Talk:The Atlantic

message: I found this interesting letter from Al Smith, in response to accusations by Charles C. Marshall that Smith would be against Church-State separation. It could perhaps be included in the history section of the article. Part of the dialogue mentions the encyclical Immortale Dei by Pope Leo XIII.   ADM (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1927 letter by Al Smith

message: The Atlantic has published some valuable material on the Mideast conflict. Perhaps this could be noted in the entry.    ADM (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mideast conflict

message: Reading the last two sections of "The Atlantic," "Atlantic Wire" and "Atlantic Cities," it's difficult to not see those paragraphs as laudatory of the subject matter to the point that they are effectively unpaid advertisements for these features of "The Atlantic."  They are definitely not NPOV.  I'm going to change the paragraphs to make them less nakedly laudatory toward their subject matter.174.16.52.161 (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. This is still a problem with this article. The whole thing reads like an ad. Adenyoyo (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV problems with sections "Atlantic Wire" and "Atlantic Cities" 

message: That Image of Cover page is not represents the magazine I guess.--Auto1080p (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Cover page 

message: No idea how to do it, but should this not be added?
http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2016/02/the-atlantic-named-magazine-of-the-year-2016-national-magazine-awards/459384/
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.66.252 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine of the year 

message: The article talks about how "monthly" was dropped from its name, but it never says what the original name was or that it had "monthly" in it.  This is confusing.  -KaJunl (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monthly 

message: Note about this edit and its reversion here. I had opened a discussion at RSN about that ref after it was added. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Allsides.com Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allsides 

message: What about some information on the magazine's political stance?  Probably legit to offer some kind of information along those lines.  The Atlantic is usually regarded as a little left of center -- it has certainly featured works deeply critical of the Bush administration -- but with regular contributions by Robert Kaplan, P. J. O'Rourke, and David Brooks, I wonder whether it would be safer to classify this magazine as right-of-center?
I know this might raise POV issues, but nobody would object to writing that The Nation is a left-leaning publication, the New Republic is hawkish, and the American Spectator right-leaning.  Anyway, thought I'd ask. Bds yahoo 02:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any one political label fairly describes the Atlantic. One reason is that it is not really a political magazine like the New Republic or American Spectator, though it does a number of stories with political angles. It does tend to cater to East Coast sensibilities, so in that sense one could say it leans left, but they're not reluctant to publish articles by conservative writers like the ones you mentioned. I'd call it politically ecumenical. --Polynova 22:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
One fairly neutral thing to do is to make mention of the ownership
and funding of the magazine.  ISTR that THE ATLANTIC switched to a
not-for-profit status awhile back, but I'm not sure about the
particulars.
I think it's important to mention the class component of the magazine and it's audience explicitly as it is characteristic of the publication.
Hi, I'm a subscriber to the Atlantic and I don't think it is left or right, and I think saying "While many of The Atlantic's articles are nonpolitical or written from a moderate stance, the magazine is generally considered to have a liberal slant" still goes too far. I vote for Democrats and Republicans. If the National Journal qualifies as "nonpartisan", why shouldn't the Atlantic? True, the Atlantic is edgier than National Journal, but publishing "works deeply critical of the Bush administration" should not earn a magazine a liberal or left-of-center label. (If it does, I fear for US journalism.) For example, George Will is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative but he's written very critical opinion pieces about the Bush administration's poor fiscal discipline, curtailment of civil liberties, etc. So have "arch conservatives" Robert Novak and Charles Krauthammer. Are they left-of-center? No way. 
I recall an insightful article in the Atlantic about Roe v. Wade where the (staff?) author wrote that Roe was unconstitutional and abortion should be decided by legislatures. I don't think that's a liberal position. Anyway, I think the Atlantic should be called "nonpartisan," or at least that it presents both liberal and conservative authors and perspectives, and in sum, plays it straight. 
Honestly, I would actually argue that the Atlantic is a "progressive" publication. And I still consider the term "progressive" neither liberal nor conservative (i.e. the meaning it used to have before liberals started trying to rebrand themselves as "progressives.") 
Just my 2¢. 151.200.30.69 (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I imagine if you did a survey of Atlantic journalists, most would vote Democrat. It's notable only one of their bloggers is Republican (though McArdle, Sullivan and Crook are all arguably right-of-center, to some degree, they're backing Obama this cycle at least). This is liberal bias of a cultural East Coast type, mainly, I think. 77.100.109.206 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After Morgan Entrekin left, so did P.J. O'Rourke.  Anyone visiting the blog pages of the Atlantic ("Atlantic Wire") will notice a strong liberal tilt to the features there, to the point that they were slinging mud at the Blue Dog Democrats during the early budget debates in Obama's first term (and by that, I mean rumors about some of these guys' personal lives).  And the commenters definitely lean left and rather vulgar.  So the print edition of Atlantic may still be balanced, politically, but its blog is way off to the left.174.16.52.161 (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, whenever a media organisation and its patrons protest that it's neutral be on your guard - it should be obvious. From what I can see of the ideas promoted in their content I have no hesitation in describing them as left-wing with pro-socialism leanings. Their small percentage of token right of centre contributions don't fool most readers. Matthew 06:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Political stance

