Talk:Underground press

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Old talk

message: 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)
thread_title:  underground newspapers in USA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hack this Zine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Undeground press in other contexts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I figured you were the single most likely Wikipedian to have something solid on this! - Jmabel | Talk 21:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBI 

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:EVOv2n1.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oz site 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of non-free images on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Underground press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oztrading.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070416122911/http://www.lib.uconn.edu/online/research/speclib/ASC/exhibits/voices/ to http://www.lib.uconn.edu/online/research/speclib/ASC/exhibits/voices/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified