Talk:Teen Vogue

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: KatMockler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed Stars
Removed the stars section: not formatted, and did not contribute to anything. It was just a list of famous people who may or may not have been in the magazine, with no sources listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.120.13 (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversy Section
The controversy section was already present. I added one more item. Someone removed the entire section. I'm sorry, but the comments by the columnists are a direct reflection of the magazine and they should be included in the magazines article. I will not get into an edit war, but I think the situation should be discussed before someone unilaterally removes a section that has been in place for a long time. 192.107.156.196 (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, agreed that it should be discussed although generally contested material, particularly if BLP-related, is removed until there is consensus to include. You're right that this might be slightly different if material really had been there a long time ("stable") but generally that means years, not a few months.
 * In any case. I removed material on those two tweets because as presented, there's no WP:RS indication that they rise to the level of encyclopedic content as opposed to falling under WP:NOTNEWS. A given tweet by a Teen Vogue writer might turn out to be significant to an encyclopedic account of the magazine in the long run, but what we have right now is minimal, passing coverage that doesn't indicate any significant consequence to the magazine, and we can't predict right now that it will ever be more than that (WP:CRYSTAL); further, an individual editor's argument simply that it should be understood as a reflection on the magazine is WP:NOR. Absent RS making that analysis of its bearing on the magazine, it's irrelevant trivia and not appropriate for inclusion. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree on both levels. The media use twitter as a source in there coverage of major event.  BBC uses the tweets in their articles.  Furthermore, Billy Graham is a very notable figure and reactions to his death are encyclopedic, whether they are positive or negative.  The columnists reaction and the reaction to her reaction are notable and encyclopedic in nature.  97.102.184.22 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please imagine the end result of what you're proposing: if we recorded every tweet about every notable person ever posted by every writer at a given magazine, we wouldn't even be a newspaper, in violation of WP:NOTNEWS: we'd just be Twitter (in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Wikipedia by contrast is a tertiary source: its purpose is to summarize what reliable secondary sources have written about a topic. For this entry, that topic is not Lauren Duca nor Billy Graham: it's Teen Vogue. (Not for nothing: it's quite striking that this material should be insistently added here, but not to Billy Graham's page, even though it is explicitly about him...) Unless we have secondary sources analyzing these tweets in terms of their meaning for or as representative of the magazine, it is a violation of the WP:No original research policy to include them simply because an individual editor thinks they should reflect on the magazine. If you'd like to advance that opinion, the thing to do (and I mean this sincerely--sometimes WP is just not the right venue for what someone wants to write, but a different venue might be) is pitch an essay on the topic to a reliable secondary source, and if it's published, someone else (not you, because of WP:Conflict of interest policies) might include it here. But until it's been published by a reliable secondary source, it can't be published here; in absence of professional editors and fact checkers for every topic the site covers, WP is not equipped to evaluate original research, and so prohibits publishing it here.
 * Two more policy notes. Please do not add contest material back until we can reach a consensus here. It's clearly at odds with policy: please review WP:ONUS. If you and I can't come to an agreement, we can see a WP:Third opinion or other forms of additional input. But to that end, also please be aware that WP is not a democracy where majority rules; instead decisions are made by "consensus" which WP uses to mean, the best arguments that draw on WP policy (so if only 2 people think X and can base their argument in policy, this will prevail over 10 people who simply say, "I think this is interesting."). You can read more at WP:CONSENSUS.
 * Hope that's helpful. Thanks for your engagement in dialogue on this, it's much appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I am readding the criticism section with added references to reliable sources per WP:RS/P. With previous concerns thereby alleviated, neither WP:ONUS nor WP:CONSENSUS come into play. If there is an objection to this change, feel free to express it and to include your legitimate arguments against this change. (Note: Opposing this change while pointing one's finger at WP:CONSENSUS and then refusing to argue for or against this change is not allowed, as that in and of itself does not constitute an argument against the change and thereby goes against WP:CONSENSUS's requirement for discussion. WP:ONUS is respected by giving argument for inclusion of the section through additional references to reliable sources.) If no consensus can be reached, a third opinion will be demanded. - LilySophie (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed these tweets, as the description of them continues not to provide commentary on the magazine that is the subject of this entry. The sources cited also don't themselves provide commentary on the magazine beyond mentioning both write for it, among other publications. It's a violation of WP:SYNTH for WP editors to draw their own conclusions that something should be part of the analysis of the magazine if we don't RS sources making that analysis. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Raising this issue again - I do think a section of this sort is warrented, though it should be a 'Reception' section rather than 'Criticism' or 'Controversy' one. Teen Vogue has a noticeably far-left/identity politics slant to it, and that has gotten a lot of coverage in the larger media, both pro and con, with particular articles generating a lot of buzz and controvery in the larger media. This, in my estimation, is worth covering in this article. I think there's a tendency in the above conversation to treat any such coverage as impending right-wing attack content and for editors to circle their wagons accordingly. That is a misguided response. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal
Hi I wanted to inquire about this removal--in what sense is it out of date? Did the magazine resume printing? By chance do you have a source on that? Obviously the entry should be updated to reflect that if yes, but I couldn't find any indication. Otherwise, we don't take information out of entries just because something happened in the past, as after all we are WP:NOTNEWS... Is it rather you think it belongs in the body of the entry rather than the lead? That could make sense to me, it is notably absent from the body and would give space for more details. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood the statement! Sorry for the mistake. I've reverted the edit. MidwestCuttlefish (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahhh I see the difficulty! I'll rephrase to say "final issue". Thanks for drawing attention to it. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti-capitalism
Teen Vogue now has anti-capitalist political articles, in what way could we add this? Boskoigic (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You anti-anti-capitalist, Boskoigic? Oh of course you are. You hardly have a talk page.👍 --A21sauce (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed paragraph about the OpEd "An Eviction Crisis Is Coming — We Need to Treat Housing as a Right"
There's no need for a paragraph on one article that has drawn "wide-spread criticism", when the only criticism given as evidence (both in the Wikipedia article, sourced Fox News article, and tweet), are statements by one Republican representative, who's right-wing views clashing with the obviously left-leaning article doesn't really classify as "wide-spread criticism" (or create notability) RoadSmasher420 (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Aughts to 2016
Could we fill in some detail here? It goes from 2004 to 2016 at the top of the History section and into the Leadership subsection.--A21sauce (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)