Talk:National Geographic Society

The article says "In 1995, National Geographic began publishing in Japanese, it's first local language edition." I seem to remember a Spanish language version already around in the 1970s... or does that not count as Spanish is not a "local" language (whatever that phrase means)? Also, I recall that the magazine had a children's publication long before 1984, but don't reall what it was called. -- Infrogmation 12:54, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I found the older children's publication I recalled; it was "National Geographic School Bulletin"; I've added that info the article. I'm still looking for info on the older Spanish language publication. -- Infrogmation 19:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alexander graham bell says hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.131.185 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Persian (Iranian) Anger with National Geographic

I have reverted some recent additons regarding the government of Iran's anger with National Geographic naming conventions. Understand this is not to quash any mention of them, but rather because the additions included accusitory and speculative material. Please write in accordance with Wikipeida NPOV. If you have proof the National Geographic was is being bribed with "Arab petrodollars" post it, otherwise don't speculate on motive. Note that the article as it stands now includes a link to the site discussing the question in detail. -- Infrogmation 20:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've cursorily looked into the matter, and it seems to be a pretty hot dispute, leading to the banning of National Geographic in Iran [1]. The Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf dispute seems to stem from the two names for the Gulf in the Persian and Arabic languages, respectively (see Persian Gulf#Naming Issues). The name "Persian Gulf" is more widely used in the West and may be the older term, but "Arabian Gulf" is in wide use throughout the Arab world and is the only legal name in some places like the United Arab Emirates, so the claim that it is a "fake name" is unsubstantiated. It seems National Geographic didn't want to take sides in the dispute, and listed "Arabian Gulf" as an alternative. However, for the islands, it seems National Geographic has already conceded these points and intends to correct them in future versions [2]. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 23:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this dispute takes up far more space on the page than it demands. It deserves mention -as do other disputes which must certainly have come up in the last 100+ years- but not that much. Doing an internet search on the "National Geographic" you have to go pretty far before you come across any mention of the issue. It may seem vitally important to those who were offended, but as far as the Geographic's history is concerned, it's just not a big deal. Swegner 17:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it, because the way it was written suggested it was inserted by an Iranian nationalist with an axe to grind; any time a a cartographer tries to label disputed territories, someone's not going to be happy, and the Iranian government may have used a map not labeled to their liking to whip up anti-American propaganda. Nevertheless, the incident might be worth mentioning in the context of other controversies. For example, the US version of the magazine switched to using the metric system only, which annoyed some of its provincial readers. If we can come up with several noteworthy examples, a Controversies section might be a good idea. However, I'd hardly think of the staid old NGS as controversial. ProhibitOnions 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

When was NGC launched?

I am having doubts about the year. Is it January 2001 or before that? --Oblivious 02:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was launched 01/01/01 Swegner 16:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The National Geographic Channel internationally launched earlier in the Fall of 1997. The National Geographic Channel launched in the United States in January, 2001.

Trademarks

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for trademarks on the phrase "Yellow Border" gives no results. The border on the magazine may be trademarked, but the phrase "Yellow Border" isn't. Therefore, it is inappropriate to capitalize the name and put an ® after it. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 18:07 (UTC)

The "Yellow Border" IS a registered trademark

The "Yellow Border" is a registered trademark at the USPTO. It is not a word mark, that is why you don't find it on the USPTO search, when you look for the name. And the NGS uses "Yellow Border" as a name to refer to the border, so I don't see why you keep reverting.

To Infrogmation: Yes, I DID read this page BEFORE, and the argumentation of Carnildo's segment above is crap.

Don't put the registered trademark symbol, since it is not a word mark, but keep the capitalization, because "Yellow Border" is a name used by NGS, and it is correct and appropriate to capitalize. And YES, it IS a compound noun made up of an adjective AND a noun. 2004-12-29T22:45Z June 28, 2005 19:56 (UTC)

Yes, it is a compound noun. But as used in the sentence, it is not a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalized. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)

It is a proper noun. National Geographic uses it as a proper noun. They themselves use it as a proper noun, and they capitalize it. I put the capitalization so the reader realizes that the NGS uses it as a proper noun. That's the reason. To me it makes sense to capitalize it. NGS capitalizes it, too.

And in that specific sentence where the expression is, right now it is not used as a proper noun, because it is not capitalized, but it can be used as a proper noun. It would be totally correct to capitalize it. Right now the sentence says "its characteristic yellow border". It would be totally correct to capitalize and say "Yellow Border" instead of "yellow border", and it would make it clear to the reader of the article that "Yellow Border" is used as a name to refer that specific border. It is not just any yellow border (there are many of those), it is the "Yellow Border".

