Talk:Life (magazine)

From April, 1949 we can see that Life magazine was an arm of McCarthyism and red baiting. See "Dupes and Fellow Travelers".

Capa not only photograper in first wave at D-Day
According to the article, "Capa was the sole photographer among the first wave of the D-Day invasion in Normandy, France, on June 6, 1944." However, according to the book "The Great LIFE Photograpers" (Thames and Hudson, paperback ed. 2009, ISBN 978-0-500-28836-8) page 294, Bob Landry (1913 - c.1960) was also there: "Like Capa, he [Landry] went in with the first wave at D-Day, but all of Landry's film was lost, and his shoes, to boot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.199.157 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Life Magazine controversies?
I have a controversy that I'd like to add to the Life entry -- an interesting article about the 1938 pregnancy issue that was pulled from newstands because it was obscene. Here's the article - When Birth was Obscene: Court case puts pregnancy back on newsstands. Thoughts on where this might go or if its relevant for the article at all? Sexperts 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a very good item about the magazine, and a story that I left out when I did a major addition to the article about 6 months back. I could add in the text I had deleted, it was about 50 words. It was a big national story; the magazine printed stills from a documentary of a mother giving birth. It was such a scandal, news dealers were jailed for selling the issue in some cities. --K72ndst 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly we could combine this article with other life magazine controversies of a similar scale? Sexperts 22:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that is a good idea for a Level 2 Headline and subject area. As long as there are references cited. I've long wanted more facts added to this article, and not just more covers and trivia. Which other controversies do you want to bring in? --K72ndst 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Vs. New LIFE
I propose splitting this "new" version of LIFE -- the edition that is a Sunday newspaper insert in 2006 -- out of this article. I am prompted because I just looked (4/16/2006) at what is being passed off as LIFE these days. It was 20 pages, and half were ads. It bears only one resemblence to the the classic LIFE magazine -- the logo on the cover. I think this article as it stands now does a poor job of presenting 100 years of the life of LIFE. If anyone wants to weigh in on this, please do so. Because this article, and the list of Sunday papers that carries the current incarnation of this great American magazine, is pretty weak. --K72ndst 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any input into the history of this entry? I would like to revamp it, and rework it so it is more like what is here for The New Yorker. This article is in sad shape, and all that happens to it is people add and delete cover images from it. I'd add more history and scope to it. --K72ndst 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am currently compiling information to add quite a bit more to this article. If nobody objects: is anyone seriously attached to keeping as part of the article the list of the seventy newspapers that carry the supplent? Or Life's ten most important events of the second millennium, and Life's 100 most important people of the second millennium? I aim to write a history of the magazine from 1883 to 2007, and these lists just don't fly with me. We can link off to them, as they are part of the official Life Web site. I am looking forward to having a better article, so that others can contribute to its rich history. If nobody objects in the next two weeks, I may revise it. I'd also want to hear comments about adding to the article too. I think the article can be as good as the one about The New Yorker. --K72ndst 21:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the article needs work and to split off the new use of the name seems a good idea. I am interested in the magazine, but particularly in Ed Thompson and the "trio of formidable and colorful women: Sally Kirkland, fashion editor; Mary Letherbee, movie editor; and Mary Hamman, modern living editor"; and their influence on the magazine throughout the 1950s. Doc &#9836; talk 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

LIFE or Life?
We have Life magazine and Time Magazine. Which should it be? -- Zoe
 * AOLTW doesn't capitalize the m so neither should we. -- Minesweeper
 * Shouldn't it be TIME magazine and LIFE magazine? Kingturtle 00:54 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think that's probably correct. -- Zoe


 * It should be neither. Since "magazine" isn't actually part of the official name, it should be a disambiguation word, in parentheses, like so: Life (magazine). &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 15:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Despite that, somebody has recently gone through the article changing "Life" to LIFE". While accepting that the publisher usually (always?) wrote/writes it as "LIFE", I have reverted this change, for the following reasons:


