Talk:City Journal

Topics

Furorimpius (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC): Changed from POV-check to advert. db-spam is probably more appropriate, but City Journal is notable enough to deserve a page... just needs to be better.

Furorimpius (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC): Added POV-check, because the intent of the article seems to be to praise the City Journal, as opposed to simply describing it. The second paragraph, which is the meat of the article, simply lists positive reviews of the journal.

Oriana Naso (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)This is an extremely notable magazine - it needs a better page.

This is a superb publication providing deeply thought out perspectives on critical social policy issues.....while its perspective is generally libertarian/conservative, if you want a deep understanding of policy arguments and this is a must read if you want to understand the issue (even if your perspective is different). The article is not advertising or spam....and it does need expansion to reflect the significant influence this publication has had over the last couple decades.Chenango21 (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinions vs. Facts

I removed a series of statements of opinions about the subject of this article. It really is not noteworthy that some people think this is a great magazine. If it is somehow encyclopediac that some people think it's the best magazine in America, then it's likewise noteworthy that others think it's the worst. We really should stick to more objective facts, such as any awards it may have won and the subject matter of its content. rewinn (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

May 2011

I've just removed the {{advert}} tag from the article, because the article does not seem unduly positive. I gather from the comments above that a whole lot of praise for the magazine has already been removed since the tag was placed in May 2009.

I also removed a drive-by attack on Heather Mac Donald which did not seem to involve CJ at all.

The result is a rather short article with no references, basically a stub ... and not a promising stub either. CWC 15:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How old is City Journal?

A stub, indeed... I think this page should state when City Journal was founded. Unfortunately this information is not on their website either. Thomas Tvileren (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City Journal (New York City). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120707101303/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cj20anniversary.htm to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cj20anniversary.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Minor adjustments

I made minor changes to edits from Amtoastintolerant -- moving language on the magazine's 2020s coverage down from the lead section, adjusting wording to the reception section, and removing a characterization of the magazine's donors that did not appear in the linked source. 2603:8000:F200:C200:1412:EA1D:EDC1:A4AD (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

this is an ambiguous, does it add any value? does it need a citation? (yes)

> The magazine was also notable as one of the first to link to blogs on its website that referenced it, and to engage directly with the blogosphere

If I read this literally, this magazine was notable as one of the first to link to its own blogs on its own website. If that's the correct read, who cares? If that's not the correct read, I hope someone will clean that up. 107.3.134.101 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Should we indicate that City Journal has been described as "right-wing"?

CNMall41 has removed some recently added content here and again here, citing WP:ONUS and WP:NPOV. I was surprised that this wasn't longstanding content, given the journal's reputation, but apparently not. So let's discuss.

It seems that it is common for mainstream sources did give some sort of indication of City Journal's political persuasion when they mention it, and therefore so should we. In addition to the three sources already cited, this piece by a former City Journal writer is informative:

To remain at City Journal would mean accepting that my once cherished magazine had moved from standing on the sidelines while Trump captured the Republican Party—troubling enough—to legitimizing the new President’s disruptive right-wing populism. Since I had no way of protesting City Journal’s capitulation to Trump from within the ranks, I decided to break ranks.

I'm open to persuasion here. And frankly this is not a huge deal since we do introduce the magazine in the first line as published by the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. But I wonder if anyone can find a mainstream media mention of this magazine that doesn't explicitly indicate its politics. Generalrelative (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You indicated the claims are well-sourced when reverting but that is not the case. The first is this with a journalist labeling it right-wing. The second is this which labels it "Right" then further defines Right as ("strongly align with conservative, traditiona, or right-wing through and/or policy agendas"). Why was right-wing chosen and not the others. The IP that originally added the content likely chose it as POV-pushing. The third reference calls it a "Conservative opinion magazine." I am unclear of how this would be suitable for the article at this point, let alone the lead. Alrady stated who publishes it which is labeled as Conservative in the first line. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You state The IP that originally added the content likely chose it as POV-pushing. How do you know what the IP likely intended? I see that you're an experienced editor so you should be aware that we need to AGF in cases like this, unless the POV-pushing is evidently part of a pattern. From where I stand, as I mentioned, the description seems perfectly apt and normal.

I'd also argue that the first two sources do indeed support "right wing" and that the third could easily be replaced by the source I provided above. Thoughts?

If it turns out that the two of us simply have different intuitions about what is DUE here, a possible next step could be posting a neutral invitation for comment at WP:NPOVN. Generalrelative (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I always WP:AGF but I am sure you are aware that in contentious topics involving description of politcal views, many people POV-push. So, using logic, why would "right-wing" be chosen from a list of the descriptions in the second reference when there are several others? Why would a source that says NOTHING about right-wing be included? This is the reason for the statement.

So there is one reference that says "right-wing" out of the three. If you want to use the second reference, it would not be NPOV to use one description over the other. And it seems we are disregarding the third reference that says conservative. All three sources balance out so why is it "right-wing" being chosen (first ref = right wing, second ref = conservative, right, right wing, etc., third reference = conservative)? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I also just checked Allsides on RSN and there are quite a few discussions including this one so not sure if it is usable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing was extremely weak. Substantive sourcing —not passing mentions— would be needed in order for the qualification to be re-added.XavierItzm (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)