message: As The Atlantic has sold the CityLab site to Bloomberg, I believe CityLab should become a standalone stub or move to the Bloomberg page.Jojuj (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 Qzekrom (she/they • talk) 03:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move CityLab section 

message: Why lock the article for vandalism when you could halt anonymous edits removing factual info? Such as the anonymous edits that removed my entry that included citation! Darksurf (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was locked to IP edits and non-autoconfirmed users. Your edit may have been removed due to its Twitter citation, which is not a reliable source except for very narrow instances. See WP:TWITTER. WP:RELIABLE can help you identify reliable sources. Paisarepa (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The reference provided in this article was not the government documents, it was the tweet. Even if the documents had been listed as the source, the Wikipedia policy on primary sources is "primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source" (see WP:PRIMARYCARE). Those documents never talk about Trump's alleged statement, therefore they are not a reliable source to use in refuting the statement. Paisarepa (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia locked article with false info? 

message: Change editor from 1980-1999 to William Whitworth, NOT Maxine Trottier 97.101.130.5 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for the heads-up. Paisarepa (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2020 

message: Could someone please restore Special:Permalink/1026526260 as the last good revision? 's edits introduced an error (verifiable here), which  corrected, but 173.49's corrections didn't fully revert the issues (a source is still missing, and a spelling error was introduced). See Special:Diff/1027473753/1026526260 for the net effect of the two edits. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thank you. 173.49.159.165 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Funny... How often does an IP action an edit request by an account, rather than the other way around? :)  -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

text: This has been resolved. Thanks. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: I deleted the statement "For example, Emily Dickinson, after reading an article in The Atlantic by Thomas Wentworth Higginson, asked him to become her mentor" because I could not find a reliable source to back this up. It is true that she asked him to be her mentor -- there is ample evidence of the letters she sent asking him this -- but I could not find any credible sources to support the claim that this happened "after reading an article in The Atlantic." The best I could find was this article which mentions the fact that he wrote an Atlantic article but makes no reference to Dickinson reading that article before asking him for guidance. I think deleting the sentence is the best course of action because it might lead to the impression that she asked him to be her mentor because of his writings in the Atlantic, a claim that I cannot find any sources to support (and because it was left uncited for over seven years I'm choosing to assume that there are no credible sources that support this -- although I may be wrong about that). Since there doesn't seem to be a source to support the idea that this Atlantic article had anything to do with her choice to ask him to be his mentor, it doesn't seem fit to be in a wiki page about The Atlantic and so I deleted it. Kduggirala (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted claim about Dickinson asking Higginson to become her mentor 

message: There appears to be frequent and targeted vandalism on this page. I have removed a sentence in the introduction which referenced the depressing attitude of the journal and the 'doomers' who read it. Since then, the opening sentence has been edited to refer to the journal as a 'promoter of doom'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.220.253 (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: She's now suing The Atlantic... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruth Shalit Barrett 