 * It has not been asserted that "LIFE" is an acronym ("Living Interiors for a Friendly Environment", etc.).
 * There is no evidence that the magazine has been referred to in conversation as "ell-eye-eff-ee".
 * Many companies, e.g. Sanyo, consistently capitalize their own tradenames; Wikipedia ignores this.
 * Libraries often, perhaps usually, refrain from capitalizing it. For example, see the Library of Congress record for the 1936-72 Life. (This is record circa 180 if you use the LoC's "Advanced Search" interface for "Life" as "Key title [serials].)
 * No reputable manual of style ("Chicago", etc.) that I know of recommends such capitalization.
 * In my opinion (perhaps not shared by you, but very likely shared by quite a lot of other people), the capitalization within running prose is unsightly.
 * In my opinion (again perhaps not shared by you), it would show grotesque obsequiousness toward this publishing company.
 * It would open the door to similar requests that would be more awkward to satisfy; e.g. a request that WP should respect some other magazine's (merely design-motivated) avoidance of a dot over the "i" within its title.
 * Requests would probably made to revert it if AOL-Time-Life-Warner-Murdoch-Sony (or whatever it will be called by then) ever decided to give a "design makeover" to the rump Life by deciding to do away with the FULL CAPS. And there could then be tiresome arguments over this, e.g. "Why change the capitalization within this WP article of the real LIFE merely because a much later, much less significant and (other than via possession of the trademark) virtually unrelated travesty is titled Life?"
 * the relevant part of Wikipedia's own MoS advises against it.

'Nuff said? -- Hoary 05:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all well said, however it ingores the fact that it is titled LIFE. It's titled LIFE and is pronounced Life even though they named it in all caps that doesn't mean the caps are initials. The consensus on this is sketchy, see iPod for an example. Quadzilla99 15:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Old Life vs newer one
Didn't they quit publishing Life a few years ago? -- goatasaur


 * They have annual publications of the best photos of the year, and special publications dealing with a single event every once in a while. -- Zoe


 * The article had no mention of the earlier popular "Life Magazine" of Charles Dana Gibson. I had thought that somehow that metamorphisized into the Henry Luce publication, I guess they were unconnected? -- Infrogmation 11:42, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I added more to the article about the "old" Life that you are talking about. It was a classic publication and 180-degrees different than the Luce magazine. --K72ndst 16:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this a commercial posting?
This looks like an advert for the new 'Life'. IMHO the new Life is a pathetic excuse to put more advertising in my paper. It is basically content free. Except for the name and the cover layout it in no way resembles it's namesake. Even 'Parade' has more content. Note that 'Parade' magazine has a one line entry in Wikipedia.

I expected this entry to describe the old 'Life' magazine that documented the depression, WWII, the 50's, the space race, etc.


 * I agree with you. I think it would be wise to chop out the list of the 70 newspapers that carry this insert. It could be better served by just having an external link to the same list. I also think the history of the magazine and its influence on pop culture needs to be beefed up. Less lists, more meat. --K72ndst 16:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ethnocentric
i read what the bloke wrote about the western focus, but im actually surprised there was any mention at all about china. usually in these gwai lo articles, there is no mention of the eastern world at all.

8. Declaration of independence (US, 1776)
lol l cant believe the declaration of independence can be compared to any of these inventions.

1. Bookprint (Johann Gutenberg, 1455) 2. Discovery of New World (Christopher Columbus, 1492) 3. A new major religion (Martin Luther, 1527) 4. Steam engine starts industrial revolution (James Watt, 1769) 5. Earth revolves around sun (Galileo Galilei, 1610) 6. Germ theory of disease (Louis Pasteur, 1864; Robert Koch,1876) 7. Gunpowder weapons (China, 1100) 9. Adolf Hitler comes to power (1933) 10. Compass goes to sea (China, 1117)


 * Nice cut and paste job, and how exactly are #'s 2 and 9 "inventions"? Quadzilla99 09:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Unclear wording
I find the phrase "In 1908 Robert Ripley published his first cartoon in Life, later becoming first publisher of Charles Schulz of Peanuts fame" to be unclear. Does this mean Ripley later became Schulz' first publisher, or LIFE? 70.153.99.149

"almost incalculable" impact
We read of Life that:


 * Its impact on American public opinion, especially among the exploding suburban middle class in the U.S., was almost incalculable.

