![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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)
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)
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)
RE: This is a wonderful article regardless of the missing "The"
The only thing that is missing is a quick glance side bar with information such as the following(which is included in other publictions' wiki):
Type: Format: Owner: Publisher: Editor: Founded: Headquarters: Circulation: ISSN: Website: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.99.231 ( talk) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I added the following text:
However, staffing levels began to drop again in 2008. In April, Nielsen Business Media eliminated between 40 and 50 editorial staff positions at The Hollywood Reporter and its sister publications: Adweek, Brandweek, Editor & Publisher and Mediaweek.<ref name="PaidContent">[http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-nielsen-business-media-lays-off-between-40-50-mainly-editorial PaidContent], April 9, 2008.</ref> In December, another 12 editorial positions were cut at the trade paper. <ref name="DeadlineHollywood">[http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/layoffs-at-hollywood-reporter-12-the-staff/ Deadline Hollywood], Dec. 4, 2008.</ref> In addition, 2008 saw substantial turnover in the online department: THR.com Editor Melissa Grego left her position in July to become executive editor of Broadcast & Cable, <ref name="BroadcastCable">[http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114455-Melissa_Grego_Joins_B_C_as_Executive_Editor.php Broadcast & Cable], July 8, 2008</ref> and Managing Editor Scott McKim left to become a new media manager at
Knox College (Illinois).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by B2bwriter ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I added nowiki tags to the above to prevent the footnotes from appearing at the bottom of this page. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I edited out a paragraph that was mostly personal opinion on Hollywood trade papers basically calling them High School Happy Editing Love, Anna ( talk) 04:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
What's unique about it? I find it hard to believe that there are no other trade papers which also serve a consumer audience. To be honest, the current wording looks at least semi-promotional. 86.141.198.90 ( talk) 01:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with previous assesments that certain of these article segments do sound pretty self-congratulatory and promotional--as if some lines were culled from a press release. I'm not criticizing the magazine, just noting some of the article wording. But on the other hand THR does seem quite the unique animal; when it turns up on the shelves at Borders in a small Central California coastal town , it's apparent that this trade paper is making an unprecedented attempt to expand its reach to the everyday movie goer. Lantana11 ( talk) 04:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Lantana11 Lantana11 ( talk) 04:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I would like to request consideration/review of my work at Talk:The_Hollywood_Reporter/draft, which I am proposing as a replacement for the current article. It represents quite a body of research and I appreciate your time taking a look in advance. I realize it is difficult to compare two entire versions of the article and am happy to go over it section-by-section or do something else that may be easier. The images are most placeholders for now, since copyright-protected images like magazine covers are not allowed in draft-space. Thank you in advance for taking the time to give it a lookover. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 05:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"David I think that it is not appropriate for article subjects to draft entire articles and then propose it as a substitute." I don't know why you think it's not appropriate, people redraft poor articles in their sandbox and update them all the time, and they don't usually "ask for permission". It's how the encyclopedia markedly improves over time. You should count it lucky that this editor has alerted people beforehand. On the surface the sandbox article looks to be an improvement, but just ensure that it's neutral and covers any issues which people think are notable here. The "conflict of interest" thing will make a lot of people really scutinize your work though and suspicious because the community usually scoffs at anything they think is "paid editing".♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
"According to The New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter use to host two parties a year that were widely considered "rather sad." " -not encyclopedic, I'd delete that from the draft.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Hollywood Reporter. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
As discussed above, I'd like to request an editor consider replacing the current "Early years" section, which is incomplete and poorly-sourced, with something along the lines of the better-sourced and more complete version from my draft below. Was also thinking a lot of the article's current sections like "Ownership changes", "2010 relaunch" and "Deadline.com lawsuit" could probably be consolidated under "History". CorporateM ( Talk) 13:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Current
|
---|
Early years |
Proposed
|
---|
Origins ![]() The magazine published mostly negative film reviews and wrote critical opinion pieces. [3] According to The Complete History of American Film Criticism, the early Hollywood Reporter published the most "salacious" stories that Wilkerson could verify on movie industry executives and celebrities. [5] According to The Man Who Seduced Hollywood, the publication "[exposed] corrupt studio practices." [7] The magazine developed a confrontational relationship with the film industry interests it reported on. [3] Some studios barred Hollywood Reporter journalists from the premises and the head of Fox Studios set fire to copies that were delivered to employees. [3] Within two years it was one of the most influential trade publications for the movie industry. [5] [7] Studios eventually started paying for large advertising placements at the paper in hopes of more favorable coverage and in response to threats from Wilkerson to write negative articles about those that didn't advertise enough. [7] According to The New York Times, the entertainment trade press have long relied on trading positive press coverage for advertising dollars. [9] The publication did well financially. Wilkerson spent the profits on gambling [7] and investing in night clubs and hotels in Las Vegas. [5] Wilkerson also used the paper to accuse industry interests, such as the Screen Writers Guild, of communist affiliations. [10]
|
I have a problem with this per WP:GHOST, and suggest that it be offered up as suggested sources rather than as a draft. It is unacceptable for the subject of this article to draft it. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
CorporateM—I'm sorry, but it looks like this discussion has stalled. Given the most recent comments in this and previous threads, I'm going to mark this edit request as declined due to no consensus. However, it has been several months since the latest comment, so if you believe that the consensus has changed and you can address the concerns of the above users, you are free to open another edit request. Altamel ( talk) 05:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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)
