Jump to content

Talk:Popular Mechanics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9/11 myth

[edit]

The March 2005 issue of PM contained a 14 page article discussing the plane crashes of 9/11.(link to the article). A simple google search reveals a significant ammout of controversy over this article. Is this something worth including in the PM article? Runnynose47 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Mechanics versus Conspiracy Theorists? Come on! This topic doesn't belong to an encyclopedic article! If we continue this trend we will end up including a section about Popular Mechanics versus UFOlogists, Popular Mechanics versus Nessie Sighters, Popular Mechanics versus Kirlian Photographers, etc. This magazine is world's famous, so I'm disappointed to see that Wikipedia spends more than half of the article about it discussing a pseudoscientific controversy put forward by extremists.
Aldo L (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you, except that the magazine itself took up the tendentious theme. I simply made some efforts to clean up what a previous editor had put in (I think that ed was on the conspiracy-theory side). I have no objections to reducing the matter to a side-note, or deleting it altogether. DavidOaks (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following, shorter text: "In March 2005, Popular Mechanics engaged in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories controversy by publishing a cover story in which a team of nine reporters, consulting 70 professionals, including experts in aviation, engineering and the military, attempted to debunk 16 prevalent claims.[1]"
Aldo L (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be much more proportional, especially if contributors could expand the overall article on this venerable magazine. DavidOaks (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I have no standing in this community, but speaking from an outsider's pov, the inclusion of the 911 truther conspiracy article is completely unwarranted and makes the article absurd. In accordance with one of wikipedia's guidelines of being bold I am deleting the relevant section as soon as I sign this msg. 71.200.73.238 (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptic society, called the popular mechanics feature one of the best pieces of modern skepticism. Also, as someone from the UK, the only time this magazine gets mentioned over here is in reference to the 9/11 debunking. I think it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiditm (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this topic is a "claim to fame" beyond those familiar with the magazine on a daily basis. What a shame it is is no longer mentioned. Huw Powell (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This goes far beyond 9-11. The fact that this publication has repeatedly acted as an apologist for the United States Federal Government is absolutely relevant and deserving of mention. This goes directly to the magazine's independence and credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.232.169 (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brady & Manning Cover

[edit]

OK, I'll start it since it was on national TV here in the US. When will Brady and Manning be on the cover of PM? Will they appear individually, or together? ;-) Hiberniantears (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section

[edit]

This magazine is over 100 years old. It's called Popular Mechanics but is a science and technology magazine. Why? A history section would explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.197.88 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ipad version of the magazines...

[edit]

is anyone interested to talk about the iPad version of the magazines: Wired, Pop. Science, Pop. Mechanics, etc.? it looks like they all came up with different features. Now the questions are: what differences those features are going to make and what makes one feature better than another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.164.128 (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

[edit]

There must be more to say about recent history, because a science magazine of the 'reputation' of Popular Mechanics should not be running an article entitled "After heart attack in 2013 man goes to hell and describes what he saw" on their web site? Does the list of editors having 'none' most recently mean something? Shenme (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Fiction for Middle-Schoolers

[edit]

I'm not a regular reader of Popular Mechanics, but from what little I've read, the idea that they are a science magazine is laugh-out-loud hilarious. No, Popular Mechanics magazine is fantasy fiction for middle-schoolers.

It must have been around 2001 or so when they published a breathless article about an amazing advancement coming soon to digital photography. The before & after comparisons were night & day; a massive, exciting improvement in image quality. I had a middling digicam at the time, and held off buying a newer digital camera to wait for this amazing new generation of digital cameras to hit the shelves.

They never did of course. I realized later they were talking about Foveon, which was a small improvement when first released but with limitations of its own, including a glacial pace of development that soon put it hopelessly behind its competitors. I wasted two years waiting for a ridiculous fantasy to come true.

As a youngster in the 1970s, I read a Popular Mechanics article about amazing things coming to motorhomes. Many years later as an adult I became interested in motorhomes and soon came to realize that article had been pure baloney. Greg Lovern (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Address Errors

[edit]

Hi Editors,

Hope all is well. Could somebody help me make the following changes? I have a COI, but I noticed a few errors on the page.

Tried to compile as much at once to make it easier to review. Let me know if you need anything clarified. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Camille Camillefrancis (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Camillefrancis, I'll take a look. Some of these look like first-party citations, but not for anything that controversial. BTW, you should add the edit request template to the page. I'm happy for you to ping me, but still should go through the official Edit Request process. -- FeldBum (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did the first few @Camillefrancis and I had a few questions for you inline above. --
Hi @FeldBum, I appreciate the response and guidance. I didn't know there was a preferred template and am unfamiliar with the template you've mentioned. I searched and found Wikipedia:Edit_requests, is this what you're referencing? Or should I be using something else to follow the official process?
For your questions above, would you like me to respond in line or just keep it here in my response below? Thank you for your help!! Camillefrancis (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to your Question: Regarding the Total circulation addition, could this be listed as Total of 17.5M+ or does it need to be broken out into digital (11.9M+) and print (5.69M+) that totals up to the 17.5M+?
Hi @Camillefrancis, responding inline is probably cleanest. Those new sources look good. I think I can use circulation and total circulation in the infobox and that should work well. --FeldBum (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FeldBum, I can respond in line for anything remaining that comes up. At this time, does anything listed as Partly Done need additional sources/clarity? I'm happy to provide. Could you also clarify if the Easton, PA History Section addition we were discussing was in fact completed? I see the partly done checkmark status, but then later following the Edit: you responded that it was addressed, but I don't see it on the page. Once again, I appreciate your help & review. Camillefrancis (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Camillefrancis, I added the Easton line to end of the first paragraph of the History section. Did I miss anything? I'll answer the rest inline -- FeldBum (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FeldBum, I see it there now, thank you. Nothing missed currently and I appreciate you taking the time to review the rest of the list. Please let me know if you need additional sources/clarity on the remaining requests.Camillefrancis (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FeldBum, Sorry for the fast follow up/additional ping. The Defence Media Awards addition should be 2019 (not 2020), it is under the 2019 section on the source I provided. I understand how it's confusing with multiple years listed on the same web page. Could you amend to 2019?, I've added in line above too. Camillefrancis (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - I'll make that change and get to the rest of them. -- FeldBum (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got everything, with some edits and changes. --FeldBum (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FeldBum, thank you for reviewing the rest, I also see you addressed the award year issue I flagged. I will reach out here if there is anything else, thanks again!! Camillefrancis (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FeldBum, hope all is well. One last thing, I was wondering if it's possible to add a more recent image or cover to the page? Below is a recent cover for reference. Let me know if you need me to provide anything else as you review and consider. Thank you!! Camillefrancis (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Camillefrancis, sure. Are there a bunch already in Commons, like the one below? If so, I'll take a look and add what seems appropriate. FeldBum (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Popular Mechanics July-August 2023 Cover.jpg
Popular Mechanics July-August 2023 foldable airplane cover.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Popular_Mechanics&oldid=1233971979"