If this is meant literally, I'd find it plausible: it's hard to separate the impact on public opinion of one particular publication. However, I think that this is supposed to mean almost incalculably great. If so, this is a very large claim indeed. I don't say it's untrue, but I want to see evidence for it. -- Hoary 05:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your above comment. I've been working on collecting more material for this article. Although I like some of it, statements like the one you point out need to be refined. The magazine, in the past, was important to pop culture and American society, and that needs to be teased out more. It is one of the threads I am working on writing now. --K72ndst 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you.


 * Life sold well and is widely discussed and I think I've seen it described as having been influential. I just hope any "sources" for the assertion that it was important and had a major impact aren't just parroting received ideas, and that this article can get some evidence. -- Hoary 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1880s Life vs. 1930s Life
Although they share the same title, is the Life magazine that started in 1936 (and passim) really considered the same magazine as the one that started in the 1880s? This article is the only place I have ever seen the two magazines actually connected, and the current 70th anniversary celebrations make no reference to there being an earlier magazine. It would be helpful if there was some published source that linked the two as the same magazine (such is the case with the comic book vs. magazine incarnations of MAD which are considered the same ongoing publication). Otherwise all I see is someone buying the rights to the name Life and then starting a brand new publication from scratch. I know there are reproductions of the first 1936 issue available ... does it include any reference? Otherwise I might suggest splitting the article into one for the original Life and one for the second Life. (And no, I don't support splitting off the current weekly as, editorial content or lack thereof aside, it is clearly linked to the 1936 version). 23skidoo 13:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be against splitting this article in half. Here is why. Historically, Wikipedia has treated the entire history of a subject as one article. I’m thinking of sports; check out the baseball articles on the New York Giants (baseball) and Seattle Pilots. Like Life, these were brand-names (franchises) purchased by others and re-launched as something new (and someplace else), yet their history as a defunct team is kept as part of its subject history on Wikipedia. The same is true with the fine article about the Jeep. Its history is not split apart from its current incarnation. I’d say the reason many do not know of the first version of Life is for a simple reason: none of us are 100 years old. If we were, and this was 1940, then we’d know that there was another version of Life before Time Inc. purchased it. In addition, just because Time Inc. does not acknowledge the first edition of its magazine doesn't preclude Wikipedia from having a thorough article on the history of the publication; this is an encyclopedia entry after all, not a corporate-designated anniversary issue. I like having the entire history of Life in one article to show the long history of the name, title, and magazine. --K72ndst 14:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous people who appeared on the cover
What is the purpose of this section? It doesn't add anything to this article. It is not Encyclopedic content. I had dreams of submitting this article to be a featured article, but it won't be considered with junk like this list, or those Millenium lists. Your thoughts? --K72ndst 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be removed. Doc &#9836; talk 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I -- Hoary 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC) -- have just now removed it. If anyone wishes to reuse it in some way, here it is:


