York Times functioned in its capacity as a newspaper. Sources, in the form of at least two books, address a topic of wartime Europe, mid twentieth century, involving antisemitism. That is not "criticism of the New York Times." This article is on a topic that involves world war, genocide, antisemitism, and lastly — news reporting. Laurel Leff, in this interview points out the leading role the New York Times played in setting the tone for news reporting. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To the extent that one author thinks that the Times was responsible for the actions of nearly every other news outlet during that time, then that one author's point of view could be presented in Contemporary media coverage of the Holocaust. The mere fact that there are sources that deal specifically with the New York Times does not warrant an article targeting them alone. Nor does specific sources dealing with the BBC, the Jewish press, etc. Otherwise we should be starting The BBC and the Holocaust, The Jewish Press and the Holocaust, etc., etc. Proper context, balance, and due-ness are all fulfilled with an overall article on media coverage of the Holocaust. First Light (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop is not one author thinks who thinks so, I too agree with him and so do probably all who voted for "keep" including many who voted for "merge". Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant the one author (Laurel Leff), that Bus Stop mentioned above, who apparently thinks that the Times was in some way responsible for all other media coverage of the Holocaust. I wasn't referring to the different Wikipedia editors who are voting "keep". Of course there are several of those. First Light (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge precis into main NYT article (as it is not particularly a criticism article, but more of an advocacy article about people in general not reading all the stories which were published.) As a stand-alone, it is an advocacy article at best.  Perhaps WP will allow them at some point, but not yet. Collect (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:ADVOCACY and Advocacy articles are just essays. How are they are applicable to this article? Bus stop (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * delete and salt as per WP:SOAP... non encyclopedic cross categorization similar to "Recessions in the Wall Street Journal" or "9/11 on Fox News"... but this one was blatantly created to push a point of view... not something that can be fixed by normal editing because the article's very existence is the POV of a single editor's original research... Arskwad (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Arskwad — such topics as "Recessions in the Wall Street Journal" and "9/11 on Fox News" would be synthetic topics. That is, no source supports the overarching subject. Those articles would be editorial contrivances. The sources that support this article derive from the work of multiple entities — at least two books by two different authors — and the scope of those sources is exactly the scope of this article — no synthesis is involved. This article is delineated by its sources. This article's parameters conform exactly to the sources it depends on. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Expand scope - I struck my earlier merge !vote above after reading a number of the arguments on this page. I think the problem is not so much that the current article title ansd scope is improper It's not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH - multiple WP:RS authors repeatedly mentioned above have written about the specific issues with respect to the Times's coverage. It's not even a POV fork, since there isn't really actually an article somewhere arguing that the Times's coverage was just right or too much. What it is is an article that is unencyclopedic in that it doesn't provide the lay reader with enough context with regard to other media coverage of the Holocaust. I propose expanding the scope to a slight variant of some of the suggestions above: Contemporaneous media coverage of the Holocaust in the United States. My reasoning for this scope is that we have good sources for US coverage scope (see the Newseum's Holocaust: The Untold Story  for a good overview) and that trying to do the entire world's coverage in one bite is really too much to ask for. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic topic, gives undue weight to minority opinions. (No more than 3 people are cited as discussing this issue in any way.) Anything beyond a brief blurb in the main NYT article is uncalled for. *** Crotalus *** 17:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.