Talk:National Geographic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

What's the point of the seemingly random "publication history" at the bottom? Any justification for it? 72.224.249.248 00:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The magazine has been around over 100 years. Adding the publication history for every issue will create one long page given time. I suggest creating a seperate page if needed. I will remove it. Any objections revert it! tyx

I replaced the blank "notes" section with an external link so the page would at least seem complete. 72.224.249.248 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization?

I feel the salopek and afghan girl sections could be better categorized somehow. Salopek, at least, could be placed with the greenberg case under "legal issues"...perhaps because it has its own article, the afghan section could be shortened and added under photography? Cjs2111 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

After locating the main salopek article and linking to it, I feel it could be pared down a bit as well... Cjs2111 21:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Editors

I think a section about notable editors of the National Geographic would be useful. Also a section of notable and award-winning photographs captured by its photographers would likely be interesting as well.--TheLeopard (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Front Cover

My issues of NG sometimes have different front covers to the ones I have seen on the site and on the back of the 'year in review' in the December issue each year. Is it to do with the fact that I'm in the UK, or is it continental dependent (i.e. the European cover is different to the North American cover...) if anyone knows, it would be useful to add. -- J.P.Lon (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of digital collection, request for clarification and facts (if poss.)

In the Greenberg section, I cannot understand what the digital collections being an "appropriate reproduction" would mean to my intention of putting all out-of-copyright - public-domain data from the CD collection on the internet, should it be clarified?. Would it be magazines until end of 1922? What would be the most expedient country in the world for me to go, so I can publish most material online??? Randomuserin2007-1111 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Society Executive Vice President and President of the Magazine Group John Q. Griffin, who also is Chairman of the Magazine Publishers of America, has overall responsibility for the English language magazines at National Geographic. He reports to Tim Kelly, President, National Geographic Global Media. Terry B. Adamson, Executive Vice President of the Society and the Society's chief legal officer and heads governmental relations, has overall responsibility for the Society's international publications, including National Geographic Magazine. He reports to Society president John M. Fahey, Jr.

— National Geographic Magazine article

Is this really necessary, especially as it is in the Introduction of the article? It is very long and out of place with the rest of the Introduction; and I don't see why it's even in the article. --SyntaxError55 ^talk 17:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"...the United States, where membership ... was until recently the only way to receive the magazine..."

I (British) didn't know this, as it's always been in the shops here as far as I can remember. Can we please have more details, in particular when and why the change was made? 86.132.141.139 (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cover and page numbering changes

At some point the first issue with a photo on the cover was published. The next major change was 'overlapping' the photo over part of the scrolled border, usually with the border being cropped to the horizon on outdoor images. Then at some point the scrolled border was completely removed, leaving only the yellow bordered cover with full photo that has been used essentially unchanged ever since. Another big change was the switch from numbering pages from the beginning of the annual volume to starting each issue at Page 1. Which issues were each of those changed made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good questions, Although these changes were eventually made permanent, most were seen to be gradual changes. the photographs on the cover first appeared in the july 1942 edition( i think), but were not always published, they wouldnt be kept on the cover until the late 1950s early 1960s. The january 1960 issue was the first one ( i think) to have the index of the issue on the spine. through the 1960s the picture on the cover (usually an illustration) began to encompass the cover and became photographs. By the eraly 1970s the second border, the scrolled border as it looks, gradually became smaller and smaller as it encompassed only the top portion of the cover. By around 1978 (i think) that portion of the cover was removed. the page numberings i believe disappeared when the magazine began commercial stand selling opposed to just subscriptions. this was somewhere between 2000-2002. I know i didnt answer the questions exactly but it shouldnt be hard to confirm the exact dates by using these references or by checking out again, the september 1988 issue it has a platelet of all the major cover changes. Ebay is also a good place to look up the cover changes as well. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the nudity and "private parts", especially in decades-old issues?