 * Franklin D. Roosevelt
 * Henry Ford
 * Edsel Ford
 * Jean Harlow
 * Harpo Marx
 * Yehudi Menuhin
 * Nelson Eddy
 * Greta Garbo
 * Gary Cooper
 * Carl Sandburg
 * Jane Froman
 * Anthony Eden
 * Paulette Goddard
 * John Nance Garner
 * Errol Flynn
 * Gertrude Lawrence
 * Rudolph Valentino
 * Shirley Temple
 * Queen Elizabeth
 * Fred Astaire
 * Ginger Rogers
 * James Farley
 * Carole Lombard
 * Sid Luckman
 * Raymond Massey
 * Brenda Frazier
 * Mary Martin
 * Lucius Beebe
 * Bette Davis
 * Norma Shearer
 * Tallulah Bankhead
 * Hildegarde
 * Neville Chamberlain
 * Joe DiMaggio
 * Anne Lindbergh
 * Anne Morrow Lindbergh
 * Eleanor Roosevelt
 * E. F. L. Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax
 * Ann Sheridan
 * Diana Barrymore
 * Paul V. McNutt
 * Alice Marble
 * Rosalind Russell
 * Benito Mussolini
 * Cordell Hull
 * Claudette Colbert
 * Arturo Toscanini
 * Betty Grable
 * Lana Turner
 * Anna Neagle
 * Winston Churchill
 * Hirohito
 * Rita Hayworth
 * Dionne quintuplets
 * Wendell Willkie
 * Jinx Falkenburg
 * Tom Harmon
 * Katharine Hepburn
 * Joseph Goebbels
 * Hermann Göring
 * Wallis, The Duchess of Windsor
 * Edward VIII of the United Kingdom
 * Madame Chiang Kai-shek
 * Ted Williams
 * Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma
 * Clark Gable
 * Douglas MacArthur
 * Nelson Rockefeller
 * Joan Caulfield
 * Hedy Lamarr
 * Fawzia Shirin
 * William D. Leahy
 * Joan Leslie
 * James F. Byrnes
 * Eddie Rickenbacker
 * Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
 * Joseph Stalin
 * Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia
 * Joe Foss
 * Jan Smuts
 * Ira Clarence Eaker
 * Bob Hope
 * Charles A. Beard
 * Margaret Sullavan
 * George Bernard Shaw
 * Ella Raines
 * Chester Nimitz
 * Esther Williams
 * Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
 * Carl Spaatz
 * Dwight D. Eisenhower
 * Jennifer Jones
 * Geraldine Fitzgerald
 * Thomas Dewey
 * Lucian Truscott
 * Lauren Bacall
 * Celeste Holm
 * Charles de Gaulle
 * Judy Garland
 * Fredric March
 * George S. Patton
 * William Hood Simpson
 * Harry S. Truman
 * Barbara Bates
 * Audie Murphy
 * Peggy Ann Garner
 * James Stewart
 * June Allyson
 * Robert L. Eichelberger
 * Ingrid Bergman
 * Spencer Tracy
 * Francis Cardinal Spellman
 * Jan Clayton
 * Bing Crosby
 * Dorothy McGuire
 * Arthur H. Vandenberg
 * Lucille Bremer
 * Margaret Leighton
 * Donna Reed
 * Fred M. Vinson
 * Vivien Leigh
 * Loretta Young
 * Jane Powell
 * Doc Blanchard
 * Glenn Woodward Davis
 * Jeanne Crain
 * Gloria Grahame
 * Teresa Wright
 * Dorothy Kirsten
 * Jane Greer
 * Elizabeth Taylor
 * John Cobb
 * Madame du Barry
 * Johnny Lujack
 * Lewis Williams Douglas
 * Gregory Peck
 * Muhammad Ali Jinnah
 * Robert Taft
 * Harold Stassen
 * Laurence Olivier
 * Barbara Bel Geddes
 * Earl Warren
 * Phyllis Calvert
 * Mel Patton
 * Marlene Dietrich
 * Josip Broz Tito
 * Joan Diener
 * Doak Walker
 * Lauris Norstad
 * Montgomery Clift
 * Viveca Lindfors
 * Dean Acheson
 * Marge and Gower Champion
 * Joi Lansing
 * Sarah Churchill
 * Märta Torén
 * Bob Mathias
 * Ben Turpin
 * Arlene Dahl
 * Robert Oppenheimer
 * Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon
 * Alfred Lunt
 * Lynn Fontanne
 * Ricardo Montalban
 * Hoyt Vandenberg
 * Eva Gabor
 * Marsha Hunt
 * Ruth Roman
 * Jackie Robinson


