Talk:Underground press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Old talk[edit]

This page just keeps getting better. Thanks folks!--Cberlet 18:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the link to Guardian (US) belongs in the Underground Press article; although leftist and radical papers like the Guardian, New Masses, PM, IF Stone's Weekly, etc., probably did influence many of the folks in the underground, these were never "underground" papers, in either the illegal or the coutercultural sense of the term. Maybe there needs to be a separate article about radical journalism, or some other category that can include those papers. Opinions? BTfromLA 20:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concur completely. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Guardian_(US) was both a direct historical precident and successor to the U.S. underground press of the 1960's. From the early days of the 1940's, it was directed toward an underground (leftist) audience while broadcasting information about the underground to the population at large. The Guardian's Old Left audience eroded, but the paper adapted and became a paper that was very much of the moment in the late 1960's. The Guardian was never actually illegal, but neither were the underground publications of the 1960's. The similarities to the 'new' underground papers should not be dismissed out of hand. The concerns were very similar, even if the Guardian was more political. We can agree to split out the more political radical press (like IF Stone's Weekly, which was directed toward journalists and intellectuals) , but the Guardian bridges both categories and should be included in both. Toward the end of its existence (1973 on) the paper was searching for its audience, but still outlasted most publications the upstart underground press by twenty years.

Finally, the similarities between the Guardian and the East Village Other are much greater than between the French Resistance and the U.S. underground press. The link to the French Resistance press is colorful and should be left in as a spark for discussion, but is actually much less relevant to the post-1945 US situation. DJ Silverfish 06:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • What about putting "leftist" papers in a Independent Press page?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.91.151 (talkcontribs) 26 Aug 2005

  • I appreciate your additional info about the Guardian. Thanks.
  • I suggest one of the following solutions, whichever seems most accurate: a.) Include the Guardian in the main text alongside the Village Voice and The Realist as influential precursors to the underground (all of which continued to publish during and after the rise and fall of the underground papers) or b.) add a sentence or two describing the politically oriented papers that intersected with the underground, including the Guardian. I'm hoping you know that aspect of the history better than I do--I don't have first hand experience with the Guardian, though I've certainly seen references to it; my impression is that it was nationally distributed, correct? I'm reluctant to simply categorize the Guardian (or the Voice) as underground papers--that seems confusing. But a narrative that places them in the context of the underground movement seems all to the good.
  • Of course the French Resistance link is only relevant because of its connection to earlier (and genuinely "underground") newspapers, not because of a connection to the sixties counterculture. BTfromLA 08:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Guardian was national.
  • My feeling is that it was a different sort of beast. I think that in the heyday of the underground press, the Guardian's readers were older, it was sold through different outlets (mainstream newsstands and by mail), and it never had the countercultural connection that characterized most of the underground press. (This last would also apply to Black Panther, but it shared distribution approach and readership with the typical undergrounds.) I think we do need an article on the more specifically political left press in the U.S. (and other countries: some may group together well, e.g. left press in Western Europe). U.S. would certainly include I.F. Stone, various party organs (the Daily Worker, the Militant, Freedom Socialist, etc.), Z magazine. Probably mention (but not focus on) related material like the current Air America on the radio, the Nation (which, again, seems to me to be yet another sort of beast), certainly Masses and New Masses from the early 20th century, possibly the early 20th century Yiddish-language socialist press. I think there could be a great article in all that, but it is definitely distinct from this one. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:41, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I wrote for the Guardian (US) and was on the board of the Underground Press Syndicate, and have written about the history of the underground, alternative, and political press in the U.S. The Guardian did not think of itself as part of the underground press of the 60s, but did participate in some joint activities, and did some other left political serials. The political left serials mentioned by Jmabel really form a distinct category, maybe Alternative press (U.S. political left) which would call up the idea of Alternative press (U.S. political right) in which would go Human Events, The Freeman, National Review, etc. And my personal favorite right-wing newsletter, Pink Sheet on the Left.--Cberlet 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to Jmabel and Cberlet—your comments confirm my original impression of the role of the Guardian, and it seems even clearer that the Alternative press (U.S. political left) (or whatever it comes to be called) article is well worth doing. A link to that can be provided from this page without muddying the definition of the underground movement, which always struck me as characterized by a certain distance--in both form and content-- from established political papers, even as there was always a sort of LSD vs. SDS tension among editors of the undergrounds with regard to the value of explicit political engagement (Abe Peck writes about this), and a spectrum of approaches to political coverage among them. BTfromLA 01:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I checked a number of secondary sources on the U.S. underground press, and several mention papers such as the BP and U.S. Guardian, but generally with caveats like we have here. So I think we are finding a useful path. I would like to keep the paragraph on this page, even if we create a page on Alternative press (U.S. political left). Would anyone mind if I created a stub? --Cberlet 13:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to contribute to the new Alternative press (U.S. political left) page. I'm gratified that my little addition has provoked so much discussion. DJ Silverfish 16:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge "Underground Newspapers" article?[edit]

