Talk:Vogue (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fashion Portal This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of top-importance within fashion.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	France Portal Vogue (magazine) is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vogue (magazine) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Vogueing? 2 Vogue and history? 3 About Vogue 4 Lisa Fonssagrives 5 Trivia 6 POV and original research concerns 7 Image 8 Probably a good idea to split this up

[edit] Vogueing?

"Vogueing" redirects here. What does it mean? -Branddobbe 02:13, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

From a talk show I saw a number of years ago, "vogueing" is dancing in a seductive manner that imitates the actions of models in music videos and such. I don't really understand it that well, but Madonna's video for her song "Vogue" does a pretty good job of portraying it. Catchphrase: "Strike a pose." Apparently, it's pretty popular in and was started in gay clubs. HTH — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it redirect to the Madonna? She was the one who started catchphrase, not the magazine. Vesperholly 19:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It predates the 1990 Madonna single. Vogueing is said to have originated in the african-american M2F transgendered community some time in the 80s. The movie Paris Is Burning (also late on the scene) depicts some vogueing. Sorry, I'm no expert, but there is an article on the topic. – edgarde 04:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vogue and history?

This really is a stub of an article! Can I invite people to contribute material to do with how Vogue influenced the rise of particular styles and fashions? Also - some extraordinary coups. thegirlinwhite 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say so, Thegirlinwhite: I think that is encyclopædic.—Stombs 01:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Took out an overlong meander about Teen Vogue. The significance of the Vogue brand worldwide is to do with its flagship British, Italian, American, French and now Eastern adult titles. It's just too parochial to list regional youth variations. There needs to be more detail first on the 'main' titles. thegirlinwhite 12:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About Vogue

It's Headquarters are in London because I've visited them on a couple of occasions,so whoever told you New York is wrong

• British Vogue you mean.Alex 20:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Fonssagrives

Restored discussion of the Vogue cover. Remove that discussion and you lose the fair use qualification for the cover. Her sheer number of covers alone is a record. She has still not been surpassed and her impact on both the magazine and the term supermodel is unique. Doc 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

The magazine shown in the movie "The Devil Wears Prada" (2006) was loosely based on Vogue and Meryl Streep's character was based on Anna Wintour.

Consensus says that trivia is not encyclopaedic and utimately all triva sections will be removed from Wikipedia. If you consider this important enough to mention work it into a paragraph. Doc 00:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? Trivia's not encyclopedic? Where's the discussion? I'd like to see it. I totally think trivia is encyclopedic (as long as it's true). — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Can someone source the claim that all trivia sections will be removed from WP?NYDCSP 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV and original research concerns

This article contains too much POV and original research biased to the magazine. The whole "History" sections seems like a press release when read by someone unfamiliar to the magazine.

• "Its success and influence have not been universally lauded" - This phrase has an implicity assumption that the magazine is "succesful" and "influent". We need a neutral criteria for defining "succesful" and "influent" and then explain why Vogue is "succesful" and "influent".

• "Its photography at the time reflected the imagery of contemporaneous Hollywood films: staged and luxurious" - It's original research.

• "The historic relationship between Vogue and supermodels began with top fashion model Lisa Fonssagrives who appeared on over 200 Vogue covers" - The 200+ covers statement needs a source, but that should be easy to find. But where from comes the information that "the relationship between Vogue and supermodels began with Lisa Fonssagrives"? Whose opinion is this?

• "As shown on the cover to the right, Fonssagrives at the height of her career could be both sophisticated and yet a cook, something with which every American woman could identify" - This is an opinion. This is an interpretation of the magazine cover picture. It's not suposed to be stated as a fact.

• "Her presence in nearly every fashion magazine from the 1930s to the 1950s, from Town & Country, Life, Vogue, and the original Vanity Fair to the cover of Time helped to build her name recognition and the importance of Vogue in helping a model reach "supermodel" status" - Besides being more about Ms Fonssagrives than Vogue, this statement is an unsoursable opinion. How can we be sure that this or that "built the importance of vogue in helping a model reach "supermodel" status"? There's also the implicity POV that Vogue has an importance in "helping a model reach "supermodel" status". This has to be rephrased or removed.

• "Being on the cover of Vogue became a symbol of success for models" and "Multiple Vogue covers becomes a cornerstone of being considered a supermodel"- Unless it's an opinion, some evicence must be provided.

• "But Vogue truly hit its stride under the leadership of editor-in-chief so-so and art director so-so, when it began to publish the work of photographers so-so and so-so". This "truly" need some evidence.