 * Thanks for zapping that useless list. What improvements do you suggest for this article? I am looking to add more depth to the magazine's impact post-World War II and on the Baby Boomer generation. I think we gave the early history of the magazine a pretty good hit, now I'd like to learn more about why it's so ingrained in popular culture.... --K72ndst 02:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Early history of the Luce Life
K72ndst above: I think we gave the early history of the magazine a pretty good hit. I think it's well done in its way and I congratulate you on your efforts. However, when I read that this was the first all-photography news magazine I'm surprised. "All-photography" is a bit of an exaggeration; more factually, ''the text was condensed into captions for 50 pages of pictures. The magazine was printed on heavily coated paper that cost readers only a dime.'' Let's accept that the article's saying that it was the first magazine of its kind. But was it? Certainly it predated another rival in the memory of the anglophone world, Picture Post. However, I'm pretty sure I've read that it was if not modeled on then at least inspired by certain German magazines. The German article on Life is strangely silent about this, but a quick Google takes me to this. My ability in German is close to zero, but I think that Berliner Illustrirte [sic] Zeitung (from 1928) may have been one of those magazines. Time permitting (and I'm afraid it may not), I'll try to investigate. -- Hoary 08:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are you thinking of the Soviets? A co-worker of mine, who used to work at Time Inc., pointed out that under Stalin, his propaganda machine turned out all-photo magazines for the Workers -- because they could not read. I do not know if this was before or after 1936. However, in research in American journalism history textbooks, I didn't come up with any magazine that used photojournalism in this way before Time Inc. When Luce started it, Life was almost entirely photos. I'm going to try and scan some early inside pages, but I'm worried about the copyright issues of doing so. I have not gotten far in deeper Life research, however, I did come across a hilarious account of trying to get on its cover in 1979, in Bo Derek's new book, of all places. I know. I'm reading it.--K72ndst 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean Soviet magazines; I meant German ones. (That's not to deny that there may have been Soviet predecessors as well.) I've seen photos by Erich Salomon that look as if they had been made for a proto-Life. But I could very well be wrong. I'll try to check. -- Hoary 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC) ... PS The Oxford Companion to the Photograph has an article on Life that doesn't mention its precursors. An article on Berliner illustrierte Zeitung says that at some time during the period 1905–33 it "became very influential as a showcase for a new brand of photojournalism embedded in modern page layouts". We also read that Münchener illustrierte Presse was "one of Central Europe's most successful and innovative illustrative weeklies" and that its editor 1930–33 was Stefan Lorant. An article on photojournalism lists a lot of magazines but says little about any; we do learn that Match (the predecessor of Paris-Match) started in 1926. And the article on Russia mentions several early illustrated magazines too. Hoary 14:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * there was indeed a soviet predecessor to the large-scale photographic format called USSR in Construction. That magazine was a direct pattern for Luce's Life which wikipedia does not seem to know about yet.  --Lockley (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hayat
If I remember correctly Hayat means Life in turkish. I'll try to double check, but if someone else can confirm, please do. Doc ♬ talk 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But even if it means "life" in Turkish, it needn't be about Life (the mag). I can't see anything looking like "Life", or "Luce", or a year....... Hoary 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Iconic"
"Iconic status", "iconic success": what, if anything, do these mean? Hoary 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to mean that the breathless quality of much of the text of this article has carried over into diction. That much of the article has no footnotes also makes me suspicious of its sources. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalized?
In the section: "The Sixties and the end of an era", there's this paragraph:

In the 1960s, the magazine’s photographs featured those by Gordon Parks. “The camera is my weapon against the things I dislike about the universe and how I show the beautiful things about the universe,” Parks recalled in 2000. “I didn’t give a fucking shit about the magazine as far as im concerned its just a bunck of homosexual fagets taking it up the ass anyway and thats when I came out of the closet. I cared about the people,” he said. [8]

