Jump to content

Talk:Popular Mechanics: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Address Errors: first couple edits
Line 57: Line 57:
* In the Editors section, the chart lists "No Editor" for "April 2021 – Present." Can it be changed to include Bill Strickland as the current editor?
* In the Editors section, the chart lists "No Editor" for "April 2021 – Present." Can it be changed to include Bill Strickland as the current editor?
** See here: https://muckrack.com/bill-strickland and https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/news/2022/11/roads-trails-and-a-world-class-track-why-the-lehigh-valley-is-a-cycling-mecca.html
** See here: https://muckrack.com/bill-strickland and https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/news/2022/11/roads-trails-and-a-world-class-track-why-the-lehigh-valley-is-a-cycling-mecca.html
*** {{done}} but is it definitely accurate that "Editorial Director" is synonomous with "Editor?" Any chance you can show that with a previous editor. (Also, I think Muckrack is essentially a self-published source, so I used the other source)
* On the side bar can the total circulation stat be replaced with "Total Audience: 15 million"?
* On the side bar can the total circulation stat be replaced with "Total Audience: 15 million"?
** See here: https://www.mediavillage.com/article/popular-mechanics-highlights-responsible-innovation-in-issue-guest-edited-by-apple-ceo-tim-cook/
** See here: https://www.mediavillage.com/article/popular-mechanics-highlights-responsible-innovation-in-issue-guest-edited-by-apple-ceo-tim-cook/
*** {{question}} How about splitting it to 5.69M print subs and 11.9M digital/social audience, as per http://www.popularmechanicsmediakit.com/r5/showkiosk.asp?listing_id=5975628&category_id=81366? The article is about impressions and the field here is specifically about "circulation"
* On the side bar under "Frequency," can "six per year" be changed to "Six print issues per year"? This is more accurate than what’s currently listed.
* On the side bar under "Frequency," can "six per year" be changed to "Six print issues per year"? This is more accurate than what’s currently listed.
** {{done}}
* In the second paragraph of the History section, Popular Mechanics is accidentally referred to as Popular Science. Could that be fixed??
* In the second paragraph of the History section, Popular Mechanics is accidentally referred to as Popular Science. Could that be fixed??
** {{done}}
* In the first paragraph of the History section, could this be added as the last sentence: "In 2020, Popular Mechanics relocated to Easton, PA, along with the additional brands in the Hearst Enthusiast Group (Bicycling and Runner’s World). In addition to serving as the headquarters for the Enthusiast media brands, the space also houses the Test Zone, a facility used for testing everything from tools to technology."
* In the first paragraph of the History section, could this be added as the last sentence: "In 2020, Popular Mechanics relocated to Easton, PA, along with the additional brands in the Hearst Enthusiast Group (Bicycling and Runner’s World). In addition to serving as the headquarters for the Enthusiast media brands, the space also houses the Test Zone, a facility used for testing everything from tools to technology."
** See here: https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton/2020/10/hearst-magazines-to-soon-move-its-enthusiast-group-into-easton-building.html
** See here: https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton/2020/10/hearst-magazines-to-soon-move-its-enthusiast-group-into-easton-building.html
*** {{partially done}} I see support for the move, but not the lab (and that also feels a little POV). Do you have another source too? I'll take a look as well.
* Within the criticisms section, could the second paragraph and the quote following it be removed as the "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry" is a fringe operation and given it’s not a trustworthy source? Additionally, the criticism connected to the 2020 UFO is now irrelevant after 4 years. Since the time of this criticism, the US government has released hundreds of pages of redacted documents on the topic of UFOs, held Congressional hearings on the subject, etc. Since 2020, Popular Mechanics itself has published many articles on the topic.
* Within the criticisms section, could the second paragraph and the quote following it be removed as the "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry" is a fringe operation and given it’s not a trustworthy source? Additionally, the criticism connected to the 2020 UFO is now irrelevant after 4 years. Since the time of this criticism, the US government has released hundreds of pages of redacted documents on the topic of UFOs, held Congressional hearings on the subject, etc. Since 2020, Popular Mechanics itself has published many articles on the topic.
* In the Awards section, could the following awards be added:
* In the Awards section, could the following awards be added:
Line 112: Line 117:


:Hi @[[User:Camillefrancis|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. -- [[User:FeldBum|FeldBum]] ([[User talk:FeldBum|talk]]) 21:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:Camillefrancis|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. -- [[User:FeldBum|FeldBum]] ([[User talk:FeldBum|talk]]) 21:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

::Did the first few @[[User:Camillefrancis|Camillefrancis]] and I had a few questions for you inline above. --

Revision as of 19:48, 7 June 2024

9/11 myth

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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. --
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Popular_Mechanics&oldid=1227785926"