Even if you put the possessive adjective "its" instead of the definite article "the" in front of the expression "Yellow Border", it is still a proper noun.

You can clearly say "its Yellow Border", and it would be correct and appropriate, and the reader would see that that yellow border has a name. It's called "Yellow Border". And it's not redundant or predictable. It could have another name, too. It's not called the "Golden Border", or the "Rectangular Yellow Border", or the "Yellow Frame", or something like that. It's called the "Yellow Border".

If you still don't like using the name "Yellow Border", you can put "Yellow Border" between quotation marks or italicized to make it clear that the expression is used by the National Geographic Society but not by you, the writer of the article. The sentence would read, "It has become one of the world's best-known magazines and is immediately identifiable by its characteristic Yellow Border [...]", where "its" refers to the magazine, and then the reader would realize that "Yellow Border" is the expression used to refer to that particular yellow border. 2004-12-29T22:45Z June 28, 2005 20:31 (UTC)

The fact that NGS uses a capitalized version to refer to their yellow border would probably be best mentioned as an aside rather than adopted as the exclusive way to refer to it in this article. Strictly speaking, if we accept that it's a proper noun we could (and a strict pedant might say we would have to) make a statement like "The Yellow Border is, in fact, a yellow border". There's nothing factually wrong with referring to the magazine's yellow border, in lowercase, because that's what it is. In particular, I think it would be more in line with an encyclopedia article to use a descriptive term and mention the more unwieldy proper name once or at most occasionally. siafu 29 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Well stated; I agree. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 22:50 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about using "Yellow Border" as an "exclusive way to refer to it in this article". I was talking about that particular sentence. The argument about the "exclusive way" doesn't make any sense, because the "Yellow Border" is only mentioned once in the article, and that's the only sentence that talks about the topic. I also didn't say that it's wrong to say "yellow border" instead of "Yellow Border". What I say is that it would be more specific to say "Yellow Border" instead of "yellow border". That's the point. And I don't think it's "unwieldy" to mention the proper name if you put it in quotation marks, because the reader would understand it anyway. Mentioning the proper name would ad more information. That's it. 2004-12-29T22:45Z June 30, 2005 01:50 (UTC)

NGS uses "Yellow Border" in its copyright/trademark statements, not in general use, if my Google search of their site is any indication:

• Sandy McGovern, President of National Geographic Channels Worldwide, said, “National Geographic prides itself on its visual imagery and in this campaign we have successfully wed National Geographic’s unique images and its signature yellow border'..." [3]

• A passport only gets you past the gates. For 108 years the magazine with the yellow border has taken you much farther, measuring the scope, revealing the details, and taking the pulse of our world. []

• National Geographic for Kids will be only the second Society magazine to wear the famous yellow border. Like National Geographic magazine whose look it mirrors, the classroom magazine... []

The phrase "yellow border" is not a compound proper noun, but a simple descriptive phrase. The capitalization adds nothing, isn't standard use, doesn't seem to be used by the NGS in outside the trademark/copyright page, and ought to be dropped pronto. --Calton | Talk 30 June 2005 04:53 (UTC)

I agree with siafu, above. Why not change the sentence "This distinctive yellow border is a registered trademark of National Geographic." to something like "National Geographic has registered this distinctive yellow border as a trade mark, and even capitalizes the name Yellow Border within its pages." —Michael Z. 2005-07-8 07:01 Z

Because they only, as near as I can tell, capitalize "Yellow Border" in the copyright/trademark statements? --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the reader would automatically assume, based on a sentence like "identifiable by its characteristic Yellow Border", that Yellow Border was a trademarked phrase. Sure, some might realize that, but many might just wonder what was up with your SHIFT key, or wouldn't think about it either way. I think, if the fact that they've trademarked "Yellow Border" is something you feel would be worth noting in the article, note it specifically; otherwise, just call it a "yellow border". Capitalizing it without explicitly explaining the unusual capitalization is odd to me. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Bold text==Legal status of the Society== It would be nice if someone could indicate what legal status the National Geographic Society has. Is it a non-profit organization? For-profit? Where is it based? Who controls it? Does it have a leader or a board of directors? If so, how are they appointed or elected? —Psychonaut 12:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The Society is a 501 (c) (3) not-for-profit. It does have wholly owned taxable subsidiaries, including National Geographic Ventures, which contains is film and television units. It is governed by a 20+ person Board of Trustees, who are under the current Bylaws nominated and elected by the Board of Trustees for up to two six year terms.

