Talk:The New Yorker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Partisanship

I don't know how I feel about describing the magazine as being "virtually an unpaid adjunct to the John Kerry campaign" in 2004. I will reword to make it slightly less inflammatory. Drseudo 03:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you read Gourevitch's campaign coverage? He was practically a one-man cheering section for Kerry. Ellsworth 15:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It all depends on how you say things. "virtually an unpaid adjunct", "one-man cheering section", are not NPOV. The way the article now reads, "led by so-and-so", seems perfectly acceptable, at least to me. I'm sure this guy did out and out support Kerry. But you're got to say so in a neutral way. 22:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the current version—"Coverage of the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, led by correspondent Philip Gourevitch, strongly favored Democratic candidate John Kerry"—is accurate and acceptably NPOV. But more needs to be said about the magazine's political views in the past. During the Vietnam War, for example, the Notes and Comments column regularly ran antiwar essays, perhaps contradicting the "non-partisan" statement earlier in the paragraph. Maybe when the complete back issues of the magazine are released on DVD-ROM in a few months, some of us can go back and look at those earlier writings and decide whether the magazine was leaning toward one party or another even then. Tomgally 23:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that "non-partisan", as used in the paragraph in question, refers to adhering to one political party or the other (in the US context, Dem. or Rep.) Factions in both parties opposed the Vietnam War, a period, however defined (I'd say roughly 1963-1975) during which the American political landscape itself was radically overturned. So you could oppose the Vietnam War in a non-partisan way, even from a liberal perspective.
On the other hand, the current editorship of the magazine has been in the tank for the Democratic Party since roughly, say, the exact time Tina Brown took over as editor. Ellsworth 15:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is great, but it does seem to suffer from certain recurrent defects. One is a tendency toward a near obsessive focus on current events. (If you want to see the ultimate example, have a look at the article on Lebanon. Here is a country with 10,000 years of history, for which the Wikipedia history entry is pretty much limited to events of the last few months!)

Friends, this is supposed to be an encyclapedia. So the New Yorker tipped for a candidate in a recent election. You may be angry that he wasn't your candidate, but for the purposes of a Wikipedia article on the New Yorker, the endorsement doesn't amount to diddly squat. The New Yorker has an 80 year history, and assuming that the editing guidelines haven't been abandoned, everyone will have forgotten the endorsement five years from now. It is no more than an infinitesmal portion of their output. --Philopedia 6 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Well said. -- 204.209.24.2 6 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

I see your point, but wiki is not paper. Maybe when we go to 1.0, we can be concerned about this, but for now why not include as much information as possible? Ellsworth 20:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Factual comments

A few things I noticed in the New Yorker entry:

Most important, the Dubuque quote is given incorrectlly. The correct quote is, "The New Yorker will be the magazine which is not edited for the old lady in Dubuque."

I just looked this up with my nifty DVD collection. That is not the exact quote; you've paraphrased it. k72ndst 02:10, 18 January, 2006 (UTC)

The other things are minor, but given that the New Yorker is famous for fact-checking and accuracy, probably worth changing. First, the Eustace Tilley portrait, described in a caption "reprinted each year on the magazine's anniversary," was not used on (as I recall) three or four occasions.

Finally, the description of the New Yorker in the first sentence as "a weekly American magazine" in the first sentence may bemuse some nit-pickers as the magazine currently doesn't come out every week, but rather (I believe) 48 times a year.

Thanks for those corrections. I have revised the article accordingly. Other corrections and additions are very welcome. This article could use a major rewriting and expansion. The forthcoming publication of the complete archives on DVD-ROM would be a good opportunity to put together a summary of how the content and tone of the magazine have evolved over the years. Tomgally 08:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

How come the whole birth of the magazine gets glossed over? That Ross' wife raised half the money, and pushed him to meet with the "yeast heir"? And that Ross counted on his Algonquin pals to be his "editorial board" to launch the thing? Too much on silly Tilley, not enough on the history of the magazine's creation, in my opinion. k72ndst

Short Stories

I have changed the comment that The New Yorker popularised the short story in the mid-20th century, to it doing so in the United States in the mid-20th century. To be honest I do not know enough to say that this change is accurate, my knowledge of American literary history is somewhat lacking, but the original comment was certainly wrong. I could mention a large number of European authors, and the publications they wrote for, who had experienced great popularity long before the New Yorker was even founded. One such example being the Strand Magazine and those who appeared in it, such as W.W. Jacobs, Arthur Conan Doyle, and P. G. Wodehouse. Enlightener 00:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's completely wrong. I would like to delete this comment: "In the mid-20th century, it popularized the short story as a literary form in the United States. " Even with the qualifier 'in the United States', it's simply not true, considering that there was an enormous market for short stories in a variety of magazines at the mid-century. ZviGilbert 20:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to "In the mid-20th century, it helped to raise the short story to a higher level of literary esteem in the United States." As ZviGilbert noted, there was already a large market for short stories in the United States, but little of it could be classified as serious literary fiction. The New Yorker played an important role, beginning in the 1950s and even more so in the 1960s and later, in raising the profile of serious literary short fiction. Tomgally 23:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice, good change. ZviGilbert 02:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Covers

