Talk:The Village Voice/Archive 1

[www.cafepress.com/thevillagevoice/782982 Click right think left]
Do they mean click right as in using a mouse? If so, what are they trying to say? --Wasabe3543 05:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Film reviews
Does the village voice give the toughest film reviews or what? It seems like a film rarely gets a positive review unless it's truly superb. --Sirkeg 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What on earth can this mean?
"The voice is also recognized for its 18+ content usually in the back of the magazine and is the only newspaper to do so." There is so much wrong with this sentence I hardly know where to begin:
 * 1) "The voice&hellip;": presumably "The Voice&hellip;"
 * 2) "&hellip;is also recognized&hellip;": by whom?
 * 3) "&hellip;for its 18+ content&hellip;": I presume this is a euphemism for sex ads? Why euphemize?
 * 4) "&hellip;usually in the back of&hellip;": so it is sometimes elsewhere? News to me.
 * 5) "&hellip;the magazine&hellip;": it's not a magazine, it's a tabloid.
 * 6) "&hellip;and is the only newspaper to do so": grammatically, "to do so" has no referent. However, the real nub of the matter: this sentence seems to be saying that the Voice is the only newspaper to do something (to have sex ads? to be "recognized" for them&mdash;by some unknown subject? something else I'm failing to consider?). If the claim is the first, then that's ridiculous: these are an economic mainstay of alternative weeklies around the U.S., and right in NYC Screw consists of little else. If the claim is the second, then whom is it uniquely recognized by? And, if it's the third, then what's the claim?

-- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel's comments, so I fixed this sentence, and moved it to be a separate paragraph. Perhaps others can tweak it to make it more accurate. SaxTeacher &#91;&#91;User_talk:SaxTeacher&#124;&lt;font size=&quot;1&quot;&gt;(talk)&lt;/font&gt;]] 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Village Voice also promotes sexual promiscuity (ie. ads for whores), pornography, regularly interviewing and profiling pornstars, talking about porn films, etc. so it's not just sex ads, it's general sexual content. The pictures too are explicit. It's just another example of the moral decay and lack of standards of modern society. I am surprised there hasn't been criticisms or protests about this particularly since it's probably easily accessible to children. With such content, it's really a paper for those 18 and over and should be treated as any smut rag.

what day of the week is it published?
not on their website in their about page either —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.196.0.50 (talk • contribs) 23 May 2006.

It officially comes out Wednesday but you can get it Tuesday evening. People used to line up for it every Tuesday evening at Astor Place in NYC for the real estate listings. I don't know if they do anymore.03:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gender
Fascinating: in the list of columnists, nearly all the men have individual Wikipedia articles, nearly none of the women do, and none of the women have a non-stub article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right - I was amazed, for example, that Teresa Carpenter has no article. I'll try to get an article up in the next week.  A good project would be to begin doing articles for some of the others.PaulLev 15:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, no time like the present - I just put up a stub for Teresa Carpenter.PaulLev 16:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Silke Tudor pic?
Right now there's a painting of current Voice columnist Silke Tudor as one of the illustrations. Tudor has written only recently for the Voice and isn't that well known -- couldn't a photo of a better-known Voice writer be found and used instead? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.188.3.113 (talk • contribs).
 * Replaced now by Nat Hentoff, a much better choice. - Jmabel | Talk 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki link
I think the article on Wikipedia is irrelevant to the object of this article. While in theory it could be used on Wikipedia, it is of no use here. I suggest it is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.144.103 (talk • contribs)
 * What is it that you think should be removed? Some portion of the article or the entire article? Alansohn 07:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Robbins
I think the link from Tom Robbins' name in the article points to the wrong Tom Robbins. Is the novelist who lives in the Pacific Northwest really the reporter who covers NY local issues/politics? If no one objects, I am going to remove the link shortly. Sundinkc 14:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Sundinkc

Fair use rationale for Image:Voicelogo-181.gif
Image:Voicelogo-181.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Printcover.jpg
Image:Printcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Village Voice is a respected and award-winning publication
The Village Voice is a respected and award-winning publication. Here are a sample of some of the more prestigious awards that The Village Voice has been honored with:
 * 2007 Pulitzer Prize (L.A. Weekly is owned by Village Voice Media), Criticism - Jonathan Gold, the L.A. Weekly’s restaurant critic, has won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism. This is the first Pulitzer Prize for the L.A. Weekly and the first time a restaurant critic has won the distinguished award. -


 * 2000 Pulitzer Prize, International Reporting - Awarded to Mark Schoofs of The Village Voice, a New York City weekly, for his provocative and enlightening series on the AIDS crisis in Africa.


 * 2001 National Press Foundation Award, The Village Voice, the nation’s largest alternative weekly newspaper, today announced that their website www.villagevoice.com will receive the prestigious Online Journalism Award from The National Press Foundation. This distinguished honor will be presented during a reception on February 21, 2002 at the Hilton in Washington D.C.


