Talk:Newsboys' strike of 1899

Topics

Is additional information on the newsboys advisable, or is the current focus (on the newsboys' strike of 1899) important enough to remain so prominent in the article?

Merger

I propsed the merge. this page is un-necessary. already exists as paperboy.--Tainter 04:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's a good point, but the reason I created the article was because of the lack of any hits for searches on "newsboy," "newsie," or "newspaper boy." I would agree with your suggestion to merge this article with the other, but add that the information on this page should be added to "paperboy," as there is no discussion on that page of the newsboy in any kind of historical context. My only issue with this would be that "paperboy" has the connotation of a boy bicycling around town to throw papers on people's doorsteps. I don't think I'm alone in this, as that's currently all the article explores. As seen in this article, however, the newboy was a very visible member of the exploitation of child workers around the turn of the 20th century...a very different image.

• • Merge and Keep. Merge the info on the job, and write a new article on The Newsboys Strike. – Freechild (BoomCha) 12:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I oppose merging this article. It refers to a specific event in history. I came to this article from the Newsies article because I wanted specific information about the event upon which the movie was based. Ridenm 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article is a rewrite, and the merger tag is removed. – Freechild (BoomCha) 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unclear article quote

The end of the article contains this quote:

"The strike ended upon the newspapers' agreement to buy back all the papers the boys had refused to sell, and the union disbanded. Some decades later, the introduction of urban child-welfare practices led to improvements in the newsboys' quality of life."

It is unclear what exactly is happening. Could someone with knowledge of the event correct this? Picoter 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. So the boys did not sell papers and the newspapers agreed to buy them back?? Huh?? Really now, what concessions did the papers make? How long was the strike?? This is long on "color" but short on facts. Madman (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What did they want?

Some context would be useful here. The article lists some previous strikes, then details how the price went up during the war and back down after, except for the two newspapers they struck against. But it is not at all clear what they wanted the publishers to change. This needs to be explained in the article, or it doesn't make sense. — Gorthian (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Newsboys' strike of 1899. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://query.nytimes./gst/abstract.html?res=9907E4DD153FE432A2575AC2A9679C94669FD7CF&scp=5&sq=Newsboys+Strike&st=p
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705093718/http://www.booksbybrown.com/blinkpage.html to http://www.booksbybrown.com/blinkpage.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205023702/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=166 to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=166

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Darby Caffrey

Before I begin, I just want to say that everything I say here I say with deep respect for you. I’m sure you’re a wonderful person, and I hope you don’t take this personally.

I’m really glad you like Racetrack Higgins. I like him too. He was an amazing young man and well deserving of your admiration. However, Wikipedia is not the proper platform on which to express that admiration.

If you want to write stories in which you are a newsgirl who dates Racetrack Higgins and kisses him after the rally, I support you 100%. There are many wonderful sites where you can share those stories, such as Tumblr, Archive of our Own, and FanFiction.net. However, Wikipedia is not the platform to do this. Wikipedia is for facts about the event, not stories about what you wish had happened. Please stop adding yourself into this article.

I wish you all the best, and I hope I have not offended you by writing this. TheVioletSunflower (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)