Any chance we can get a section in on famous covers? The 9/11 and "-istan" covers, among others, are pretty famous and should find their way into the page. Rusty 16:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Typeface

While it's mentioned that Rea Irvin designed the typeface, I'd like to see an elaboration as the font (or fonts?) used in The New Yorker are rather distinctive, and indeed associated with the magazine when appearing out of context. Does anyone know the names of the font or anything else about it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wencer (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening a bit fluffy

I love the New Yorker, but you think there might be some biased editorializing at the top of this article? With lines like:

"Although its reviews and events listings focus on the cultural life of New York City, The New Yorker has a wide audience outside of New York thanks to the quality of its writing and journalism."

"Lastly, The New Yorker is noted for its stable of writers, journalists, contributors, and critics, all in the top of their fields."

I can't say it's entirely untrue, but it's a little bit sensational. Terms like "top of their field" are vague and subjective, not reflecting any hard, documented fact (such as awards, honors, etc.). This reads like a fan tribute to the magazine. Especially lines like this:

"The magazine's short humorous sketches, famous cartoons, and short stories have brought each of these literary forms to a higher level of literary esteem in the United States."

  --relaxathon 15:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference

Surely Wikipedia isn't so important that "Know It All" is the only individual New Yorker article mentioned in this article? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Minh N. I believe that the explanation of the "trivial" article is unnecessary. A mention should suffice. Eifel 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Originally it was in the list of other New Yorker articles.P.L.A.R. 21:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's George Price?

The link to George Price links to a disambiguation page, none of whom seems to be a cartoonist.

Oh, okay, thanks for the tip -- I'll try to do something about it. Hayford Peirce 03:40, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I fixed it today. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Upper Class Readers

I deleted this: and is read primarily by members of the dominant class in American society. and the reason is that it is not fair, nor balanced. I really can't see how anyone can say there is a "dominant class" of U.S. magazine readers? This sounds really elitist to me. I picked it up in college (in Missouri of all places) when I was dirt poor and definitely not a member of the "upper class"... I just wanted to read a good magazine. --K72ndst 04:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with K72ndst's revision, for much the same reasons. Tomgally 06:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Okey, dominant might be a little elitist, but it's quite interesting to know how many percents that read the new yorker and from what social class they belong?--NoNo 20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have any verifiable proof even of what the US upper class is, let alone whether that group buys more New Yorkers than any other? --Charlene 04:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fact-checking?

How about some comment beyond "The New Yorker’s fact-checking and copyediting teams have a reputation for unparalleled rigor." I've heard stories of "only n errors in its history", but can't source a stat. Anyone? Shermozle 16:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In the time I've been a subscriber (only a year or so), the New Yorker has certainly not lived up to this supposed reputation. In the last month or so they have got at least one book title wrong, used the non-phrase "jerry-rigged" twice, and had people "hung" instead of "hanged". Anyway, the current wording, "its rigorously fact-checked, copyedited journalism", doesn't make any sense -- do we mean rigorously fact-checked and (also rigorously) copyedited? The way it reads, it is rigorously fact-checked but simply copyedited -- and almost all journals, I would suggest, are copyedited. Skookumpete 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This page needs sorting!!

Hello, I don't know how to do it, but it would be great if someone with some knowledge could create a table for the "Contributors" section and use sorting. Thanks. David. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.233.3.20 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

The "Tina Brown" years?

I haven't read "The New Yorker" for very long, but when I was a kid, I used to hear complaints about one-time editor Tina Brown. Was she a controversial editor, and if so, is it worth mentioning in this article? It was awhile ago and I wasn't familiar with the magazine so I have pretty vague recollections about it...but it always sounded interesting to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.110.237 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Tina Brown is already mentioned in the article: "Ross was succeeded by William Shawn (1951-1987). Robert Gottlieb (1987-1992) and Tina Brown (1992-1998) followed Shawn. Brown's nearly six-year tenure attracted the most controversy, thanks to Brown's high profile (a marked contrast to that of the retiring Shawn) and to the changes she made to the magazine's format — the introduction of photography, increased focus on current events, and more coverage of 'hot' topics such as celebrities and business tycoons." That seems to me like a good summary of the controversy. Tomgally 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Tina Brown material seems to miss the radical changes that she made to the magazine. I tried to beef that material up a bit while keeping the structure of the para. as being about past editors. It makes me think that maybe the material belongs elsewhere in a section on the history of the magazine's format. Noel B 14:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[Some dude, 2.6.07] The usual criticism of Tina Brown is that she cheapened the magazine so that it would turn a profit ... or lose less money, at least. So, whenever the New Yorker talks about Britney Spears or Lindsy Lohan (which it has in the past), people usually invoke the name of Tina Brown to complain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.212.213.41 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation of new page listing contributors to the New Yorker

