Yellow journalism was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 1, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Newspapers High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Media Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Military history: Historiography B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military historiography task force

I've added an explanation from the State Department's Office of the Historian to the page because it appears a much more convincing explanation than what is there. I haven't removed the paragraph about Wardman because that may well be the proximate explanation and I haven't read Campbell's somewhat older book. The Outcault story is of course repeated much further down the article.Chris55 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the anonymous unsourced simplified statements posted on the State Department website do not meet scholarly standards that are applied to articles in history journals. The question of Yellow Journalism has been studied in depth by historians and scholars of Journalism--Google Scholar giver 189,000 citations to scholarly journals and books to "Yellow Journalism". But it is not studied by the State Department, so we can't recommend it as a "reliable source" regarding public opinion. (Furthermore they never publish comments that are hostile to State Department policy). In any case when dealing with 1898, the final decisions were made in the White House and Congress, and not in the small State Department. Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I almost put the word "official" in quotes in my edit comment, and it might have been more appropriate. WP doesn't require academic (i.e. peer-reviewed) standards, only a "reliable source" and I hope that you would agree at least with that. I doubt that there's any need for political correctness in regard to this historical understanding. Chris55 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The State Department office in question handles only official communications to and from the State Department. It does not deal with the history of US newspapers--it is not official and the short passage in question was not prepared by an expert in US journalism. It appears to be the sort of item written by a summer intern. I do NOT consider it a "reliable" source on Yellow Journalism. Google Scholar and other guides to scholarship do not include it for non-diplomatic issues. We have thousands of reliable sources listed at Google Scholar for "yellow journalism Spanish American war" -- see this useful list of reliable sources Rjensen (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A better source^[1] discusses Outcault's comic, him being hired away by Hearst, Pulitzer finding a different artist to continue Hogan's Alley (the Yellow Kid comic), then says in the same paragraph: Now both newspapers had their splash of yellow, and the new style of journalism with which both of the papers were associated became known as "yellow journalism". But that's rather indirect to claim the term was because of the comic character. Schazjmd (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a major recent scholarly study by David M. Ball -- see summary Rjensen (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @DuncanHill, have you had a chance to review WP:Further Reading? It recommends keeping these sections short and recent and in reverse chronological order. Is there a reason I'm missing why maybe we should treat this article differently or maybe wait a little bit before doing the cleanup? Superb Owl (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed sources that references in the article use, causing reference errors. I restored them and have now separated these out into a Sources section. Clean up all you like, but be more careful about sources. DuncanHill (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying - did not know sources could be used in Further Reading - will keep an eye out for those reference errors going forward Superb Owl (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjensen - heads-up that I'd like to clean-up Further Reading again (reverse chronological order, making sure all sources are notable, seeing if any can be used in the article instead) and wanted to give you a heads-up Superb Owl (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In history articles like these the old studies (pre 2010) are important--unlike scientists, historians do not prioritize recent publications. Instead we assume that classic studies get read and reread by current students. That is also the reason historians never order their bibliographies chronologically. Rjensen (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and still think it is more relevant to the reader to have the most recent works at the top so they can quickly find which sources can speak to the specific relevancy of the topic to the present day. Superb Owl (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