Shouldn't there be some notice of what this magazine has meant to many young men before the Internet? Their only source of female nudity in a society which bans it, fresh from a society that doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard jokes that National Geographic was the place to turn to for "pornography" before anybody ever heard of the Playboy bunny. 216.179.123.118 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Is there an internet site or web page about this? Spencer^T♦C 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many references to nudity in the media about national geographic. The september 1988 edition of national geographic pokes fun of this by illustrating a comic with two girls saying 'quick take your cloths off a national geographic photographer is coming...'(loosly quoted) and American Dad has an episdoe with one of the characters using the magazine for porn. Im sure if you look you'll find alot of cultural jokes about young american boys or just individuals looking to national geographic for porn. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a stand up comic (can't remember the guys name) who jokes in his act that he was in his 20's before he realized women don't automatically pick up a spear when they take there clothes off. July 30, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Record supplements

Other than the maps the magazine is famous for, it also sometimes included square pieces of thin, black plastic with audio recordings pressed in, for play at 33-1/3 RPM on record players. One of them released soon after the Apollo 11 Moon landing included audio clips from the mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 05:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

When Did They Begin Allowing Mid-magazine Ads?

Until a few years(?) ago, National Geo only had ads at the very beginning and the very end of the magazine, with none interrupting any articles. Now, of course, they're everywhere. When did the new practice start? Anyone know? Thanks. tharsaile (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

CD-ROM and DVD-ROM collections?

Is there an article on those? If so there should be a brief summary here and a link to the full article. They're about to release a 120 year collection on six DVD-ROMs. This release will also be available on a 160 gig external hard drive. Looks like they're planning on making it extensible and updateable this time instead of doing a total revamp of the whole thing for the next release. IIRC the first CD-ROM edition was just image scans of all the pages and had no way to do word searches. I've found CD-ROM editions for 108, 110, and 112 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of CD collections, the history section lists pricing info and website for the collections, in a format that looks to me like an ad. Shouldn't it just say the sets are available, and refer to the site for verification? New to the editing, not sure what the standards are for something like this. --Kojoteblau (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition of NGS map illustration

I've added the image of the NGS map of South America to illustrate a classic NGS map. NGS is famous for its maps, so I think that showing such a map is an appropriate illustration for this article. In general, it seems to me that the collection of NGS articles rather underplays the importance of these maps. Such maps are one of the main things that NGS is known for - say NGS and many people (IMO) will think "maps!". So, I'd suggest a bit of article development along these lines. (The NGS maps are also known to often employ the Chamberlin trimetric projection, a projection invented by/for NGS.) Happy to discuss the matter and go with the consensus view. Bdushaw (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

UK edition

The UK edition of National Geographic is not mentioned at all. While it is in English, it often has a different cover from the US edition and carries UK/European advertising. I'm not sure though if the actual content is any different from the US edition. Astronaut (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A different cover means different content. Content isn't only text.

Also, I don't see why English comes first in the languages. It may have originated in the States but all the other languages are alphabetical. There is no reason why English shouldn't follow suit. --Candy (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Shot

This article could be improved by a discussion of "Your Shot". This photography competition is based on the National Geographic website and it has a large, international following. Every month, the winners of the competition are published in the National Geographic magazine. One of these winners was the notorious Crasher Squirrel. Another winner was spotted by the band Weezer, who used the image for the Raditude album cover. It was also the focus for a debate on digital manipulation, when National Geographic was tricked into printing a doctored image after it won the contest (here). --Ofe13999 (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Added 'Criticism' Section

I added a "Criticism" section with several sources (mostly books). I hope this will not be deleted by National Geographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.213.180 (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I only noticed that you had 2 sources. One of the sources is actually a book review rather than the actual book. The other source seems to be from a book that discussed the NatGeo up to 1945. In my view the sources seem outdated and/or unreliable. Madgirl 15 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

---

National Geographic (magazine) → National Geographic –Sorry but this was just formally listed today. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Presently a redirect to the Society. Why? The dab isn't necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the term "National Geographic" is quite likely to refer to the society, magazine or channel, disambiguation is best. Further, people say "National Geographic Magazine" when in doubt. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Move to National Geographic Magazine. Their masthead gives the name as, National Geographic Magazine. Note that although the word "magazine" is not italicized, it is given with a capital "M". WorldCat has the title both ways. But these are given as alternative names. There is nothing to suggest that the name was changed, as claimed in the article. Using a short form of the name on the cover is not the same as changing the name. The name on the cover is art, equivalent to a logo. The most formal version of the name is the one that appears on the masthead. Kauffner (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; should be a disambiguation page, or a redirect to the society. Powers ^T 21:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose rename, agree with 70.24.251.71. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cover

Can we change the National Geography magazine cover used in the sidebar? how does a picture of a house talking about energy savings represent Nat Geo? they're known, at least country-wide for their beautiful natural photography, and that's about as far from nature and their image as you can get. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Editorial independence?

