Talk:Punch (magazine)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Media

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating 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

"Why no mention of the 'Punch Lunch?."

Perhaps because no-one knows what a "Punch Lunch" is and you have not clarified in this section. What is it? 2.31.162.11 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It had a history for being Anti-Irish, especially during the 19th century."

While this is doubtless true (judging from cartoons I've seen reproduced in textbooks over the years), it would be nice to include some citations. Also, the prominence of this phrase in the article's introductory description suggests that Punch is primarily noted for its anti-Irish humour (and while I would venture from personal experience that this may indeed be the case in Ireland, it's probably not applicable elsewhere), or that such humour even formed its raison d'etre rather than reflecting a general propensity towards racism, xenophobia and imperialism within the contemporary British media.

Any revision would be welcome, especially as, if nothing else, "It had a history for being Anti-Irish" is atrocious English. DublinDilettante 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed the line from the introduction since it isn't as relevant as its place in the introduction would suggest. We barely have any information about it in the history section (at all) to make it relevant enough to be in the introduction Boyinabox 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and removed this sentence, which really needs some kind of citation or qualification. It is not an accusation I've heard made about Punch (which, however, certainly reflected its readers views) and begs the question "notorious" - among whom? And anti-Irish or anti-Republican?Mark Nesbitt 06:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is anti Irish. If you can get your hands on the Folen's Irish Leaving Cert History book Option 3 "The Pursuit of Sovereignty and the Impact of Partition, 1912-49" by Vincent Foley or Option 2 of that series "Movements for Political and Social Reform, 1870-1914" by Michael Doran they both show cartoons from Punch showing anti-Irish sentiment. The number of examples are too numerous to mention so i'll leave it to you.padddy5 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody that studied Irish history in School I'd have to agree. The Irish were charactarised as "Sub Human brutes" and were constantly portrayed as violent, unpredictable, dirty idiots that were deemed "unfit to rule themselves". The cartoons are all that I know of the publication as they were used in our history books to show the kind of attitudes that prevailed in Britain at large. However the magazine was also known for critisizing the scant justice Ireland recieved.

Pictures in this link: http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/unit_2.html (specifically pictures 1, 2, 7 and 8) are from Punch and clearly show a kind of racial caracature in the same style of offensive African, Chinese and Jewish cartoons that you might be more familiar with. For more Punch cartoons of this nature see "Ireland in the making(1868-1966)" by M.E. Collins—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelzuya (talk 86.45.103.148 (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC) • contribs) 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote I just happened upon in the Dec 29, 1920 issue: "It is stated that rabies does not exist in Ireland. Our opinion is that it wouldn't be noticed if it did." Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At present, there are no mentions of the magazine's relationship with Ireland in the article. It merits at least a sentence or two, in my opinion. 89.100.251.145 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very meaningful to characterise Punch as anti Irish. The British popular perception of the Irish in the nineteenth century was complex but there were two common stereotypes: the 'West Brit' aesthete like George Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde, and the barely human 'navvy'. There was a long tradition of 'thick Irishman' jokes which only became socially unacceptable in the 1970s. Punch simply reflected the attitudes of the day, and it must be remembered that the cartoons showing unflattering portrayals of Irish people were supposed to be amusing, not accurate. There are many highly racist portrayals of Jews and blacks in Punch too, not to mention offensive characterisations of working class people and women generally. Different times. --Ef80 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where have all the Irish gone?

Not a word about them in this article! Hilarious. Whether it has been using Persil or Ariel (Arian?) this article has done an exemplary job washing away this ! (the apes are the Irish, in case you're having difficulty) 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to the cigar brand?

Punch magazine uses the same jester mascot as the Punch cigar company. According to the cigar's article, it predates the magazine by one year. Whats the story here? Did the magazine company get permission to use the jester mascot for their publication? --75.170.41.9 (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "jester mascot", AKA Punch or Punchinello, is older than either the magazine or the cigar company. Check out Punch and Judy which is the real origin of the "jester mascot". Neither the cigar manufacturer nor the magazine required permission to use it, from each other or from anyone else. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the magazine ought to mention the cigar brand somewhere. Most Americans are familiar with the image via the cigar brand. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punchinello

There was an American publication named Punchinello in the late 19th century. Was it the same magazine or a different one? Drutt (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Thackery" (sic)

(From the article): "Bradbury and Evans capitalised on newly evolving mass printing technologies and also were the publishers for Charles Dickens and Thackery."