Society "Links"

The inside scoop thing for kids is a fake. Wikipedia wants someone to write the article. Anyone avaliable?

an "Criticism to NGC"-paragraph

Shouldn't there be a criticism to the society paragraph, summarising the criticm aimed at the society in its history to make in more non-pov? like the iran criticism, and the criticism that after september 11th it lost part of of its neutral pov stance. (e.g. the chavez article a few months ago).. I realise i need sources, but i thought i would launch the question first 145.69.42.253 10:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Romanista 10:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, somebody must criticize National Geographic for publishing advertisement from companies like Beyond Petroleum.

They are also suspected of improper practices in the Gospal of Judas affair where they marketed the most pathetic translation in history as absolute fact...funny how anything that is liberal doesn't get much criticism around here! hahaha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.158.55 (talk • contribs)

Cold War

"During the Cold War, the magazine committed itself to presenting a balanced view of the physical and human geography of nations beyond the Iron Curtain. The magazine printed articles on Berlin, de-occupied Austria, the Soviet Union, and Communist China that deliberately downplayed politics to focus on culture. In its coverage of the Space Race, National Geographic focused on the scientific achievement while largely avoiding reference to the race's connection to nuclear arms buildup."

I added this, but I fear that it is original research. Should it be removed? Fishal 06:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like simple observation of facts to me. Something the radical right and neocons will never understand is that the key to intelligence is the understanding of the people and the culture they live in. Any intelligence not based on such, or worse, based on stereotypes, is just plain quackery, and always leads to wrong conclusions and dangerous situations. May the soldiers Bush, Blair and Murdoch sent to die in Iraq haunt their souls for eternity. 71.38.183.227 (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it has been removed. It seems a reaonable statement, but you have to have references to verify it, otherwise it is OR and POV. For all I know the NG did the exact opposite of what is claimed by "Fishal". --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hubbard Medal

This section appears wholey redundant to the Hubbard Medal article. I suggest we remove this section and add the link to the "see also" section. Rklawton 03:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Veils and Daggers: A Century of National Geographic's Representation of the Arab World"

I'd like to incorporate some of the content of this book to the article:

Veils and Daggers: A Century of National Geographic's Representation of the Arab World

Any suggestions? Kitrus (talk)

Not having read the book, it's difficult to say. Powers ^T 15:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

For those interested, here is a userbox to set up for placement on your userpage.

This user is a member of the National Geographic Society.

--PremKudva^Talk 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Should this topic have a controversial section?

There is very strong evidence that the National Geographic Society has actively engaged in fraud on several occasions. There is further evidence they have engaged in smear campaigns against certain inviduals.

In 1908 and 1909, NGS engaged in a smear campaign against Cook, concerning his claimed climb of Mt. McKinley and subsequent claims of travelling to the North Pole. Even though it does appear Cook was a fraud, the activity of the NGS was fairly despicable.

In 1909, Peary claimed to have reached the North Pole. This is highly unlikely. He very likely did not come within 50 miles of the pole. In 1989/90, NGS "investigated" the controversy and unanimously agreed that Peary was within 4 miles of the pole. This is patently absurd and given the NGS involvement with Cook/Peary, it appears they are still trying to save face.

In 1926, Robert Byrd claimed to have flown to the North Pole. It was a hoax perpetuated by Byrd. The NGS appears to have participated in this fraud. They gave Byrd their gold medal before finishing the examination of his data.

In 1999, National Geographic Magazine published a piece on the Archaeoraptor fossil. The fossil turned out to be a hoax. Early on, there were concerns raised about the fossil, but it's unclear if NGS was informed and if so, when. Ss soon as the article was published, Storrs Olson, of the Smithsonian Institute, wrote an open letter raising concerns about the fossil. By January 2000, the fossil was proved false, but National Geographic Magazine did not publish a retraction until the October 2000 issue.

I am not so concerned with minor viewpoint editorial issues (of which there are many, especially recently) but of fraud, hoaxes and dubious behavior involving the National Geographic Society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joewoodbury (talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

National Geographic Explorer as a TV Show?

