Talk:Vanity Fair (magazine)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. | |
 |
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. |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid-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. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] The Very Early Days
I added some info on the VF Algonquin Round Table connection. I'm happy that people have added the early facts on the first life of Vanity Fair. I could add a bit more about this first era... it was pretty exciting then. And I am going to check on this, but whomever wrote that the magazine was a flop in the early days is wrong. I think it was at one time the most successful monthly in the USA, but the Great Depression just killed it. k72ndst 23:08, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- This article definitely needs more info and images from the early editions. Arniep 13:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV?
The part about finding the TOC being a "formidable task" seems a bit biased to me... "Under editors Tina Brown (1984-1992) and E. Graydon Carter (1992- ), Vanity Fair enjoyed greater circulation, prestige and revenues, the latter attested by a thicket of trendy advertisements which make finding even the magazine's table of contents a formidable task." Thoughts? TROGG 08:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
shouldn't this be vanity fair (magazine)? --jacobolus (t) 05:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, and so moved. :) Samaritan 17:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What a mess!
Some dolt seems to have just strewn scraps and let them land willy-nilly, throwing the chronology completely out of wack. There's also big mis-info. I've tried to fix it, and maybe others can add more about the Condé Nast years. This mag deserves better. — J M Rice 21:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Toby Youngs "How to Loose Friends and Alienate People" describes atwo year stint at Vanity Fair and gives in and outs of the Vanity Fair concept ans workings(albeit biased)
[edit] Contemporary revival
Posting Graydon's comments about Polanski seems prurient and not in anyone's interests. thegirlinwhite 09:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "lies" would need substantial backing...
The first paragraph now says Vanity Fair's articles are "...based on sensational exaggerations, jet-set and entertainment-business personalities, politics, and lies." While I have no idea if this is accurate or not, saying the magazine contains "lies" seems like the sort of statement that should have formal justification. Also, it doesn't sound at all NPOV; a more NPOV way of putting it would be more specific, e.g. "Vanity Fair articles are known for containing details apparently in complete contradiction to facts reported elsewhere, without any supporting evidence or references." The mere fact that it was phrased essentially as "VF is full of lies" makes me very suspicious as a reader, and as an editor I would want it removed unless it could be substantiated. --Woozle 16:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely that the "lies" wisecrack should be taken out. I'd be willing to be this is some joker's attempt at humor, in light of the libel suits of Roman Polanski (VF lost) and Dominick Dunne (pending, and VF won't pay his legal bill). k72ndst 16:01, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the Polanski suit is already mentioned further down the article - although this may prove an interesting illustration of the differences between American and British libel laws. The "Vanity Unfair" jab could probably use some sourcing in a credible publication. Sounds fair to revert. Montecristosandwich 11:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Deportation vs. Extradition
The article previously said Polanski did not travel to England because he feared he would be "deported" to the United States. Deportation results from illegal or improper entry into a country. That would not be the case in this situation. When one is wanted in another state to face criminal proceedings and transported thereto, one is extradited to that country. I have corrected accordingly. Have a lovely day. 207.69.137.42 15:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Updated the phrase "more notable" to "notable." The "more" is an ambiguous reference - more notable than what? --Atlantawes 14:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures
could we get some magazine covers where people actually have some clothes on, maybe? Colorfulharp233 02:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Suri Cover
Should we include the Suri Cruise cover in this article? The Fading Light 02:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miley Cyrus Controversy
The article states that Cyrus' apology was in response to the controversy, but as I recall, Cyrus beat everyone to the punch and made the apology before anyone noticed anything objectionable. Her apology sparked the controversy, not the other way around. Could someone confirm the timeline of events? 12:27, 3 June 2008
