Talk:Rolling Stone

Lead image
I thought about taking the current infobox image to WP:FFD. Seems that every current cover has replaced every previous cover, and WP:MAGAZINES/WG doesn't explain how to solve this matter. WP:NFCI and WP:NFC don't explain as well which usage of magazine covers are acceptable except only to illustrate critical commentary. If every cover is getting replaced over and over, then this becomes the WP:NFCC issue. To put this another way, almost every cover would implicitly fail the criterion if getting replaced over and over, meaning that a cover may not suit well as a lead image. Why not no magazine cover in the lead instead? That can solve the problem, right? --George Ho (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As I previously noted the Infobox contained only the logo image for quite a long while until 24 November 2016. You could make an argument to do that again. Personally I'd still argue for picking a better cover image, but it is far easier to delete than it is to gain consensus for a better choice of image. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already a section on this above. I don't think it needs any type of noticeboard at this point. Simply getting consensus on which cover image to use would suffice. Do have any you would propose?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be a static logo, not each cover, that would be, to me, ridiculous. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. I don't think anyone is proposing to put each cover. The question is about the current cover and if it should be changed. And, if so to which one? If anyone is advocating for no cover at all, I would be opposed to that. Especially when it is a publication known for its cover photos. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Same as before I would suggest an anniversary edition such as the Rolling Stone magazine #1000 cover, but I'm open to suggestions if someone thinks another image would be more representative or more notable in some other way. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to that. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed to the 1,000th issue cover for now if it makes everyone happy. However, I'm not sure how much I can hold off as many covers will be made and then published. George Ho (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If that image is chosen by consensus, then someone wanting to change it to something else would need to obtain a different consensus per WP:ONUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well... Umm.... ... ... (Trying to come up with words about local consensus... vs. wide....) George Ho (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an anniversary cover, it reportedly cost $1 million to make I think that makes it more noteworthy than most, but I am not saying it is the only possible choice. (If I absolutely had to pick only one single cover to represent the entire history of the magazine it would have to be the Lennon cover by Leibowitz, but we've got that in the article body already.) If someone wants to argue that some other cover is more famous or important in some other way they can still discuss that. My objection was to the cover being arbitrarily changed to something more recent purely because it was more recent and not because the cover was more noteworthy than any of the hundreds of other covers. I hope we can get at least a few years out of this choice. -- 109.77.204.119 (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

X's for Eyes (soundcloud)
there has been said: "We're big in Japan." 'd claim that 'i'm big in Germany, [east?] because Nina Hagen's known my own story since 1996; as Todd Rundgren is in the know of our, my own story... Was able to be part o' IUMA since that summer and did set up a bobskaradio.com portion since 1999...

"BOB" knows that just as the name says [claimed, WE are no more... dead.]

Was so happy to see finally shake Todd's had in 2o12 in Charlotte, NC _ WHERE my rehab [CAROLINA MEDICAL in Charlotte] post a road-rash betwixt my honduh rebel 45o and a ,68 nova on Riverside/Sam Houston State University, X's' main 'movie' has been on fb for way over a decade...

sooo...   can you dig it?

Yest the owner of thay site seem's more with it some. 2600:1004:B08B:9363:9D8A:88E8:FAB1:81C2 (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Bug Chasers
You reverted my addition of Bug Chasers: The men who long to be HIV+, which is a wiki article I just made about a 2003 Rolling Stone article.

In your revert you said that I did not add references, which is fair criticism. You also said that you questioned whether the article should exist. I feel that it passes WP:GNG and that it merits inclusion here as a highly discussed Rolling Stone article. I do not expect to be adding more sources to the article because I already pulled enough. Could you comment on it either here or on its talk page if you see a problem with it? Feel free to send it to WP:AfD if you like, as it is done, and AfD review will save time one way or the other.