The article says NGE launched in 2001 and somwhere renamed itself National Geographic for Kids. Assuming this is a print publication. However, wasn't there a TV show also by this name (National Geographic Explorer)? I seem to recall it aired on TBS in the 90s. Don't remember the host's name but I remember hearing he later died of cancer. Anyone know enough details to add this in? only in the opening titles and such did it say "National Geographic". any audio usually was just "Explorer" Dwp49423 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nov. 2007 Nat. Geog. Cover Article is "Memory" -- this is clearly not a topic that is consistent with the stated goals of the "official journal" as restated in 1998 by the editor. This topic ties in better with the "Naked Science" video series which is plugged on the same cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.127.128 (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Recycled Paper

The section on recycled paper is not cited and is inappropriate to a discussion of the organization as a whole. It serves merely to reinforce an environmentalist point of view. It has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.5.155.62 (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention under national geopgraphic publications of the wonderful series of encyclopedic volumes released btwn 1960 and 1990. referred to simply as special publications, these 7x10.5 inch books with wonderful photos and insightful writing are true collectors. they cover myriad subjects and regions. there must be upward of 100 volumes. can someone please shed some light on this series for the NG publications page? -- Mathewsen (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)matthew

When it was founded?

January 13th or January 27th? 200.38.97.163 (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Governance

The article is silent on the underlying legal form and governance of the "Society." The article states that there is a Board of Governors, but governors of what? Is it legally a C Corporation? A Foundation? A Trust? Or some other legal entity? Who exerts voting control? Shareholders? If so, who are they? Frankatca (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic Games

Should we include it since they're going to publish Afrika for the PS3 in North America? Ominae (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic Imaging

I would like to see an article and a link referring to National Geographic Imaging. It is arguably the best digital imaging facility in the US, servicing all of the images used by National Geographic Magazine. What nobody knows, is that 5 years ago this lab started offering its services to professional photographers outside of Nat Geo. Would anyone care to write an article on this? the link is www.NGIMAGING.com 206.136.32.219 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

National Geographic is the best thing ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.161.82 (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I added a section on "Criticism" with many sources (mostly books). I hope this will not be deleted (especially by representatives from National Geographic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.213.180 (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is a fair bit of weasel words, original research and improper synthesis in the new section. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Every single statement in the criticism section was backed up with an academic source. For books, this includes page numbers, which is often lacking in wikipedia. The passive voice, or "weasel words," are justified when followed by an academic source (it answers the question "who"). Not sure what you mean by "original research"; I did not write these books- I merely cited them. I have read wikipedia policy on "improper synthesis" and that is not the case either. Please explain.

Several users on this board have noted the need for a criticism section. Well-sourced statements have been deleted without explanation.

There is way more scrutiny being applied to the criticism section than any other part of the article which calls into question the article's (and editor's) neutrality. Criticism sections are standard parts of most wikipedia entries; no institution should be above that. The sources are scholarly books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.218.135 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your reference to "Some critics" is misleading. There is only one author who expressed this exact criticism. By using the word "some" you make it appear as if more than one persons have expressed the idea. This is exactly what a weasel word does. It misleads. You also reinstated the following section: Despite its non-profit status, National Geographic admits a somewhat commercial orientation. The Society serves nine million global members, and CEO John Fahey has himself stated, “Nonprofit means non-taxable—it doesn’t mean you don’t make a profit.” He adds, “We’re a billion dollar enterprise, but unlike most charities we don’t have to go begging for money.”

Did someone say "Despite its non-profit status, National Geographic admits a somewhat commercial orientation." Or is this your intro? I can't find this expression in the citation you provided. If this expression is not in the citation you synthesised the information to claim something that the original citation does not. In conclusion you use weasel words to make it appear that many scholars criticize NG when there are just a few Academics who wrote a few books who did that. The pedigree of these academics is also unknown. You also use synthesis as I described above to make your case against NG. The whole section is in my opinion hopelessly puffed-up. Also I don't know what you mean by scrutiny applied to the article since this article about National Geographic is as far from my interests as can be. I simply cannot stand WP:OR, WP:WEASEL and WP:SYNTH when I see them. That's all. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 01:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral?

The article reads like an advertisement for NGS mentioning all its products including its "toys and games." The flags added to the "criticism" section do not make sense and indicate the entry is biased towards the NGS viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.218.135 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a POV tag until the criticism section is restored. At least 4 users on this page have called for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.125.20 (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding an equal amount of biased content does not make a neutral article. It might be better to rewrite the advertisementesque section instead of adding an equally bad criticism section. SDY (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section deleted

I see that the criticism section has been ENTIRELY deleted. This despite the fact that every sentence was backed with a scholarly source. After reading Wikipedia policy I understand the Dr.K.'s points better about weasel words and synthesis. However, these issues could have been corrected rather than deleting the ENTIRE section. The cruft about "Toys and Games" remains.