I suggest creating a new page that has a list of contributors to the New Yorker. It will be different from just the list because it will have a general time period that the authors wrote, and some brief areas of interest. Of course, many New Yorker writers write on extremely disparate areas, so this last bit might be difficult for certain authors. (Note we can also talk about general areas of knowledge that authors are interested in, such as Malcolm Gladwell's interest in psychology in general and perhaps consumer psychology in particular, as well as more concrete areas of knowledge, such as David Remnick's interest in Russia.) I believe this would be a useful addition since such information would be good to have on a separate page (years of writing are very important, say if you want to look at authors writing about politics during a certain time). What do people think? I have started a very cursory page to start the ball rolling, and feel free to add more, and perhaps even change the entire layout. Borntostorm 07:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll defer to the usual policy on this sort of thing, but it does seem that the Contributors section has grown obtrusively large, and that it grows larger each week. The article would benefit from having the list replaced with a link. LowVelocity 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we move the huge list here to the separate list page? I suggest we keep a link to the list and a short list of some of the more notable (/current) contributors. schi ^talk 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern would be the endless debate/revert cycle over who is and isn't notable enough for the main article's list. LowVelocity 00:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of taking out the long list and expanding the separate list page. I also am not confident that every one of the names deserves to be on this list; just because you've sold one cartoon to the magazine, do you belong here? --K72ndst 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I think the contributors section should be removed (or drastically cut down) and put into that new list article simply because it's getting too long. Second, if there is still to be a section on contributors in the main article, it should be very short and policed so that it doesn't start to grow again. If so, then (as User:Schi suggested) it should only contain a few current and a few of the most famous past ones. Perhaps Updike, Hersch, Thurber, Addams, Galdwell, and a few others - - no more than 10 or 15 I would think.--A bit iffy 09:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New Yorker cover.jpg

Image:New Yorker cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New Yorker 1980 10 27 p194.jpg

Image:New Yorker 1980 10 27 p194.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the person who uploaded this image originally in November 2004. I read through the instructions on nonfree content, but I was unable to decide whether, based on those instructions, the image in question is in fact freely available for use or not. I would be grateful if those who understand the issue better than I do could make that decision. Tom Gally 03:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture references

I'd like to move the trivia argument here, rather than have it continue in edit summaries. It seems to me that only one editor seems to want this section removed, while multiple editors seem against it -- including user:Garda40, who complained about its initial removal at Wikipedia talk:trivia sections. As I explained at that talk page, the guideline is fairly ambiguous as to how these sections (known as IPC, for "In Popular Culture") are to be handled. The decision should probably be discussed here so that a consensus can be reached, and we can stop the edit war.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:02, September 10, 2007

In popular culture sections should never be lists of indiscriminate topics. They need to be concise paragraphs that detail the topic's use in popular culture. One paragraph could talk about parodies, one could talk about the use of the magazine in television, and other stuff like that. TTN 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And honestly, what is there to discuss? Is there really any discretion as to whether or not these belong in this state? It seems quite pointless to discuss something that not one featured article or one actual good article will ever have. TTN 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you consider this a list of indiscriminate items, and feel it could be turned into a section of prose, this (according to the guideline) means refraining from removing the section so that items can be integrated into prose over time. You might consider using one of the trivia templates to encourage this, such as {{trivia}}, {{trivia talk}}, or {{integrate}}. Or, since you seem to have some ideas already, you might want to start making the section into paragraphs yourself.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:11, September 10, 2007

There is no way to actually turn any of that into anything decent. If there were sources available, it would be quite easy to turn it into prose, but taking a loose, possibly OR filled section, and trying to make something out of it is pointless. It is better to remove junk like that, and leave it alone until someone wants to start from scratch (I certainly don't have enough interest in the topic).

If you are one of those people that takes "No deadline" as "We must present information, even if it will be wiped out when someone actually steps up to work on the article", we can just leave the header with a sentence or two basically saying "The New Yorker is often parodied and ridiculed in many forms of media ranging from television, movies, and comic strips." If sourced, the part about the novel and film may be relevant (but only if it is sourced.) TTN 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I take no deadline to mean no deadline. The guideline does not seem to support your suggestions here. However guidelines are not steadfast rules, so I'd like to get the opinions of others who have an interest in this article and see what they think, before we jump to any conclusion.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:31, September 10, 2007