The section cites an interview from Rocky Mountain News with Gordon Parks which does exist (and you have to pay to look at): Rocky Mountain News, November 29, 2000

but I suspect the second quote is an act of vandalism. Can somebody check up on this? Clemwang 00:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the second quote for now. Indeed, it is almost 100% certainly vandalism, but I do not subscribe to that newspaper so I don't know what the real quote is. It's not extremely important though, now that the vandalism is removed. Academic Challenger 01:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A look through the history of the page shows that this was one of two changes made from a single IP number. It's just your standard adolescent editing pattern: common obsessions of these halfwits include the alleged homosexual activity of others and the alleged lower intelligence of foreigners and dark-skinned people. But gosh, no, we mustn't bite newcomer "white" male anglophone teens; we must instead be nice to them, in the hope and indeed expectation that they'll suddenly have changes of heart and contribute to erudite, excellently sourced articles about such matters as Renaissance architecture. (And if you believe they'll do that, would you care to buy a bridge off me?) -- Hoary 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Taylorblather
The article tells us:


 * Life ran a 6,000-word first-person article on the screen star. “I’m not a ‘sex queen’ or a ‘sex symbol,’ “ Taylor said. “I don’t think I want to be one. Sex symbol kind of suggests bathrooms in hotels or something. I do know I’m a movie star and I like being a woman, and I think sex is absolutely gorgeous. But as far as a sex goddess, I don’t worry myself that way... Richard is a very sexy man. He’s got that sort of jungle essence that one can sense... When we look at each other, it’s like our eyes have fingers and they grab ahold... I think I ended up being the scarlet woman because of my rather puritanical up bringing and beliefs. I couldn’t just have a romance. It had to be a marriage.”

Urgghhh.

Sorry. Perhaps I'd appreciate that more if I had the hots for Elizabeth Taylor. But really, what's it all for? (To show how low Life had sunk?) At the end of it, the article has no comment. I'm inclined to delete the whole quotation; any reason not to do so? -- Hoary 04:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill
Would it not be a good idea to have the picture of Winston Churchill as one of the photographs listed in the article? I believe it is he most reprinted picture in history Canking 14:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is already illustrated with 11 covers. I don't think it needs more covers added; it needs more facts and examples of reporting, journalism, and historical significance. If you want to see more old covers, that's what Google can find for you. --K72ndst 16:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cover Vote
There are now 12 covers in this article, a considerable number. Can we take a poll/vote here that there are enough covers to illustrate this article? There are many other web sites that show Life covers. My vote: hold off on any more. --K72ndst 04:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Twelve is already too many. -- Hoary 14:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Split the article
The 1880s magazine was an entirely different animal from the 1930s one. The Luce Life marked its 50th anniversary in 1986, and never cited any history prior to 1936. Luce may have bought the rights to the name, but the product was as distinct from the Victorian magazine as it was from Life, the board game. We already have separate articles for publications with the same name; see New York Press and New York Press (historical); see New York Sun and New York Sun (historical). It's misleading to suggest the two Life magazines had a single history.--Idols of Mud 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the introduction to make it clear the two magazines were distinct. I don't think Luce intended to re-vamp the old Life; his publication was a giant experiment in layout and photography, and had little to do with the old one.--Idols of Mud 23:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion about this above. The original Life was a success for a lot longer than the Time Inc. version, more than 50 years. And the reason that many don't recall the original Life is that none of us were around in 1936 when it was on sale. I do not think the article should be split in half because the editorial philosophy changed. Look at other publications that changed with the times, not just newspapers that ceased publication and were brought back from the dead. Keeping the two together shows it has a long and important history, splitting it in two just waters a good article into two. Any votes? --K72ndst 14:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more a question of continuity. There were two Life magazines, but it's not the same as the two Punch magazines.  Luce had no interest in maintaining the old Life's mailing list or features -- he sold both to The Judge and created something entirely different than the old Life.  None of the staff of the old Life worked for the new one, and Luce Life contributors (like Margaret Bourke-White) had no connection to the old publication.  It would be clearer, I think, to give each magazine a separate article.--Idols of Mud 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should certainly be two articles. I suggest creating a new article Life (1883-1936 magazine) for the earlier magazine and renaming Life (magazine) to Life (photojournalism magazine) for the later one, so it will redirect. Because the second magazine came and went several times, dates in its article title would be undesirable. 207.176.159.90 23:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read my longer note above, 1880s Life vs. 1930s Life, I stated 7 months ago my case for keeping this as one article. I'd also like to add, that if we want to make this an improved article, splitting it in two is not the answer. What is the answer is to add more history, more facts, more information about the 100+ years of the magazine. What purpose does it serve to cut it in two? It is a stronger article together. But not many people are adding to the history of the magazine (now defunct, again), most Wiki users just add more covers and trivia. I also believe only registered Wiki users should weigh in on edits such as this. --K72ndst 14:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid K72ndst's case doesn't make sense. The article, as it stands, is about two separate things that happen to have the same name; that's good and sufficient reason for them to have two separate articles, and that's the purpose the change serves. We don't have one article on London, Ontario and London, England, or Mercury (planet) and Mercury (element). We did have one once that covered the Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls) and that Rainbow Bridge (Tokyo), but that made no sense either, and it was split.