There are two possibilities: (1) The editor did this which is inappropriate or (2) an interested party, such as National Geographic did it. How do I report this?

I read a news article once how corporations and PR firms are dominating Wikipedia content by deleting critical information. But also how it is possible to track these efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.125.20 (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please relax. I corrected it and moved it to National_Geographic_(magazine)#Criticism where it was more appropriate. I am also glad that you understood my points about weasel words and WP:SYNTH. Have a look at the magazine section and let me know if you like it. Best. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 21:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. I was going to do something similar myself, but no need now. However, I think the section also belongs here for three reasons: (1) Most people associate NG with the magazine (2) at least 4 other editors have called for such a section on this talk page and (3) overall the article seems puffed-up and positively biased with out it. I would add that the {criticism-section} tag is hotly debated and there is no consensus behind it (see WP:CRITS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.125.20 (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comments and for your constructive edits. The criticism section IMO cannot appear in two articles because that would be redundant information and it is against WP:MOS. It also applies to the magazine and not the society. However if you have some reliable sources criticising the Society then by all means create another section here. For instance I read somewhere in the references you provided that the Society has been criticised as being dominated by a certain demographic of people. You can add this in here. But simply repeating the same criticism in two different places is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I also agree about your point regarding the {{criticism-section}} tag. But I left it because I think it can improve the article by making editors think about how to improve the flow of the article. You are, however, becoming a well-informed editor. Kudos :) Dr.K.^praxis_logos 01:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I am somewhat new here. I do not see anything in the MOS that says that similar criticism cannot appear in two different articles. Can you please point me to where it says this is frowned upon? I understand your point about the Society, but the two things are inextricable. IMO deleting the entire section, when many voices have called for it, is a worse sin (NPOV) than possibly being redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.125.20 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Summary_style#Levels_of_desired_details and Wikipedia:Summary_style#Keeping_summary_articles_and_detailed_articles_synchronised. Plus from practice it is considered really bad form to repeat identical sections in different articles. It is considered spamming. If my comments do not persuade you please ask a relevant question at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. As far as people asking for a criticism section I am sure they asked about a criticism section of the society and not of the magazine. In my opinion the article NPOV or lack of it does not depend on an irrelevant section to the article's subject matter. However you are free to ask this question also at the help desk or you can start a WP:RFC. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 01:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Plus I hope you realise that the expression "is frowned upon" is mine and not part of the policy. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 02:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not see anything in your references that supports that opinion. The part on synchronization states, "To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section."

I agree the criticisms of the Society and magazine should not be identical. There were elements of the criticism that applied to the Society that you deleted. I appreciate your edits of the magazine part, but you could have kept the Society part or adapted them. Please respect the deletion policy and do not delete unnecessarily. I am now hesitant to (re-)draft this section for fear of deletion. Perhaps this is why Wikipedia is losing so many editors. Please do not delete a future criticism section without a third opinion.

Please do not adopt this tone when you address other editors including, of course, me. The material I deleted from your criticism came from very dubious sources. They were from the website of a family and not from a scholarly source. Do not lecture other editors about respecting policies if you do not provide reliable sources. You must realise that in Wikipedia we treat unreliable sources as undesirable and we delete their info on sight. Far from not respecting Wikipedia's policies I enforce them by deleting inappropriate and non-academic sources. This is my edit where I removed your criticism of the society diff and your reference Whiteness: The Hidden Center which is hosted on the website of the <!name redacted as a courtesy> family, which features the picture of two donkeys for good measure, obviously not an academic source but a family blog. The material you inserted comes from A Critique of "National Geographic; 100 Best Pictures"Final Project for Race and Representation by <!name redacted as a courtesy>, obviously some high school project by one of the members of the family. I wouldn't call this a reliable source. Please refer to our policies of WP:RS and WP:V. Also if you do not understand that identical criticism sections should not be pasted on two different articles per WP:SUMMARY please ask someone else to explain further. I think I am done here, especially since my good faith attempts at explaining the policies of Wikipedia are met with suspicion and lecturing. I do not enjoy this kind of discourse. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 03:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to offend anyone. I have edited the "Criticism" section so it is more applicable to the Society. The two sections are no longer identical. I also added a hatnote which links to the Magazine article. Really any criticism of the Magazine is criticism of the Society, so this is kind of splitting hairs, but I do see your point. Thanks for deleting the unreliable source. 88.74.207.183 (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is when you search Wikipedia for "National Geographic" it leads to this page even though that is the name of the magazine. So the magazine article is 'hidden' in that respect. If you know a way to fix this, perhaps with a disambiguation page, perhaps that is a solution.

