Talk:Vanity Fair (magazine)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

Contemporary revival

Posting Graydon's comments about Polanski seems prurient and not in anyone's interests. thegirlinwhite 09:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

Pictures

could we get some magazine covers where people actually have some clothes on, maybe? Colorfulharp233 02:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Suri Cover

Should we include the Suri Cruise cover in this article? The Fading Light 02:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Pius XII controversy

I was doing some research on the Pius XII controversy and noticed that Vanity Fair had published a number of controversial articles on the matter. Information on this could maybe be included if it was correctly sourced. [1] [2] [3] ADM (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Bess

Black Bess redirects to this article, yet the phrase doesn't appear anywhere in it, nor anything seeming to relate to it. Was it originally in the article and then removed, or what? And would there be any objections if I redirected it to Dick Turpin? --ElijahOmega (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Important addition Aliceinsprings (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that Mr. Murdock, and if he isn´t in the photo (rarely), he is represented by his wife, Wendy, thereby assuming that his nearby (I tried hard to avoid the word skulking). Now, if Mr. Murdock isn´t in the photo, he surely appears in an article. Which brings two points to mind: Who is plunking dumpster loads of money into the magazine? And staying on the same theme, it is a pity that the earth isn´t flat anymore because Fox News would keel over into the right wing dumpster in the sky - or wherever. Changing the subject: Two things: Even my microscope cannot decypher the letters when I read at night - and then I only see people who have been dead for years or are teetering at the brink. And they get photos, pages and pages, so that the reading public might es well read Donald Duck, at least they have bubbles over their heads. Yes, the Fanity Fair party is the place to be, yes 16 year-old Bieber (tres avangard) (my computer need time to the accent gr) is hot, but at least he is alive.

Minne Dahlber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.132.116.5 (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vanity Fair (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060116102721/http://www.saja.org:80/vf.html to http://www.saja.org/vf.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vanity Fair (magazine). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527025322/http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/050919roco02?print=true to http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/050919roco02?print=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)