Talk:National Geographic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Educational value[edit]

Disregard
 – Off-topic personal value judgement about the subject.

Until recently I subscribed to the English language (US edition?)of the magazine . I had regarded it as something of a resource ,particularly for the younger family members . But when a 10 yr old nephew , who had been reading a copy , asked me what a "feet" was I realised the inconsistency and confusion I was promoting . New Zealand almost exclusively uses the metric system and children have been taught this for around 40 years so even the parents are not conversant with the old imperial/us units . Most of the articles seemed to be in the old units and unless there was an "international" English edition available , I decided that the educational value of the magazine was limited . (SM527RR (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SM527RR (talk • contribs) 03:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.19.180 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nat Geo uses the Imperial system apparently, that doesn't even begin to affect their credibility, all your bitching does is make you look like a petulant child with nothing better to do than whine about measurement systems. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And see WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. This has nothing to do with improving this Wikipedia article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that exposure to systems of units other than the metric monoculture is educational in itself. It was a teaching moment for the nephew and for the adult. Non-metric systems of units are part of our world heritage!  :-) 142.105.159.178 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we disregard as an "off-topic conspiracy theory" this elephant — or gigantic fox — in the room?[edit]

I have enjoyed old National Geographic magazines since they were highlights of visits to my grandmother's house circa 1953. I didn't reach my limit as a collector until I was offered a complete set from the late 1800s to the 1960s for $100 and realized I'd have to rent a bigger place if I bought them. But it was a close call! It's also relevant that I was involved in the print media from the late 1960s to the early 2000s, including a long stretch of freelancing regularly for Random House, the New York Times, and the pre-Murdoch Wall Street Journal. In recent years I've seen up close and personal the malign effect of the Murdoch empire on the press and society in America, Britain, and Australia. And I remember well hearing about how Murdoch's takeover of the National Geographic was soon followed massive layoffs, including the firing of fact-checkers. The Murdoch Effect is by any yardstick one of the major events in the history of print and broadcast media, its seismic effects during recent decades second only to those of the web. Australian newspapers owned by Murdoch (virtually every newspaper in the country) are currently agitating for more coal mines in Queensland with a breathtaking ferocity and a reckless disregard for facts — e.g., they offer no substantive information about the environmental laws being tossed aside in the approval process, while they mercilessly hound politicians who don't cave in fast enough and abjectly enough to the coal industry. Does anyone really believe that this same company can be trusted to tell Geographic readers about the beautiful endangered ecosystems of Queensland's Great Dividing Range, its unique but dying Great Barrier Reef, or its vast ancient underground aquifer, all now threatened by the coal industry's wild growth? Whoever dismisses a well-documented controversy that goes to the very heart of the subject of an important article as an "off-topic conspiracy theory" should perhaps take a refresher course in Wiki-editing. (I defer to people with more current knowledge to fix the article's misleading silence on this aspect of the subject's recent history.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.159.97 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of National Geographic map to divide the Korean peninsula?[edit]

According to the Division of Korea article, "On 10 August 1945 two young officers – Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel – were assigned to define an American occupation zone. Working on extremely short notice and completely unprepared, they used a National Geographic map to decide on the 38th parallel as the dividing line." Unfortunately the sentence includes no citation, though. JezGrove (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Geographic&oldid=1076750527"