I've added a hatnote to the magazine. SDY (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 03:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of National Geographic as a CIA Cover?

This week's declassification of "Project Azorian: The Story of the Hughes Glomar Explorer", Studies in Intelligence, Fall 1985. (SECRET/NOFORN to Unclassified (but redacted)) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb305/index.htm seems to open up a whole series of questions concerning the use of National Geographic historically, if not currently, as a means of cover for intelligence ops.

From page 9 of "Project Azorian...":

4. Engineering Concept Selected

By late July 1970, the heavy-lift concept was clearly the favored system to develop for the recovery mission. From that time on, it was given full attention by all appropriate parties (redacted) gave the formal authorization to concentrate studies on the heavy-lift method on 11 September 1970 during a briefing at the Pentagon.

As the engineering concept was being formalized, a deep-ocean mining cover story was beginning to take form to explain all the project activities, particularly those planned for at-sea operations.

Also on page 11:

(approximately two linear pages of redaction, followed on page 11 by:)

As mentioned previously, a deep-sea mining venture was to be used as the cover story for this operation. To support this theory, a mining device would be constructed which could be handled by the surface ship and mated into it's center well. A submersible dry dock was also planned to complete the system (redacted).

Keeping in mind National Geographic's glowing coverage of the idea of exploiting the riches of the seabed, in particular magnesium nodules (worthless), and iirc, coverage of the Glomar Explorer and it's intent to do such. National Geographic also seemed to have been the mentioned cover story, given it's unique access to the equipment, and it's underwater "mining equipment" in supposed action.

Keeping in mind it's relentless coverage of DSRVs in the 1970's-1990's with similar misinformational zeal, while recalling the declassification and confessions of key players (Ballard, et al), many of which were featured in such misinformation pieces.

Although this question/topic for discussion might tend to be taboo with certain people who will claim it would reveal intelligence sources/methods to even discuss this, it's really starting to look very obvious that National Geographic has been a participant, sometimes even fervently so, on deep cover operations time and time again. The two examples I cite here are only examples of a much larger body of evidence/coincidence.

The real questions to ask are:

1). Is National Geographic stock and trade part of the intelligence establishment?

2). Has National Geographic been duped repeatedly and consistently into legitimizing deep cover operations unwittingly?

3). Is National Geographic a tool used by contractors for (1) and (2) above in order to secure appropriations for their parts in such operations? Note advertisers going back as far as one wants to go in the past issues.

4). Are there current misinformation / cover operations going on? Interesting affiliation and timing of the affiliation with Rupert Murdoch, the King of Disinfo. (The statement "King of Disinfo" is an official quote from the President of the United States of America, I can't see how that is POV at all).

There are many many more examples of what I question. The two I give are high-profile, and well known.

No doubt this discussion topic will be deleted by one of the radical neocon watchers here.

A discussion of this is germane to the topic of the National Geographic Society, but, if someone wants to label this as POV, would FOIA declassifications or very public leaks be enough for inclusion here?

71.38.183.227 (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see wp:SOAPBOX --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for help identifying a documentary I saw as a child

I just asked this question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous, but I hope you will not mind if I post it here (and also at orangutan and maybe another page or two) since you would be the most knowledgeable editors on the question.

I am looking for help identifying a nature documentary I saw when I was a child. This was sometime in the mid-'90s, though it may have been made earlier than that. It follows the communal life of a particular group of orangutans in the wild.

Unfortunately, I can only remember one scene -- but if you saw it, you too would never forget it:

One of the orangutans is an infant, and he is being raised by his mother or perhaps his aunt. She carries him around piggy-back style, like most orangutans do. But the weird thing is, he never outgrows this, even as he grows into a large adolescent. He never permits her to put him down -- in fact, now he can force her to carry him. Then she gets polio. Carrying him saps her of her strength, and she dies. Without her, he too dies.

Thank you for your help. 160.39.220.66 (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)