If you do not AfD it, then I expect to add it back here with more citations. Thoughts? Thanks.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I think the AfD would have not bearing on inclusion on this page as they are two separate issues. I really haven't looked closely enough at the main article so my comment in the edit summary was likely premature and I apologize for that. As far inclusion on this page, we would need plenty of sources criticizing the article, not just the fact that it was a controversial article. Not everything that we would consider controversial should be included unless there is a policy based reason for doing so (or for not doing so). --CNMall41 (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Check it out. I re-added it with references. I added criticism sources which came from notable authors in notable publications. There are yet more criticisms and commentaries which could be added.
 * special:permalink/1095535699
 * To clarify, I am claiming that both the claims and this particular article itself were the subject of journalism. If you have any comments or ideas for changes then share.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  22:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A claim that is the subject of journalism does not automatically qualify for inclusion. It also doesn't qualify to be editorialized ("Gay men want to get HIV/AIDS"), especially as the title of the heading. Right now there is an issue with the entire section per WP:CSECTION. Something not being liked doesn't necessarily make it a controversy. I think we start there. As far as the content you want to include, it may be deserving of inclusion, but not necessarily as a controversy. However, I am not sure where at the moment. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell me the circumstances you think are good for inclusion. It does not have to be in a controversy section at all - it could be listed with other articles that are not controversies. There are currently three other controversy articles here so I put this one with those because it seemed comparable, but "criticism" could be retitled reactions and include awards. There could be an articles section which include the critical ones and something from Category:Works originally published in Rolling Stone if anything fit.
 * If "Gay men want to get HIV/AIDS" seems like editorializing to you, then can you rephrase it? The most neutral description would be "gay men do bugchasing" but that is unclear. It seems direct and uncontroversial to me to say that the article's claim is that a sizeable percentage of all "gay men want to get HIV/AIDS". Do you want to just call it the HIV/AIDS article? That seems understated.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  00:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SYNTH as the editorialization has led to that with the title you had and the ones you proposed. I am not sure how to phrase it but saying "the article's claim is that......." is opinion and we don't base anything in Wikipedia on opinion. As far as where something like that could fit, I will take a look and provide an opinion sometime later today. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * special:diff/1096224678/1096907293
 * I changed the title of the "criticism" section to "reactions". This is a start toward anyone revising the article to after reflecting on the guidance at Criticism
 * I added one sentence linking to the wiki article for the issue and cited some sources with various viewpoints
 * I put the issue image in the section, along with a citation to an article which names various other media sources which reacted to this article.
 * My position here is that somehow, this Rolling Stone article should link to that article. I think the editorialization issue about the name of the link goes away by calling the article by its name. Thoughts?  Bluerasberry   (talk)  12:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Even if Wikipedia guidelines were evenly enforced for media groups (they're not), guidelines are just that, and the guidelines clearly state when criticism sections are appropriate in certain circumstances. This is one such case: this is a media organization that was found guilty for malicious defamation per se-the most serious form of journalism malpractice. A "reactions" section does not adequately cover the scope of RS's wrongdoing  (which has also resulted in WP downgrading it to a mostly unreliable source), nor its continued acts of fabrication and editorial inaccuracy. Therefore I have restored and updated the article to reflect the nature of RS libelous practices. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted as you will need consensus. I cannot understand the argument you are making above so if you can please dumb it down for me I would appreciate it. This section actually needs reduced as we don't list all retracted stories made by publications just like we don't list all of the breaking stories or things they uncovered during investigations. This is pure editorializing.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A seemingly bland editorial decision trying too hard to be neutral can unintentionally be biased. Not a comment on the "bug chasers" incident specifically but the section as a whole, I know the guideline is to avoid Controversy/Criticism sections but this seems like a long established section where the WP:STATUSQUO was and is appropriate and the neutral thing is to keep label it as "Criticism" not to downgrade the section to the anodyne "Reactions". The change of section heading unintentionally highlights how little positive "Reactions" or "Reception" this article actually contains, especially considering that Rolling Stone magazine (despite its flaws) has been lavished with praise over the years, with even The New York Times saying it was "widely regarded as the leading cultural magazine in America." So the properly neutral things for an encyclopedia to would be to to restore the "Criticism" section heading but also start adding some of the genuine praise and recognition this magazine once received. -- 109.76.141.170 (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, can you please explain what your accusation of "editorializing" means? Are you asserting that Rolling Stone was not found guilty of libel with malice?HoundofBaskersville (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain this is necessarily appropriate for a standalone "Criticism" section, however, given the wide breadth of reaction to the article chronicled through RS, it seems germane for a short (i.e. one paragraph) summary with a main link in the "Reactions" section, IMO. Edit: Sorry, didn't realize the heading change from "Criticism" was a recent one. I have no opinion on the proper heading for this section, only the suggested inclusion of a précis of the "Bug" story. While we certainly can't list every retraction or correction a media outlet makes, routine corrections — like misspellings, data errors, etc. — don't receive standalone features in other outlets nor are referenced in studies in scholarly journals. Similarly, we don't chronicle every landmark article an outlet publishes but we should certainly mention those that are so notable they became case studies themselves, or are feted with awards like the Pulitzer. Chetsford (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC); edited 18:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Pay to Publish Scheme for the General Public
They currently have a pay to publish scheme for the general public called "thought leaders", where anyone can publish an article with them for a $1,500 annual fee and $500 upfront. It should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Rolling Stone is generally considered an unreliable publication and source and their pay to publish scheme certainly doesn't help matters.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/23/rolling-stone-wants-content-from-thought-leaders-who-pay-2k/

https://metalinjection.net/its-just-business/you-can-write-for-rolling-stone-magazine-if-you-pay-them-2000 Instantwatym (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * How is this a "scheme?" Sounds like the same thing done by Forbes, Entrepreneur, and others. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)