The fact that the two magazines had the same owner at the end of the first one's existence is irrelevant. The new Life started with Issue 1 in 1936 and that's a clear statement that it was meant to be a separate entity. (Compare Scientific American, which was totally revamped between one issue and the next around the end of 1947, but continued its issue numbering.)

I'm putting a "split" tag on this article now. Let's get this fixed this time. 207.176.159.90 02:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK Anonymous Wiki user: I again, of course, disagree. You didn't see what I said earlier, that because a publication changes ownership, does not cut the history in half. Your claims with bridges do not hold water. The reason that there is a reason for keeping these together is because the first incarnation of Life was longer and of course, much longer ago. I again say what I said above: Historically, Wikipedia has treated the entire history of a subject as one article. I’m thinking of sports; check out the baseball articles on the New York Giants (baseball) and Seattle Pilots. Like Life, these were brand-names (franchises) purchased by others and re-launched as something new (and someplace else), yet their history as a defunct team is kept as part of its subject history on Wikipedia. The same is true with the fine article about the Jeep. Its history is not split apart from its current incarnation. I’d say the reason many do not know of the first version of Life is for a simple reason: none of us are 100 years old. If we were, and this was 1940, then we’d know that there was another version of Life before Time Inc. purchased it. In addition, just because Time Inc. does not acknowledge the first edition of its magazine doesn't preclude Wikipedia from having a thorough article on the history of the publication; this is an encyclopedia entry after all, not a corporate-designated anniversary issue. I like having the entire history of Life in one article to show the long history of the name, title, and magazine. In addition, since the magazine is defunct (once again) it makes even more sense to have one strong article than two shorter and less complete one. I vote not to split this apart, to make it deeper with more history and less trivia. K72ndst 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercial link?
Please look at this web site http(colon)(forward slashes)www(dot)originallifemagazines(dot)com. It appears to be an online store that sells back issues of Life. I do not think this article should link to it, per the commercial nature, and Wiki policy. Your thoughts? --K72ndst 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The owner of the store keeps putting the link back onto the article. It is blatant that he makes his living selling back issues of the magazine. --K72ndst 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The user who keeps adding the link to the site mentioned is ShaneMBlakeslee; a quick WHOIS search turns up that he is the owner of the domain name and web site. Obviously a commercial site. --K72ndst 03:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bother to do a whois on the site, but told him not to re-add this stuff. -- Hoary 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This anonymous user is back again with his commercial link. --K72ndst 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is J. S. Billings???
Shouldn't some content be added to the history of LIFE from 1936 through early 50s so that John Billings Shaw's role be recognized. We've already mentioned Luce pulling talent from Time to assist in the role out of LIFE. Why not include J. S. Billings?

Red or Black?
The text calls Life a "money-losing" magazine, but quotes a spokesman, after the magazine folds, as saying the magazine was "in the black." Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.92.117 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you include Life Magazine's obtaining and publishing of the Zapruder 8mm film of JFK's assassination? Glaring oversight.