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)
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)
RE: This is a wonderful article regardless of the missing "The"
The only thing that is missing is a quick glance side bar with information such as the following(which is included in other publictions' wiki):
Type: Format: Owner: Publisher: Editor: Founded: Headquarters: Circulation: ISSN: Website: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.99.231 ( talk) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I added the following text:
However, staffing levels began to drop again in 2008. In April, Nielsen Business Media eliminated between 40 and 50 editorial staff positions at The Hollywood Reporter and its sister publications: Adweek, Brandweek, Editor & Publisher and Mediaweek.<ref name="PaidContent">[http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-nielsen-business-media-lays-off-between-40-50-mainly-editorial PaidContent], April 9, 2008.</ref> In December, another 12 editorial positions were cut at the trade paper. <ref name="DeadlineHollywood">[http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/layoffs-at-hollywood-reporter-12-the-staff/ Deadline Hollywood], Dec. 4, 2008.</ref> In addition, 2008 saw substantial turnover in the online department: THR.com Editor Melissa Grego left her position in July to become executive editor of Broadcast & Cable, <ref name="BroadcastCable">[http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114455-Melissa_Grego_Joins_B_C_as_Executive_Editor.php Broadcast & Cable], July 8, 2008</ref> and Managing Editor Scott McKim left to become a new media manager at
Knox College (Illinois).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by B2bwriter ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I added nowiki tags to the above to prevent the footnotes from appearing at the bottom of this page. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I edited out a paragraph that was mostly personal opinion on Hollywood trade papers basically calling them High School Happy Editing Love, Anna ( talk) 04:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
What's unique about it? I find it hard to believe that there are no other trade papers which also serve a consumer audience. To be honest, the current wording looks at least semi-promotional. 86.141.198.90 ( talk) 01:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with previous assesments that certain of these article segments do sound pretty self-congratulatory and promotional--as if some lines were culled from a press release. I'm not criticizing the magazine, just noting some of the article wording. But on the other hand THR does seem quite the unique animal; when it turns up on the shelves at Borders in a small Central California coastal town , it's apparent that this trade paper is making an unprecedented attempt to expand its reach to the everyday movie goer. Lantana11 ( talk) 04:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Lantana11 Lantana11 ( talk) 04:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I would like to request consideration/review of my work at Talk:The_Hollywood_Reporter/draft, which I am proposing as a replacement for the current article. It represents quite a body of research and I appreciate your time taking a look in advance. I realize it is difficult to compare two entire versions of the article and am happy to go over it section-by-section or do something else that may be easier. The images are most placeholders for now, since copyright-protected images like magazine covers are not allowed in draft-space. Thank you in advance for taking the time to give it a lookover. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 05:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"David I think that it is not appropriate for article subjects to draft entire articles and then propose it as a substitute." I don't know why you think it's not appropriate, people redraft poor articles in their sandbox and update them all the time, and they don't usually "ask for permission". It's how the encyclopedia markedly improves over time. You should count it lucky that this editor has alerted people beforehand. On the surface the sandbox article looks to be an improvement, but just ensure that it's neutral and covers any issues which people think are notable here. The "conflict of interest" thing will make a lot of people really scutinize your work though and suspicious because the community usually scoffs at anything they think is "paid editing".♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
"According to The New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter use to host two parties a year that were widely considered "rather sad." " -not encyclopedic, I'd delete that from the draft.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Hollywood Reporter. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
As discussed above, I'd like to request an editor consider replacing the current "Early years" section, which is incomplete and poorly-sourced, with something along the lines of the better-sourced and more complete version from my draft below. Was also thinking a lot of the article's current sections like "Ownership changes", "2010 relaunch" and "Deadline.com lawsuit" could probably be consolidated under "History". CorporateM ( Talk) 13:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Current
|
---|
Early years |
Proposed
|
---|
Origins ![]() The magazine published mostly negative film reviews and wrote critical opinion pieces. [3] According to The Complete History of American Film Criticism, the early Hollywood Reporter published the most "salacious" stories that Wilkerson could verify on movie industry executives and celebrities. [5] According to The Man Who Seduced Hollywood, the publication "[exposed] corrupt studio practices." [7] The magazine developed a confrontational relationship with the film industry interests it reported on. [3] Some studios barred Hollywood Reporter journalists from the premises and the head of Fox Studios set fire to copies that were delivered to employees. [3] Within two years it was one of the most influential trade publications for the movie industry. [5] [7] Studios eventually started paying for large advertising placements at the paper in hopes of more favorable coverage and in response to threats from Wilkerson to write negative articles about those that didn't advertise enough. [7] According to The New York Times, the entertainment trade press have long relied on trading positive press coverage for advertising dollars. [9] The publication did well financially. Wilkerson spent the profits on gambling [7] and investing in night clubs and hotels in Las Vegas. [5] Wilkerson also used the paper to accuse industry interests, such as the Screen Writers Guild, of communist affiliations. [10]
|
I have a problem with this per WP:GHOST, and suggest that it be offered up as suggested sources rather than as a draft. It is unacceptable for the subject of this article to draft it. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
CorporateM—I'm sorry, but it looks like this discussion has stalled. Given the most recent comments in this and previous threads, I'm going to mark this edit request as declined due to no consensus. However, it has been several months since the latest comment, so if you believe that the consensus has changed and you can address the concerns of the above users, you are free to open another edit request. Altamel ( talk) 05:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)