(From the page that Thackery links to): "Thackery is a common misspelling of the last name of William Makepeace Thackeray, Victorian author." Is that who's meant?

69.19.238.55 (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long Decline

Could someone who knows what they are writing about please explain the reasons for the 'long decline' and eventual demise of Punch? Did PC kill it? Competition? Simply changes in taste?Bluedawe 09:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It simply became seen as old fashioned and dull, with a cosy London gentlemen's club aesthetic which was increasingly out of step with the times. By the 60s it was largely restricted to public library periodical rooms and, famously, doctors' and dentists' waiting rooms. --Ef80 (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not the case at all, 20 years later in the 1980s it was popular in our comprehensive school. 2.31.162.11 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why make up a term instead of just using the full name?

Why is this at Punch (magazine) instead of the actual full name of the magazine, Punch, or the London Charivari. Isn't making stuff up to disambiguate against policy? (ETA: It is.)Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article: "Initially it was subtitled The London Charivari". "The London Charivari" was a subtitle, and was never the actual full name of the magazine; further, the subtitle was soon dropped. Whenever you come across references to the magazine, it is always as Punch—which was always its only name. "Making stuff up", indeed—next up, we'll have to rename Mad (magazine) to Tales Calculated to Drive You Mad, to avoid "making stuff up" and not to "disambiguate against policy", right? (and I always thought ETA stood for Estimated Time of Arrival; I have no idea what you meant by it) Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. It wasn't soon dropped. I have Punch magazines from the 1890s, and right at the top of every page: "Punch, or the London Charivari". It may have been dropped very late in the magazine's life, but I have never even seen a copy that doesn't use it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not so soon, but it was dropped, and even if it hadn't been, it's still a subtitle, and not part of the title. Compare to Moby-Dick: I'm sure "or the White Whale" appears in every edition., but it's a subtitle, not a title. BTW, here's Punch in 1916, with no "Charivari" in sight. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, the title was used more often inside than on the covers. It appeared at the top of each page, but less often on the illustrated titles they did at the start of each year. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Authors and Cartoonists Lists are very arbitrary…

Are there some criteria at work in the composition of these lists, as they seem quite arbitrary, and don’t necessarily reflect a great association with the magazine - for example, Penelope Fitzgerald may have written for the magazine, but how often - as much as Alan Coren, who is mentioned as editor, but strangely not as a contributor (her own Wikipedia page doesn’t mention her writing for the magazine at all)? Did those on the list contribute as much as Hunter Davis, who also fails to get a mention but who was not only prolific enough to have his regular ‘Father’s Day’ column compiled into both a series of books and possibly Punch’s only TV spin off in the dramatizations of the columns made with John Alderton as Hunt? Jock123 (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, when did I write the above comment? Oh... not me, just someone who writes in the same verbose way and apparently knows the exact same stuff I do! :-) Silas Maxfield (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Punch (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hewison

One of the very few cartoonests without his own page is William Hewison not a good source but may help for finding other sources. http://auctionpublicity.com/2014/11/15/ewbanks-sell-william-bill-hewison-studio-collection-theatrical-political-cartoons/. There was a draft that said only "William 'Bill' Hewison (5 May 1925 - April 2004) was an artist and theatrical caricaturist. He was art editor of Punch magazine for over 25 years." Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Punch (magazine). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160214075039/http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=41828 to http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=41828

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found in early television

I don't know if it's of any use but I just came across the first Sheldon Reynolds production of Sherlock Holmes aired on television on October 16th 1954 in which at 19:57 in Watson is seen reading a copy of Punch.

The Case of the Cunningham Heritage

Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Punch (magazine). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Columns

The List of Contributors is a great long column. Could someone who knows how please put it into, say, 3 or more columns? Arrivisto (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pick of Punch

These annuals need to be mentioned. I want to know how many more I need to find before my collection is complete. They are a Documenting of Our Time, also huge laughs. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:B994:320D:32FE:F974 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant dates are listed instead of the relevant ones

The dates given after the editors' names are those of their birth and death but what the reader of this article really needs here is the dates of their editorship. Say I wanted to know who the editor was in in 1880. As things now stand, I would have to click the names of the early editors to get to the articles in Wiki about them and there, in those articles, hope to find the dates of their editorships. The dates of birth and death properly belong in the articles about them. Here, in this article, the reader needs the dates of editorshipS. Valkemirer (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]