message: This edit references a New Republic piece that jokingly refers to The Atlantic as "a risk factor for suicide", but certainly doesn't make any serious claim to that effect, and says nothing about doctors recommending against depressed people reading it. As there's some slim chance this was a good-faith edit, as a former employee I'm not comfortable removing it myself as vandalism, but could someone please revert the edit? Thank you.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Eddie891.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request to revert misstatement 

message: Hi. Please correct your redirect from CityLab to Bloomberg_L.P.#CityLab. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CityLab 

message: The entire article reads like an advertisement for The Atlantic. This problem was even discussed back in 2012. Adenyoyo (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya wanna give actual examples or are you just mad it doesn’t fit your POV? PICKLEDICAE🥒  22:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Violation 

message: * What I think should be changed (include citations):This is about a highly unusual case of The Atlantic making numerous changes to an article because of a lawsuit in Japan.  There were a total of 16 post-publication changes.
* Why it should be changed:
It highlights the international legal landscape for media.  It's relevant information in the public's interest.
EpicEpochEditor (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source for this addition is the endnotes in The Article by the Atlantic.  This is a summary of the massive amount of revisions to the article which are explained in the endnotes.  The source for this is here https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/the-cambodia-daily-bernie-krisher/546563/:   "On January 19, 2024, following a lawsuit filed in Japan by the children of Bernard Krisher,  The Atlantic made numberous amendments to "When the Presses Stop" an article authored by Molly Ball published . The modifications, as detailed in the article's endnotes, addressed a range of factual inaccuracies and disputes. Key changes included rectifications regarding Bernie Krisher's attempt to assist with a health insurance issue in 2003, the clarification that Sihanouk's request to Krisher was aimed at aiding Cambodia's rehabilitation rather than founding a newspaper, and the correction of the number of Pulitzer Prizes won by alumni of The Cambodia Daily from two to one. Additionally, in response to the lawsuit, the article was updated to omit specific private health details about Krisher and his wife, revise descriptions of the insurance offered by The Cambodia Daily, and clarify Krisher's interview context with Emperor Hirohito. Other significant adjustments included the removal of an allegation by a former colleague, clarification of Krisher's role as the chief editorial adviser (not founder) of FOCUS, and several other clarifications concerning The Cambodia Daily's operations and the experiences of its staff.  EpicEpochEditor (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

text: The endnotes in the article that The Atlantic revised are not opinions.  They are facts.  It is a fact that The Atlantic made numerous corrections to a story as a result of a lawsuit filed against them in Japan.  The facts in the endnotes speak for themselves.  This is the full text of the endnotes for which I have summarized in the above to add to The Atlantic's wikipedia page:  "This article originally stated that Bernie Krisher failed to assist the author with a health-insurance problem in 2003, when he was her employer. The article noted that Krisher denied this, saying he had appealed to the insurance company without success. After the article went to press, Krisher located emails from that time showing that he had attempted to help the author, but that the problem had by that time been resolved. The article also stated that Sihanouk asked Krisher to give Cambodia a newspaper; in fact, he asked Krisher to help rehabilitate the country. Lastly, the article said that two alumni of The Cambodia Daily won Pulitzer Prizes. Only one did. We regret the errors. On January 19, 2024, as a result of a lawsuit filed by Krisher’s children in Japan, the article was further updated to remove certain private details regarding Krisher’s and his wife’s health; to remove characterizations of the insurance offered by The Cambodia Daily and of Q&As Krisher conducted; to clarify the context of Krisher’s interview of Emperor Hirohito; to remove an allegation made by a former colleague of Krisher’s, add denials by Krisher’s children and two former colleagues, and add detail about Krisher’s firing; to clarify that Krisher was the chief editorial adviser, not founder, of FOCUS, and had previously misidentified the person featured in a photograph; to clarify that the non-payment of The Cambodia Daily’s cable bill was not Krisher’s responsibility; to clarify that Kay Kimsong’s experience facing defamation charges; and to clarify a question asked by the author." EpicEpochEditor (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional information for The Atlantic page