This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't this article actually be information culled from the references, and not references only?
Anglocentric article .... To be renamed into "History of Anglo-american newspapers"
Does anyone think that devoting 18,000 words to American newspapers might be excessive, when British newspapers are dispatched in a mere 5000 words? After all, over most of the period involved (1720 to the present day) the British were the reigning super-power, and their newspapers were the most influential in the English speaking world. Despite this, the entire 17th C of the History of British newspapers is disposed of in less space than the History of American newspapers spends on 'The New England Courant' or on Benjamin Franklin's printing adventures!
Put another way, more than 3000 words are devotes to American 17th C newspapers, whereas British 17th C newspapers are covered in a little more than 300 words. Does that seem balanced to anyone, when all the technology came from Europe and the most enduring writers were British?
Similarly, the article on The Times (established 1785) is a mere 7000 words, compared with the 12,000 words devoted to The New York Times (established 1851). — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Bloke Wandering ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the Wikipedia now an unrepentantly Orwellian project, devoted to re-writing history from a U.S. point of view? A Bloke Wandering ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
several newspaper companies are almost bankrupt; only few may survive the current crisis which is going on for years now; [1];
A redirect labeled Newspaper Crisis in the United States leading to the right section in this article should also be generated after completion.-- Zaccarias ( talk) 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Just curious that beginning in the "Contemporary Muckrakers" section there are numbers in brackets, [1][2], and so on up to [23] I think it is. They do not link to anything, and I can't seem to find what they "reference" to. Is this article up to encyclopedic quality? .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 06:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
In researching this I found that the article addition was made in May of 2007 by a user at IP address 70.248.53.88. There was no follow-up notation that references would be added later. Since it's been nearly two years, I'm going to add the fact template to each place where superfluous bracket numbers are found. This will preserve the places where references are needed. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
-content -section -price -marketing strategy Can i know all about tis of penny press? thanks
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of American newspapers. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you know of a source that gives number of newspapers and maybe circulation by year? I'd like to see a plot supported by a table with 5 columns: year, newspapers, dailies, other, comments.
Benno C. Schmidt, Jr. (1976). Freedom of the Press vs. Public Access. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-89430-4. OL 5196075M. Wikidata Q110309111., p. 38, claims "the first regular newspaper in the American colonies" was founded in 1715. That contradicts the claim I read in this article that, "In 1704, the governor allowed The Boston News-Letter, a weekly, to be published, and it became the first continuously published newspaper in the colonies. Soon after, weekly papers began publishing in New York and Philadelphia." Sadly, there's not a reference for the sentence.
From this, I get the following:
Year | Newspapers | Dailies | Other | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
1715 | 1 | First regular newspaper in the American colonies, per Schmidt (1976). | ||
1750 | 14 | |||
1765 | 23 | |||
1776 | 37 | |||
1783 | 20 | Decline due to the revolutionary war | ||
1790 | 91 | 8 | 83 | Rebound before the US Postal Service Act of 1792 |
1973 | 11,529 | 1,774 | 9,755 | Recent number from Schmidt (1976). |
We might be able to improve on this using information in the Wikipedia articles on " History of American journalism" and " Early American publishers and printers", e.g., with "the first regular newspaper in the American colonies" starting in 1704 not 1715.
However, before embarking on that, I'd prefer to look more for a better source. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 04:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Nothing about this article, from the beginning to the end, makes it appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Is there not a single Wikipedic editor from the US who can discipline themselves to write better copy than this? Amandajm ( talk) 15:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't this article actually be information culled from the references, and not references only?
Anglocentric article .... To be renamed into "History of Anglo-american newspapers"
Does anyone think that devoting 18,000 words to American newspapers might be excessive, when British newspapers are dispatched in a mere 5000 words? After all, over most of the period involved (1720 to the present day) the British were the reigning super-power, and their newspapers were the most influential in the English speaking world. Despite this, the entire 17th C of the History of British newspapers is disposed of in less space than the History of American newspapers spends on 'The New England Courant' or on Benjamin Franklin's printing adventures!
Put another way, more than 3000 words are devotes to American 17th C newspapers, whereas British 17th C newspapers are covered in a little more than 300 words. Does that seem balanced to anyone, when all the technology came from Europe and the most enduring writers were British?
Similarly, the article on The Times (established 1785) is a mere 7000 words, compared with the 12,000 words devoted to The New York Times (established 1851). — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Bloke Wandering ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the Wikipedia now an unrepentantly Orwellian project, devoted to re-writing history from a U.S. point of view? A Bloke Wandering ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
several newspaper companies are almost bankrupt; only few may survive the current crisis which is going on for years now; [1];
A redirect labeled Newspaper Crisis in the United States leading to the right section in this article should also be generated after completion.-- Zaccarias ( talk) 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Just curious that beginning in the "Contemporary Muckrakers" section there are numbers in brackets, [1][2], and so on up to [23] I think it is. They do not link to anything, and I can't seem to find what they "reference" to. Is this article up to encyclopedic quality? .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 06:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
In researching this I found that the article addition was made in May of 2007 by a user at IP address 70.248.53.88. There was no follow-up notation that references would be added later. Since it's been nearly two years, I'm going to add the fact template to each place where superfluous bracket numbers are found. This will preserve the places where references are needed. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
-content -section -price -marketing strategy Can i know all about tis of penny press? thanks
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of American newspapers. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you know of a source that gives number of newspapers and maybe circulation by year? I'd like to see a plot supported by a table with 5 columns: year, newspapers, dailies, other, comments.
Benno C. Schmidt, Jr. (1976). Freedom of the Press vs. Public Access. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-89430-4. OL 5196075M. Wikidata Q110309111., p. 38, claims "the first regular newspaper in the American colonies" was founded in 1715. That contradicts the claim I read in this article that, "In 1704, the governor allowed The Boston News-Letter, a weekly, to be published, and it became the first continuously published newspaper in the colonies. Soon after, weekly papers began publishing in New York and Philadelphia." Sadly, there's not a reference for the sentence.
From this, I get the following:
Year | Newspapers | Dailies | Other | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
1715 | 1 | First regular newspaper in the American colonies, per Schmidt (1976). | ||
1750 | 14 | |||
1765 | 23 | |||
1776 | 37 | |||
1783 | 20 | Decline due to the revolutionary war | ||
1790 | 91 | 8 | 83 | Rebound before the US Postal Service Act of 1792 |
1973 | 11,529 | 1,774 | 9,755 | Recent number from Schmidt (1976). |
We might be able to improve on this using information in the Wikipedia articles on " History of American journalism" and " Early American publishers and printers", e.g., with "the first regular newspaper in the American colonies" starting in 1704 not 1715.
However, before embarking on that, I'd prefer to look more for a better source. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 04:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Nothing about this article, from the beginning to the end, makes it appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Is there not a single Wikipedic editor from the US who can discipline themselves to write better copy than this? Amandajm ( talk) 15:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)