relevance to 2024 is not a criteria. And the wp:Further reading states that it is "NOT one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Rjensen (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point but we still find ourselves agreeing to disagree on how to best organize these sections once again. I just do not find that a compelling reason to change the format for historical articles Superb Owl (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the reliable published secondary sources. Those in history do not sort bibliographies by date. They sort by author. In science you have multiple authors--five ten, fifty authors. THe "first author" means very little. The newest publication really matters in science, but not in history. (In history it takes several years to get a book published, and several years to write one. In science the timeline is in days not years.) In history you have usually one author and so "first author" is basic and it's best to group by author. Bottom line: please follow the reliable published secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjensen - it would be helpful to me if you could cite something concrete (other than the edits you just made on WP:Further reading) - I get this is your preference but, like you said, it's not policy. So I will wait to see if anyone else finds this section overwhelming (as I do) and would prefer to shorten it to between 3-5 sources that are most relevant to the subject (ie not too niche) Superb Owl (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok-- try taking the student's perspective. Google scholar indexes the published secondary scholarly literature (books, articles, academic reports etc) on "Yellow Journalism." It currently [lists 14,300 books and articles here]. what we have now is a VERY small selection about one per 1000. Are you recommending one per 3000??? The point about further reading is that all across the globe university students (and advanced secondary students) use our wikipedia bibliographies to select topics to write their class reports. They do not read all the articles but pick the topic that interests them most and acquire and read the 1 or 2 or 3 appropriate articles. (They have school librarians who can help them acquire copies.) If they start with google's 14,300 they will be hopelessly swamped. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen anywhere that the audience for Further reading was different than that of other sections on Wikipedia - still agree to disagree but appreciate your attempt to explain and elevate the discussion to the WP:Further reading page by making edits there Superb Owl (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lots of academics complain about students using Wikipedia for facts, but they approve of their using bibliographies. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure how this is relevant - open to the idea, just not yet understanding why we are prioritizing students over the average user Superb Owl (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here's some research suggesting Academics generally believe Wikipedia should only be used as a starting point for research, not as a primary source to cite in academic work. Let me quote one study of academics at Indiana University using wikipedia [online at https://gnovisjournal.georgetown.edu/journal/academics-views-and-uses-wikipedia/ "All the interviewees, except Jack, indicated that they use and encourage their students to use Wikipedia as a starting point in research."... "Mark is an assistant professor of early childhood education....he thinks that Wikipedia is a great tool for students when they use it as a starting point for their research. He believes that students should refer to more traditional resources when they are writing papers. However he finds it reasonable for students to start their research in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia articles provide links to academically reputable resources....Susan uses Wikipedia as a starting point for research. She thinks that Wikipedia stimulates further questions on the subject she is reading about and provides additional resources. However she thinks that Wikipedia should not be cited in a research article....Jerry is a professor emeritus of psychology....he sometimes refers to Wikipedia and follows the links to further resources provided at the end of the article. " Rjensen (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for discussions within this community that specifically highlight the importance of further reading being longer than usual for the purpose of helping students find sources. I much prefer to incorporate these topics into an article and let students cited from the references list instead of Further reading Superb Owl (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why we're having this conversation here - am only going to engage on this topic on the WP:Further reading page from now on Superb Owl (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a fresh lead that covers key points in the main text abou who, when, how, and why important. The old lead was pretty thin -- and had an irrelevant section of Checkbook journalism of the 21st century. That's is a different story entirely (and was not used by Pulitzer or Hearst and is not covered in the main text). Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my first read of the lede, I found this sentence confusing: "The English term is chiefly used in the US" because it is immediately followed by a sentence about a different term used in the UK. After puzzling it out, I guess "English term" is supposed to stand in juxtaposition to the next sentence about other languages that use a translation of the "yellow journalism" term. But "English" can mean either the English language or the country of England, so it's not entirely clear that the meaning isn't "The British term is chiefly used in the US" (especially on the first read).

My suggestion is to edit along these lines:

This term is chiefly used in American English, whereas in the United Kingdom, the similar term tabloid journalism is more common. 2600:100A:B1C8:9A7:0:9:DB37:1801 (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your suggestion is clearer, I've implemented it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone agree that it should be pointed out that these terms are rarely used in the U.S. currently and haven't been for the last seventy or eighty years? The rest of the article underlines this fact, as it documents usage in the U.S. only from the late nineteenth century until the early-mid twentieth century. These terms have fallen out of favor and have been replaced with "tabloid journalism" and other terms. When these terms are mentioned, it is usually in a historical context, often used inside quotation marks. Additionally, the first sentence could be expressed better. Yellow journalism and yellow press are not newspapers as incorrectly stated in the first sentence; each can, however, be practiced by and/or employed by, respectively, newspapers and other media sources. 2601:547:CB00:3D40:953:D769:E312:AE1 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]