Talk:The Hollywood Reporter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject Los Angeles, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Los Angeles, California, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

A subject of this article, Alex Ben Block, has edited Wikipedia as Abbeditor (talk · contribs).

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 THR1 2 THE Hollywood Reporter 3 This is a wonderful article regardless of the missing "The" 4 POV 5 Public relations section 6 BLP

[edit] THR1

This account has been created by and is managed by The Reporter so that we can update our entry with more current information and to help bring the entry up to Wikipedia standards. We respect the Wikipedia guidelines and process and are not interested in whitewashing, sanitizing or "spinning" our entry; however, we will be vigilant about editing any rumor, innuendo, speculation or false information. Your comments are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by THR1 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THE Hollywood Reporter

Judging by (among other things/especially) their site, the newspaper is called "The Hollywood Reporter", with the "The" in front. The article should therefore be called the same. (See this and this.) At the moment The Hollywood Reporter exists as a redirect, so I'm asking for a deletion, so this can be moved. Retodon8 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the RfD tag from the redirect. The correct avenue for this request is actually Wikipedia:Requested moves. For future reference, to actually do an RfD, you need to list the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion for discussion and a decision. Let me know if you have any questions. Just tagging it leaves it orphaned. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm horrified that you would ask for a deletion. How awful and cruel! NothingMuch 02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys. Nobody is trying to delete this article. Retodon8 wanted to MOVE the article, intact, to The Hollywood Reporter. However, there is already a redirect to here at that page, so he wasn't able to do the move himself. He was trying to get that redirect deleted, so that he could move this article to that spot. Apparently Retodon8 has moved on or forgotten about this, so I've gone ahead and posted to Wikipedia:Requested moves about this. If there is no opposition to this move it should happen quickly.

Again, nobody has ever proposed deleting this article, and what is being discussed here is moving the article to The Hollywood Reporter and leaving a redirect here so everyone can find the new location. TomTheHand 02:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. OK. I'm going to move the article to The Hollywood Reporter. I'm going to make it clear: there will be no deletion of this article. I say again: there will be NO deletion of this article. Everybody can take a deep breath.  RasputinAXP  c 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See? The move has been performed. This article's name is now The Hollywood Reporter and a redirect exists at Hollywood Reporter for back reference. Everybody OK? Did any of the dishes fall off the walls? Great.  RasputinAXP  c 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that The Hollywood Reporter's own web site is Hollywoodreporter.com -- no "The". KarenAnn 23:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a wonderful article regardless of the missing "The"

This is a wonderful article written by someone (probably a journalist) who knew the inside scoop. I only wish the author had idendefied himself. To delete it becaue of a mising "The" seems like a ridiculous suggeston. Unbelievable when a redirect takes care of the whole problem. What are people thinking? KarenAnn 03:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"someone who knew the inside scoop". Yeah, that's a huge problem with this article. There's quite a clear policy prohibiting any "inside scoops"; see Wikipedia:No original research. What you have now is various people affiliated with the topic editing the article to make themselves look good and their enemies look bad. It's an absolute disgrace. The place for "inside scoop" articles is in newspapers or journals. Then, if the writer is judged notable enough, those articles can be sourced on this wikipedia article. Esn 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I have removed the following section from the article, for reasons that I hope will become clear:

Today's Variety editor, Peter Bart, once sputtered to a reporter, "They're not journalists at all," but even by Fox News standards, Bart himself is hardly regarded as an Edward R. Murrow. Yet 'Blinkie' Bart, as he's known to some in the industry, has a history of recruiting Reporter writers once they've established bylines. A byline was a popular perk in the old days of print journalism for writers and reporters, when people got their business news a day later on paper 'dan' rather instantly on TV or via the web. Of course Bart's loose, colorful, and sometimes questionable standards of ethics have been fodder for industry gossips, wags and tattlers for years.

The last sentence especially wanders closer than I'm comfortable to libel ("questionable standards of ethics"?). If someone can cite everything, feel free to put it back up, but right now it reads more like a personal vendetta against Bart. Thor Rudebeck 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole article has numerous problems. Large parts of it violate WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, WP:NPOV/WP:NOR and WP:V... among others. That section you deleted seems to be back now. I would urge all regular contributors to look at those policies. Until then, the POV tag stays on top of this page. Esn 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public relations section

I have taken out this section, which not only needed to be rewritten but contained such questionable statements as " Current publisher John Kilcullen hardly seems a paragon of editorial ethics." Wikipedia does not need this sort of unsourced problem material lying around. 205.167.180.130 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

I removed As publisher of Billboard, he was sued in 2004 by two Billboard staffers for race discrimination and sexual harassment. Among other allegations, the suit also said Kilcullen compromised editorial integrity to appease advertisers. The company settled the case in 2006 as it was about to go to trial for an undisclosed amount. I think that amount of detail is WP:UNDUE weight for this article but nothing should be said about the issue unless it is sourced per WP:BLP. So if someone wants to restore this; please cut it down to one sentance and provide a citation.--BirgitteSB 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)