Talk:Street newspaper

message: The link for - Upward, New York, New York, USA: USA, monthly, free to the homeless - doesn't work.  I searched for it using Ixquick.com, a metasearch engine.  I'll do more searches and see if something turns up, so I've left the link in place until further notice.  I've fixed the other links, I've not removed anything.
Roaming27 14:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: I did a major rewrite of this entry to make the language both more descriptive and neutral and bring the entry more fully up to date.  There were a number of links that had been added over the past three years that are updated annually in the referenced street paper directories, so the directory references were updated and redundant and out of date links eliminated.
Rchange 06:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite

message: Just found three sources, don't have time to look at them and integrate into the article yet, so listing them here so I can check them out later:
*
*
*
rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (striking out refs as I use them up) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three sources that look awesome 

message: I'm currently looking for a good lead image (preferably of a vendor); I e-mailed the copyright holder of this image on flickr and am keeping my fingers crossed.  If anyone looking at this article lives somewhere where you see vendors regularly (in my area the paper is quarterly and I don't go downtown much anyway), I would love you forever if you could snap a photo.
In the meantime I've put  up just to have something in that nice corner.  If I can find a picture, I'll probably switch that template out for  at the bottom (I find the main journalism template a bit big and ugly). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images? 

message: Was Yellow journalism  "created because the founders believed mainstream news did not cover issues that were relevant to ordinary people"? I thought yellow journalism was created to be sensationalistic and not to provide "relevant news" for  the welfare of ordinary people. Also, the Catholic Worker, an example you give of an early street newspaper, does not seem to fit the definitions you give of the organization and goals of the typical street newspaper. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one confound that makes the distinction confusing is that the definition I've given for "street newspaper" in this article refers really only to the papers started in the last 20 years or so (it's not a definition I've made up or anything; this is simply how every source I have accessed so far classifies them).  The 19th- and early 20th-century papers mentioned in the Historical section were not necessarily "street newspapers" per se, but the sources I've read do mention them as relevant predecessors to today's street newspapers, which is why I included them in the article even though they don't fit the same model as the papers today.  If the Catholic Worker mention here is problematic I can probably copyedit it out, since I don't think the source says a whole lot about it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right. The earlier papers, eg the Catholic Worker and others, were started for more overtly political agendas than purely the welfare of the homeless. I doubt, although I do not know, that the Catholic Worker sought to include the homeless as writers, or in other ways into their organization, as you suggest modern street newspapers are doing. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

text: how does this compare to NP gleaning, where larger papers purposely print more copies than they can sell, to give extras to homeless in underpasses, who sell them for profit?  I know Houston Chronicle does this, to the benefit of increased readership numbers to report to advertizers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.78 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow journalism 

message: The article says, "Since 1989, the concept has spread to include at least 100 papers[15] in over 30 countries." So this would be an average of three newspapers per country. Then the next statement is "In 2008, an estimated 32 million people worldwide read street newspapers, and 250,000 poor, disadvantaged, or homeless individuals sold or contributed to them." That is a big jump. Next, the article says, "By the 21st century, street papers had been started in many major cities worldwide.[17] There are now street newspapers in Canada; in European nations, including France, Russia, Germany,[note 3] and Sweden ..." etc. This just needs to be smoothed out a little, so the numbers match up better, or are accounted for without strange juxapositions, I think. Actually, I have an idea, which I will try out, and you can revert if you do not like. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's definitely not an average of 3 per country; lots of countries have just one real street newspaper (at least, only one that's big enough for anyone to know or care about), whereas others (like the US and Germany) have tons.  The total numbers reported in most of these sources are, as far as I know, based mostly on the membership of INSP (the International Network of Street Papers), which would make them all underestimates...but they're the only numbers I have ever been able to find. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I realize that. I reworded it to account for the escalation, hopefully OK with you.  —Mattisse (Talk) 22:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit looks good; now it's more specific that these numbers are all from different years and are specific to those years (whereas my previous wording might have suggested that these are all the honest-to-goodness final figures). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: ::The article would benefit from more concrete information. Too bad there aren't articles on some street newspapers. Just superficially looking, there does not seem to be much available. That link you gave above could possibly be parleyed into an article or so.  —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can try taking a look back through some of the book sources.  I have been wary about including a lot of hard data on anything, since a lot of these sources are from the mid/late 90s and numbers from back then would probably be meaningless...if those sources do have numbers, I may have just glossed over them last time I read through, and only taken the more general information.  I might be able to look some more over the weekend. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The recent NYT　report I just added to the article also has this interesting little thing (an "audio slide show", pretty much the same information as the article itself but with pictures, and it has some vendors talking about stuff):
*
Wasn't sure if it's appropriate or not to include as an external link (and I'm not sure if this link is permanent), so I'm just sticking it here for now.  Any thoughts? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  EL 

message: I changed all the references to "individuals" to "people," and someone else reverted because they didn't like that. "People" is the plain-English term for multiple human beings. "Individuals" is corporate/legal/nonprofit jargon. It is only necessary when making a distinction such as "individuals and groups" or "individuals and businesses."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.86 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on the context.  If you have an article where you say "homeless people," "poor people", "these people", over and over again (as your edit did), it comes across as condescending and distancing.  "Individuals" is not just corporate/legal jargon, it's also regular usage and simple to understand.  If you think it's being overused, the appropriate measure is to go through and selectively replace some occurences with synonyms, where it doesn't really change the tone; simply doing a global find-and-replace to replace every instance with "people" makes the article no better than it was before, and possibly makes it worse. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that it is distancing to call people "people," particularly in comparison to "individuals," then I doubt there will be much room for me to advance my point of view about this article. I will just count my blessings that at least it's not "persons."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.86 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Individuals are People

message: Like:  Lee Stringer - Grand Central Winter 1998, "Grand Central Winter":
??--Siebzehnwolkenfrei (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you're asking. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: relevance and collection für bibliogafie?