I'm not going by any sort of interpretation of the guideline. I'm going by a general common sense editing style that I wish more people would take up. There is no reason to leave junk that will not be useful in the future. This applies to any kind of section. If someone had listed thirty cartoons with specific descriptions for the cartoon section, would it have been better to leave it so somebody could wipe it to create a general overview, or would it have been better to just wipe it ourselves to save someone the trouble? It is the same kind of thing; a list of cartoons can be turned into a general overview just as well as a bunch of trivial bits can be turned into general overview (i.e. they cannot). TTN 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your common sense is different from other peoples' common sense. This is a controversial subject (IPC sections, not The New Yorker) that has been argued back and forth for some time. Let's see what others have to say.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:52, September 10, 2007

It has been argued, but the general consensus of popular culture sections is reflected in out featured article process. Any popular culture section is made of full paragraphs, so like the constant "remove Notability" debates, they really mean nothing. The only thing that needs to be discussed is what to do with the information until that point. I don't mind waiting for people to chime in, but if we head down the old "numbers in a small debate become more important than the actual consensus of the overall site" road, there will be nothing to discuss. I apologize if that is what you just said, but you seem to be saying that this section may be all right on its own or something. TTN 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that whatever this argument is about, more people should be in on the decision than just you, or just us.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

19:54, September 10, 2007

• I'm unclear as to how it could be any more obvious that more-or-less random mentions of the words "The New Yorker" in other media are irrelevant trivia. What does knowing that fictional character Chandler Bing thinks he might be writing for TNY under some circumstance tell us about Bing, the show Friends, TNY or anything? What does the two-second appearance of Eustace Tilley on an episode of The Critic add to our understanding of this topic? Nothing. It's a game that too many editors play, popping into articles every time the subject appears on a TV screen and plopping in a bullet point about it as if the accumulation of dozens of bullet points illuminates the subject. Besides being trivia, it's also unreferenced and in some cases original research. This will not and in all likelihood cannot be brought up to the standards required for a cultural impact section or article and in fact actively detracts from the quality of the article. It should be deleted.
• Thanks by the way for notifying me of this discussion. Appreciate the heads-up. Oh wait, you didn't notify me of it, despite my being one of the people involved in the ongoing situation. Otto4711 23:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many people who feel that what's obvious to them should be obvious to everyone else, but unfortunately what people find obvious tends to differ from person to person.

The edit summaries of this article seem to have gotten your attention in the past, so I figured that would be sufficient for now as well.

I'll let Garda40 know about this discussion so he can come share his thoughts.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:48, September 11, 2007

I concur with TTN and Otto on this. It becomes a game of "spot the subject" and degrades the articles. There's a reason that Good Article candidates don't have this stuff. If you can't integrate the reference easily, delete it. --Orange Mike 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Algonquin Round Table

I am looking for people interested in the Algonquin Round Table to form a new Wikiproject. The scope would be articles relating to the Round Table, the members of the Vicious Circle and their literary works. If you're interested please go here and add your name, and leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Otto4711 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial cover(s)

• Does this one (July 21, 2008) magazine cover necessitate a controversy section in the article? I’m certain that the magazine has published controversial cover art at other times during its 83-year span of publication. —Travis^talk 23:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Based on Wikipedia notability standards the simple answer seems to be yes. Though I didn't create the section (I just edited it). Since I edited it may not be my place to answer your question. Over time it will most obviously merit inclusion. Does it now with the massive amounts of media coverage? I'll let others decide that.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• PS I propose a new section that includes noteworthy and controversial covers from The New Yorker's long history. The gay sailors comes to mind in recent times. There must be many others.--Utahredrock (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Ahmadinejad in the Bathroom cover would also be up there. I think there should be a single section on the cultural impact of the covers. This cover should be mentioned, but it should be kept in perspective--one cover in over 80 years--and in the historical scheme of things only merits a sentence of two in my opinion. --JayHenry (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Until info on the other controversial covers is added (a good plan), we should use singular "cover" in the header, since that's all it talks about at this point.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits made

I just added a section on the gay sailors cover, which caused a stir at the time (anybody have sources on the controversial part of it?).

I say wiki editors should pick the top 5 most controversial New Yorker covers and feature them here. I know there are minimalists who may think five is too many, but don't forget this is an online encyclopedia. Space isn't a concern like it was in the days of just paper. Of course we must still be prudent. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Balance needed

A cover that lampoons a situation more associated with the right side of the proverbial political aisle would make this more balanced.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

what happened to vol 1 issue 43

Volume 1 issue 43 doesnt appear in the copyright renewals[1], and based on the date for issue 42 (Dec 12) and 44 (Dec 19), issue 43 would have to be an additional issue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Investigative achievements

Surely Seymour Hersch's coverage of My Lai and Abu Ghraib should be mentioned?

And if that is an indication of journalistic quality at TNY, there must be other similar achievements? Other Pulitzer Prize winners?

Maybe some-one with more expertise in journalism/US culture can comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henri.laurie (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)