|WikiProject Children's literature||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Magazines||(Rated Start-class)|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Janechow610.|
Jellyfish link updated to Web Archive
A Wikipedia contributor has deleted 2 links from this page:
http://www.magforum.com/glossies/teen.htm which is a summary of 50-odd teen magazines in the UK since the early 1960s.
http://www.jellyfishmag.com this links to the first UK digital magazine for teenage girls. It follows the advent of Monkey, a digital lad's mag from Dennis, last year and marks an interesting innovation in publishing.
The contributor did not explain why these 2 links have been added.
I have asked for them to be reinstated (23 May 2007).
220.127.116.11 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you check the page history (the tab at the top of the screen) you can see who edited the article, and why (if they have provided an edit summary; not everyone does!). I've also looked at your talk page - Corpx (the editor who removed the links) seems to think they were spam, which in the Wikipedia context is any link to a site that is trying to sell or promote something. I've looked at the link you give on your talk page (www.magforum.com/glossies/teen.htm), and it seems to be ok to me... if you want to make a case for keeping it, it's probably best to contact Corpx on their talk page here. Many busy editors may not realise that you have replied to them on your own talk page - it's generally best to reply on theirs ;)
- You could also just add the link back in and leave a comment on this talk page justifying why you have included it. Be bold! BTW, I noticed that you've been editing for a while. Have you considered creating an account? EyeSereneTALK 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reinstated the Jellyfish link (you do not have to sign up to look at a copy) and added some context. Dennis says it is sending out 209,612 copies of Monkey a week - more than Zoo sells (204,564, weekly) and more than Maxim's circulation (131,497, monthly). So far, it looks as if the page-turning model can work; Jellyfish is the test outside the fleshy men's sector. This is an evolutionary step in the teen sector, magazine publishing as a whole and digital media. Have also toned down the Anglo-US-centricity. Wiki links added to Fleetway and Dennis.
I have made a small attempt to section the article, without changing the content in any way. Feel free to amend as you see fit ;) BTW, the numbers quoted above would be a nice addition - do you have references for them? EyeSereneTALK 17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are you talking shit????people want to see the contents page of teen magazines!!!! they dont wanna read alot of information!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
NPOV issue with Criticisms section
Reading over the criticisms sections, I feel that there are some NPOV issues with the section. While many of the criticisms expressed in the section with regard to the mags sexual advice/content have indeed been leveled against teen mags in general, it is not true that the criticisms expressed are universally shared. A lot of the concerns with the sexual content of teen mags are more of an American (and to some degree British, Canadian, and Australian) criticism rather then a worldwide viewpoint. Continental Europe, for example, tends to be less anti-teen sex, focusing more on teen pregnancy prevention and not viewing teen sex as inherently wrong or bad. Americans tend to view teen sex as either outright wrong with abstinence as acceptable solution vs those who accept teen sex as inevitable but undesirable and so reluctantly give out info on birth control/std prevention with viewing abstinence as the best solution. As such, I doubt European countries as a whole would sexual content of American teen mags as problematic or harmful to teens other then maybe the issue of mixed messages or the fact that they don't focuses enough on pregnancy prevention and safer sex. My suggestion for fixing the section would be 1) to be clearer that these criticisms are primarily a American viewpoint, 2) To be clear these are not universally held viewpoints in this country, 3) to be clear that while some studies have supported these criticisms we should not imply that these studies are the definitive final word on this issue, at least currently. --2601:644:480:D10:5CB8:E9DB:8BC0:BB6D (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)