• " Penn and Avedon broke decisively with the stuffy conventions of previous fashion photography: Penn by a stripped-down minimalism that left his subjects in bare studios against stark empty backgrounds; Avedon by breaking out of the confines of dispassionate, static studio tableaux and shooting dynamic pictures of models at the height of emotion and in the middle of action." - This is an original analisys of the artists work and it's influence. I'm not sure an encyclopedia is the right place for publishing these opinions.

I'll stop here. I guees the idea has been given. I'm uncapable to fix this article by myself. Unfortunately, all I can do is to point what I see as problems. I hope no one takes this personally. I think the article's text is well written, but still unfit for an encyclopedia. Judging by it's subject, this article has the potential to become a WP:FA in the future,and I'll be glad to see that. --Abu Badali 01:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No answer so far... :( I'm going to remove what I feel unfit. I'm still open to discussing it here, though (but please, avoid re-adding stuff without discussion). --Abu Badali 12:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't finding sources be more productive than removing material? Stevage 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the items pointed out here do indeed show far too much POV and only harm an article about such an important subject. It would improve the article to remove the worst ones and improve those which would leave a hole (like the well-known fact that being on the cover of Vogue is highly important in the modeling industry) and can be easily sourced.NYDCSP 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've pitched in to try and clean this article up some more. After so much was deleted (and I must say, the editor who did so had a point), I've started to try and add back some more material, and have been zealously citing and sourcing it as best I can. I started with the lede and then moved down to the Wintour era in the history, and hope to find ways to add back in better coverage of the mag's artistic history (Avedon, et al) and to clean up the horror show that is that paragraph on the models and the relevance there. I think that if this article is re-tooled properly, it could begin to give birth to suitable daughter articles, such as on its editors, its impact on the modeling industry, on photography, on art/culture, on the fashion industry itself, on publishing, on the position of New York and other cities within the fashion industry and business generally. It's limitless where this can go if we rebuild this one article properly. SOURCE EVERYTHING PEOPLE! Pull any analysis or turns of phrase out of the verifiable sourced material (make it books, mainstream newspapers, news and business magazines, trade papers -- have it befit the subject!), don't just exercise your English degrees here. The article is about Vogue, it isn't about us.NYDCSP 22:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Why was the image of Anna Wintour removed? It belongs on this page. Great to have a picture of André Leon Talley added, though. KP Botany 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine any picture of Wintour was removed because of questionable application of fair use. Since the picture accompanying the article is free and does not have such limitations, I'm putting it in. Daniel Case 14:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's Creative Commons licensed, the same one as in her article, and it does belong in this article.

Image:Anna Wintour.jpg

KP Botany 19:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant. 'Twas me who got the photographer to change the licensing.

But there was one before of her and Claudia Schiffer that was fair use. Daniel Case 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work, then. Now let's get it back in the article, even 50 years from now an image of her would belong in an article on the magazine. And if you've ever seen my image formatting you would not leave adding the image back in to me, it will be more work to correct my dreadful formats than for you to just insert it. KP Botany 00:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would if I had only the time to make that talk page comment at the time.

We need pictures of Mirabella and Vreeland as well, I should think. Daniel Case 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probably a good idea to split this up

NYDSCP said above, before he left Wikipedia, that this article could support a lot of daughter articles. I'm about to create Category:Vogue, as part of ongoing work setting up the new fashion WikiProject and he's absolutely right. A single article cannot do this subject justice and stay anywhere within a reasonable size limitation.

For starters, it currently deals almost exclusively with American Vogue (hence I will be putting a {{globalize}} tag on it). Yet the various overseas editions have their own unique personalities and status within the fashion world — the British and French editions are known to be more experimental, more cutting-edge. They (especially the oldest, British Vogue) deserve separate articles, as we've already done for Teen Vogue, Men's Vogue and we should do for Vogue Living.

Second, the history section is heavily biased toward the late 20th century and the Anna Wintour era in particular. It may be important, but it's still not the whole story. Perhaps we could have a separate History of Vogue article as well?

I will be putting the appropriate {{split}} tag on it as well. Daniel Case 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of different articles for international editions. But in this case, we would still have a Vogue article for the "brand", right? And then, I believe that the History of Vogue article wouldn't be necessary.

Yes, we would need a main article (this one). If the history section wasn't too complex, it could stay here. But I'm not betting on it. Daniel Case 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The international editions articles should be created according to demand. For instance, we shouldn't create Vogue (Mexico edition) before we have enough info to put in this article.

Exactly. Right now I only see a need for (I'll assume these will be the namings) Vogue (British magazine), Vogue (French magazine) and Vogue (Italian magazine). Those are regarded as the important ones outside the U.S. Daniel Case 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I can be helpful in the processes. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You have already been. Daniel Case