There's a seperate article called underground newspapers which, far as I can tell, merely duplicates some of what's here. I suggest that become a redirect to this article. Thoughts? BTfromLA 18:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (This has been done: Anthony Appleyard 08:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)}

If there is a merge, please be aware that there were underground presses before the 1960s and 1970s, an example that comes to mind is Les Editions de Minuit, which published clandestinely during the second world war. Where would these go, on the underground press page or on the underground newspapers page? Since there was a Underground Press Syndicate, the most likely candidate to host the merged page would probably underground press. And the likes of Les Editions de Minuit could find there place on clandestine publishers. --Jahsonic 18:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we need a separate article about clandestine press in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II. But both this article and underground newspapers are currently about the "underground" press of the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there seems no difference between the intended scope of the articles. Merge. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you both--merge 'em now and make a separate article for WWII underground publications. But there's no reason why the WWII presses, the Soviet Samizdat publications and other underground presses can't be described in a brief overview of the concept on this page. If the larger history of underground presses grows expansive enough, we can revisit the issue of a separate article for the 60s papers. BTfromLA 01:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect appear to be complete. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:58, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

underground newspapers in USA[edit]

Will somebody please include "The Rag", Austin, Texas underground newspaper. It was one of the first and longest running. I know nothing about how to put it in Wikipedia. "The Rag" is going to be published again- http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2005-09-02/pols_feature3.html http://www.nuevoanden.com/rag/ http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2005/07/11/TopStories/After.30.Years.the.Rag.Comes.Clean-961580.shtml

-a Texan

This is already mentioned in the article, but the claim that it's being published again appears fales: all of the links talk about exhibitions and a "reunion" event related to the Rag, but I don't find anything about it being started up again. Even if true, that would deerve a parenthetical mention at best in the article. But the Rag was for real, and the online archive of the first issues deserves a link--I'll incorporate those into the article now. BTfromLA 20:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hack this Zine[edit]

I think the recently added external link to Hack this Zine is (moderately) off-topic, but I'd be interested in a second opinion. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Undeground press in other contexts[edit]

At the ver least we need an 'about' note above the lead about Samizdat and other underground presses such as the Dutch underground press (which together with other undergound press from WWII and other countries not from Eastern Euroe deserve a term of their own, I think).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

FBI[edit]

I'm amazed to see a section entitled 'List of FBI COINTELPRO "underground" news operations' with no citation, and consisting entirely of redlinks so there is absolutely nowhere to follow up and seek any citations. This needs to be cited or removed. - Jmabel | Talk 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The allegation first appears in this edit, which has a no meaningful edit summary, and was performed by an account whose only other Wikipedia edit ever was to the same passage.
  • At the time, I added italics, but didn't notice the questionable provenance of the passage.
  • It went into list form with this edit by User:Jreferee.
  • It became a section with this edit, which has a misleading edit summary, and was performed an account with exactly one other edit ever, also to this article.

- Jmabel | Talk 03:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I recognize that list. I wrote about some of these FBI media projects 20 years ago. It is my recollection that "Longhorn Tale" was proposed but never published. Let me poke around.--Cberlet (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I figured you were the single most likely Wikipedian to have something solid on this! - Jmabel | Talk 21:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EVOv2n1.jpg[edit]

The image Image:EVOv2n1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oz site[edit]

I've restored a link to the site containing scans of Oz, using the Internet Archive. Oz routinely carried a statement "The contents of OZ are not copyright. They may be reproduced in any manner, either in whole or in part, in any publication whatsoever—whether or not a member of UPS—without permission from the publishers. An acknowledgement would be appreciated. No rights reserved," so the site did not raise any copyright issues. I can't think of a reason not to link it: Oz was about as important an organ of the underground press as there has ever been. (UPS is the Underground Press Syndicate.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on this article[edit]

This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note:

  • The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
  • Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
  • If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT The only constant 18:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)