Talk:Joseph Pulitzer/Archive 1

removed

The assertion that Columbia's graduate J-School gets started in 1912 is false. It doesn't get going until 1934. Before that graduate students were allowed to take undergraduate courses in journalism, but it did not award them MS/MA degrees. Please change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.205.207 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I removed this piece of text from the article, simply because I don't see how it has any relevance to Joseph Pulitzer.[reply]

I think it should go back in. Pulitzer is very famous in Missouri because he made his fortune at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I believe the Pulitzer company still owns the paper. --K72ndst 23:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The current president of the University, Lee Bollinger, headed a committee that considered a reform of the school's curricullum but rejected the proposal to include classes on journalistic ethics, a discipline which would make it difficult for graduates to work at the New York Times, which hires many graduates of the school. This, along with large donations to Columbia University, helps the Times garner many of the Prizes for itself. It has been publicly admitted that the Times is guaranteed at least one Prize per year."

Any use for this in another article, e.g. Pulitzer Prize or Columbia Graduate School of Journalism?

Slugmaster 04:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--- Um, as this is 100 percent fiction/opinion/nastiness, I'd say it's worthless in any article. Wasn't this the guy who got everyone to think the Maine was sabatoged by the Spanish?

--- That's generally been attributed to William Randolph Hearst, but Pulitzer wasn't much better. Hearst, by the way, funded collegiate journalism's most prestigious prizes.

Just a thought-both of them felt guilty about their hand in provoking war with Spain, so both established prizes to "good journalists" to try and atone for that.

Pultizer was more of a populist, as opposed to Hearst, who became more pro-business, anti-labor as his life continued

OMG!!! This DUDE is sooooooooooooooooooo cute! I love you Joseph! Miss you.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.56.44 (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulitzer's ancestry

Recent research in both Hungary and the United States has verified that both Joseph Pulitzer's parents, Philip Pulitzer and Elize Louise Berger Pulitzer, were both 100% Jewish. See the work of Andras Csillag, Szeged University, in particular.

Be advised though that this is a technical distinction. That is he probably believed his mother was Catholic. His wife and Children were Episcopalian and the Jewish community of his time really didn't accept him as one of their own. Therefore, from the evidence, for all intents and purposes he probably did not consider himself to be Jewish. This is important because Wikipedia kinda wants you to make that distinction if you categorize a person. Otherwise, you are advocating an "essentialist" idea or quality about him. This is racism or a product of racist thinking. I'm a little troubled by this article because of this. The only clue you have is the personal life section which only mentions a woman of high social status whose surname indicates a WASPy feel. This article is unbalanced. Frankly, Pulitzer is really not Jewish at all in both the deepest and ephemeral sense. He seems to have been totally assimilated into the standard American upper class of the time with a Christian wife and children. IMHO, the only people who would consider him Jewish are Antisemites and Jewish people who believe in strict matrilineal descent irrespective of how that person lived their life, whether they converted to another religion, how they raised their kids, etc. At the deepest level of Judaism he would not be considered a Jew nor at the assimilationist end (of which he seems to be a member)BinaryLust (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I reverted the page to its former state because 68.188.36.6 vandalized it and simply deleted the article. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 11:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never written anything on wiki before, but couldn't help but notice that there is no mention in the pulitzer entry about his work in bringing the statue of liberty to new york. I'm not an expert, but when you go to the satute of liberty they certainly talk about pulitzer a lot.

The victory for 'freedom of the press" is POV

that shouldn't belong there. The fact that he was taken to court should show who really had power back then YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Since it was a historical consideration, its historical POV - and if its citable, its keepable. This article needs citations, but should not be detracted from too much before those are inserted - Pulitzer needs as good of an article as William Hearst. – Freechild (BoomCha) 12:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

"(originally pronounced /ˈpʊlɪtsɚ/, in the UK now /ˈpjuːlɪtzɚ/)" I've never heard that supposed UK 'pyu' pronunciation. I suspect someone once heard it mispronounced and thought that was a standard UK pronunciation. Unless anyone knows better, I think it should be removed.86.151.37.17 (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear the /pju/ pronunciation all the time, including by journalists. It's the primary pronunciation in the OED, which then goes on to say "in U.S. also ˈpʊlɪtzə(r)", suggesting that only /pju/ is used in the UK. kwami (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie Hudsucker Proxy, the journalist who's won the Pulitzer prize pronounces it PYOO-litser. I wonder if that was for comedic effect? kwami (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I met two of Joseph Pulitzer's great-grandkids. They say the name is correctly pronounced Pull-itz-er. I asked them, because their grandmother was Margaret Leech. -- K72ndst (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Information

Joseph Pulitzer died at the age of 64 from a heart disease. April 10, 1847 - October 29, 1911. He died in Jekyll Island, Georgia, U.S.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.179.66 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geographically confusing

In the After the war section, he was working in St. Louis, MO and the article states: "He rode south to Janesville, Minnesota, where many settlers refused to believe the American Civil War was over." Either he rode north, the location is wrong, or he didn't leave from St. Louis. I do not have access to the cited article and therefore can not make an informed edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.252.15 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Judas Pulitzer" is Antisem?

On face value, that is not antisemitic. Calling someone a Judas is calling someone Brutus which is calling someone a Benedict Arnold which is calling someone a Traitor (or more finely a betrayer). Checking the source, it is not clear that the author even considers it antisemitic. Rather he considers the entire writing that he quotes from Dana which includes that phrase, to be antisemitic. If you read the entire quote Dana is using the term "Judas Pulitzer" because the Jewish community that Dana inserts into the dialog considers him to be a traitor or rather a Betrayer (he betrays his culture for larger worldly success). This is an appropriate use of the term "Judas." Now, if this guy Dana has a history of antisemitism, you many speculate that he is trying to get as close as possible to overt antisem while still trying to maintain social acceptability by using terms that have a lot of Jewishness built into it (you know like he is trying to keep the foam in his mouth bubbling by keeping Jewishness in the forefront of his mind), but it is just that speculation. I am for deleting that sentence. Also, if you look at the sentence and how it was inserted, it was given the weight of an entire paragraph and so is unduly stressing this. Frankly, Pulitzer received more hate from the Jewish community than the society at large. None of this is expressed in the article. He was a great Immigrant American success story of the individual and not group kind. A lot of people could learn from his life. BinaryLust (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd personality?

We claim that "The university initially turned down the money, evidently turned off by Pulitzer's odd personality." No source. Is it true?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"New journalism"?

First paragraph contains the phrase "new journalism" which links to a page about the unrelated New Journalism style of the 1960's and '70s. Link should be removed, and arguably quotes removed from phrase "new journalism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkovnat (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many different people and trends in the history of journalism have been labeled with the tag "new journalism". Primarily, the journalism of the 60s and 70s is associated with this expression today. Then in the historical paragraph of the mentioned article the connection is established. --Tri-l (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "alternate uses" section of new journalism should really be a separate disambiguation page; it's about other things called "new journalism" rather than about earlier trends (of whatever name) that prefigured the 1960s/70s new journalism. The alternate uses section states that in the 1880s/90s "new journalism" meant "yellow journalism"; so the obvious fix in this article is to use that term in the lede of this article instead of the misleading "new journalism". Which is what I've done. jnestorius^(talk) 10:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any major wroks?

Our 3rd period is making presentations about famous journalists. I can't find anything about his major works so please tell me if you know of any. — Preceding signed comment added by Odell Peterson Landry III (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

his major works = his daily newspapers & their editorials Rjensen (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Pulitzer. 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:

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) 18:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]