Disregard

 – Off-topic "media conspiracy theory" speculation.

An issue not addressed re: the takeover by Fox: Will the content of NatGeo media -- magazines, TV, and digital -- be controlled by Murdoch? Can we expect a slide into biased, partisan tabloid-style journalism? Or has any guarantee of editorial independence been issued?

RioRico (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Material like this if off-topic here, unless and until reliable sources question NG's editorial integrity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reading National Geographic

Shouldn't some comment on the book "Reading National Geographic" be included? -74.140.197.149 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Because ...? Do we have reliable sources indicating this book is notable or that some kind of notable controversy has erupted?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, noting that the TV channel move has been withdrawn. Jenks24 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

---

• National Geographic (magazine) → National Geographic
• National Geographic → National Geographic (disambiguation)
• National Geographic (U.S. TV channel) → National Geographic (TV network) (or National Geographic (TV channel)?)

– For the first two, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and note that the only other entry in the disambiguation page is a partial title match, National Geographic Society). The TV channel article is just misnamed, being over-disambiguated. There is no non-US channel from which to disambiguate it, so the "U.S." in there is unnecessary and the present title fails WP:CONCISE. While National Geographic Channel is potentially viable (if you take pains to eliminate obvious marketing and false positives, "on National Geographic" and "on [the] National Geographic Channel" are almost tied in news usage [1][2]), the frequency of the longer name will decline over time as sources catch up to the name change, so we'd just have to move it again later. If a non-US version of the channel exists or comes into existence, it is unlikely to be independently notable and would be covered in a section at the same article. A fourth entry could eventually be added to the DAB page, for the NationalGeographic.com website and its sub-sites, but it also won't [likely] be the primary topic any time in the foreseeable future.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC); updated: 19:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: It's been pointed out to me in user talk that "channel" isn't really accurate, so for the third one National Geographic (TV network) might make more sense, and I lean that direction. Pinging ONR/t, who commented before this was noted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Update 2: And I've struck the TV part, per the request for separate discussion below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support both moves. The magazine is overwhelmingly the primary topic, and there is no non-U.S. TV channel by that name.  ONR  (talk)  16:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support magazine move / Oppose channel move - The channel move discussion should be split from this and move to its own talk page as there are several issues unrelated to the magazine move. Firstly, any articles using (TV channel) are probably incorrect as these are more accurately described as television networks (see WP:NC-BC. "Channel" is essentially deprecated and incorrect where used in this case. Lastly, there are many, many international versions of National Geographic and so we must keep the "U.S." part of the disambig - even if there is dispute about network vs channel - for clarity to the readers. I ask that, at a minimum, @SMcCandlish: withdraws the channel move from this discussion as it is a fully separate topic from the magazine move. -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  Struck, per request. However, I'm very skeptical that all these NatGeo TV things shouldn't be covered as sections in a single article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• See also: Talk:National Geographic (U.S. TV channel)#Requested move 10 November 2017.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support, clear and away, the topic of the name. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Geographic. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/masthead
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalgeographic.com.hr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219090306/http://www.nationalgeographic.co.il/ to http://www.nationalgeographic.co.il/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalgeographic.gr/

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) 18:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

geo genius quiz

Tried I have to communicate my message about the geo genius quiz that you no longer include in your magazine monthly. Geo genius quiz was one of my favorite parts when receiving my monthly magazine. Why did you discontinue it and can you start it up again? Longtime subscriber I am. Please try to get it back. Sincerely Gerald Vassilatos 1502 Yelm Ave. Yelm, WA. 98597 or gdvassilatos@yahoo.com

 Gerald Vassilatos2601:603:4A7F:D869:D082:B433:8D88:8119 (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Why nationalized, why not multinational?

Why nationalized, why not multinational? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.114.61 (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Strange analysis

The article says "The magazine printed articles on Berlin, de-occupied Austria, the Soviet Union, and Communist China that deliberately downplayed politics to focus on culture".

It implies that National Geographic ought to have been writing about politics and that it therefore took some pro-active measures to "downplay" them. But politics isn't their main concern. You might as well say they downplayed football to focus on culture, or they downplayed postage stamps to focus on culture.

I have just read from my archive the article on China in the December 1971 issue. It mostly focusses on how people lived in China in 1971, written by Canadian/US authors who had earlier on lived there and spoke the language. The politics are sort of mentioned a bit.

One should not forget that - in my view - the politics are only the tool, framework, mechanism if you like. They are NOT an end in itself. How you live (communal apartments like in the Soviet Union, easy availability of food and education?) that's the measuring stick. What's the use of having a flawless political system if you are faced with homelessness, hunger, cold etc?.

Why are people so often fixated on 'the politics', not on what the politics deliver? The gridlock between Dems and Reps in the US is a paralysis of the politics - and nobody seems to mind today, on another day of shutdown. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:44FA:E00:C314:75D5 (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

They didn't deliberately downplay any of these things - they just published on the areas they happened to be concerned with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.0.56 (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't imply that at all (especially since WP and other encyclopedias do not offer any form of "ought" opinion, on anything, and encyclopedia readers know that). It neutrally implies a distinction between what NG was publishing versus what was typical politicized fare in other major American magazines like Life and Time. The football analogy is broken, because most news and editorial publishers were not dwelling on football when writing about the USSR, the PRC, or WWII-era Germany and Austria, but on politics and on war with the Allies or (later) potential for war with NATO. This may not be obvious to someone who is under 40 or so, and wasn't around for at least the tail end of the Cold War and all the Red Menace thinking that covered American thinking like a blanket of fog. If you think NG's apolitical approach was some sort of happenstance rather than an intentional editorial position, you're quite mitaken; it was a major selling point of the publication, and one of the reasons it has such a high reputation (or did; I don't know if it still does). Anyway, perhaps some minor copyediting could make this material a little clearer, if anyone could plausibly get the wrong impression that WP is passing judgement for lack of politicization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we disregard as an "off-topic conspiracy theory" this elephant — or gigantic fox — in the room?

I have enjoyed old National Geographic magazines since they were highlights of visits to my grandmother's house circa 1953. I didn't reach my limit as a collector until I was offered a complete set from the late 1800s to the 1960s for $100 and realized I'd have to rent a bigger place if I bought them. But it was a close call! It's also relevant that I was involved in the print media from the late 1960s to the early 2000s, including a long stretch of freelancing regularly for Random House, the New York Times, and the pre-Murdoch Wall Street Journal. In recent years I've seen up close and personal the malign effect of the Murdoch empire on the press and society in America, Britain, and Australia. And I remember well hearing about how Murdoch's takeover of the National Geographic was soon followed massive layoffs, including the firing of fact-checkers. The Murdoch Effect is by any yardstick one of the major events in the history of print and broadcast media, its seismic effects during recent decades second only to those of the web. Australian newspapers owned by Murdoch (virtually every newspaper in the country) are currently agitating for more coal mines in Queensland with a breathtaking ferocity and a reckless disregard for facts — e.g., they offer no substantive information about the environmental laws being tossed aside in the approval process, while they mercilessly hound politicians who don't cave in fast enough and abjectly enough to the coal industry. Does anyone really believe that this same company can be trusted to tell Geographic readers about the beautiful endangered ecosystems of Queensland's Great Dividing Range, its unique but dying Great Barrier Reef, or its vast ancient underground aquifer, all now threatened by the coal industry's wild growth? Whoever dismisses a well-documented controversy that goes to the very heart of the subject of an important article as an "off-topic conspiracy theory" should perhaps take a refresher course in Wiki-editing. (I defer to people with more current knowledge to fix the article's misleading silence on this aspect of the subject's recent history.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.159.97 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Educational value

Disregard

 – Off-topic personal value judgement about the subject.

Until recently I subscribed to the English language (US edition?)of the magazine . I had regarded it as something of a resource ,particularly for the younger family members . But when a 10 yr old nephew , who had been reading a copy , asked me what a "feet" was I realised the inconsistency and confusion I was promoting . New Zealand almost exclusively uses the metric system and children have been taught this for around 40 years so even the parents are not conversant with the old imperial/us units . Most of the articles seemed to be in the old units and unless there was an "international" English edition available , I decided that the educational value of the magazine was limited . (SM527RR (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SM527RR (talk • contribs) 03:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool story bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.19.180 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nat Geo uses the Imperial system apparently, that doesn't even begin to affect their credibility, all your bitching does is make you look like a petulant child with nothing better to do than whine about measurement systems. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And see WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. This has nothing to do with improving this Wikipedia article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that exposure to systems of units other than the metric monoculture is educational in itself. It was a teaching moment for the nephew and for the adult. Non-metric systems of units are part of our world heritage!  :-) 142.105.159.178 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bulgarian Muslims from Rhodopes (1932).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)