 * 1981 Pulitzer Prize, Feature Writing - Teresa Carpenter of Village Voice, New York City


 * 1960 George Polk Award, Community Service

Here is a more extensive list of awards that The Village Voice has been honored with over the years:

I will leave this notice here but unless someone can provide a third-party source that characterizes The Village Voice as a tabloid we should remove that characterization from this article. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that the publication's website characterizes itself as "tabloid" - nevertheless I am sure that this simply refers to the medium and quality of the printed version of the publication, not the quality of the journalism itself, as evidenced by the above awards received.  Cirt (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material and blatant violations of WP:OR
This article is full of unsourced material and blatant violations of WP:OR. I will begin to remove that material from the article and move it here to the talk page. If an when WP:RS/WP:V sources are provided, material may of course be moved back into the article itself. Cirt (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

non-POV
"Also in 1970, a team of two 19-year-old aspiring writers, who were attempting to attract attention, Daniel Simone and Domnick Forte, a pair of hardline radicals and public insurgents of anti-Vietnam government policies, sporadically contributed with their rants against the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson."

Well, this clearly isn't POV, basically. Also it's unsourced so maybe just remove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.239.6 (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

New subsection
Started a new subsection for notable Awards and honors that The Village Voice has been recognized with over the years. Please note that all of the additions are sourced to third-party sources, none of them are sourced to The Village Voice itself. (I thought that proper to avoid sources to the publication itself, in the article directly about it.) Cirt (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So I would rather keep sources for this article to sources other than The Village Voice itself as this is the article about it, but if other disagree I'd be happy to discuss. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I think it would be ideal to cite everything from another source as well, the Voice has a pretty solid reputation for honesty, and I don't think there is anything actively problematic about using it as a source for this article. Certainly those citations should not be removed but it would be good if they were supplemented. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but at this point in time there are so few citations in the article to back up any of the unsourced material anyways that it is better to just concentrate on adding new citations from other sources, specifically for the article about the publication itself. Though of course they could be used.  I will get to adding more citations and removing unsourced material and blatant violations of WP:OR soon.  Cirt (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, right now I see a lot of statements marked as "original research?" in the article that are obviously factual, and merely need a proper citation. Certainly it is not, "original research" in any bad sense to say who used to write for the paper. Yes, it would be better if this were cited, but it would be doing our readers a disservice to remove things like this if no one has time to fill in citations. And certainly, for example, bylines in back issues of the Voice itself are a perfectly valid source for the fact that someone wrote for the paper. Similarly, the masthead is a perfectly good source for who the editors are. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your last bit, most certainly - the first part is a moot point for I will try to soon get to adding lots of sources/citations. However I still disagree that it is a disservice to the reader to remove unsourced information - regardless of how obviously factual it may be to someone who is an expert on the subject. Information in Wikipedia articles should be sourced/cited.  Cirt (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, tags are more appropriate to your purpose than  .John Z (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So, are you honestly saying that we need to find an independent third-party source for the statement that the adult content in the Voice is at the back of the paper, and that we should remove that statement if we can't formally cite it? This seems to me to be fetishizing a policy. Please don't forget that Ignore All Rules is also a policy, and imagine what would happen if we comparably fetishized that one! - Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh, yes, I am saying that. In the long run, trust me, it is best not to leave things uncited. I have seen this issue come up sometimes at GACs and FACs.  Besides, it can't hurt to have cites to good secondary sources.  But let's take a short break from discussing all this and I will soon just get to adding sources to the article itself, if that is okay.  Cirt (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, let me know if there is anything for which you actually have difficulty finding a citation, and I'll do my best to help. I'm glad you are not simply waltzing in here and threatening to gut the article if someone else doesn't do a bunch of work tracking down citations. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No of course not. This is a common practice used on Wikipedia articles in WP:GA and WP:FA drives to make sure that articles have meticulous sourcing.  Cirt (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section Deleted
Why was the Popular Culture section deleted?--173.51.208.152 (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

2005 Scandal
The introduction to the article mentions a fabricated story in 2005. However, nowhere in the body of the article is this mentioned and there are no sources or documentation for this statement. To be honest, I don't know anything about this, but it seems like you should have at least one source for any claim of this type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.158.250 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Lawsuit
I added information on the lawsuit filed against VV in September of 2010. I cited the original complaint and 1 news source. I kept it neutral with no POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.221.234 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the information regarding the 2010 lawsuit was deleted? No mention was made. I am revising until someone can cite good reason. 68.81.181.85 (talk) March 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Nevermind, it was moved to Village Voice Media. —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.181.85 (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Village Voice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071209152059/http://www.villagevoice.com:80/obies/index.php?page=about to http://www.villagevoice.com/obies/index.php?page=about
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.culturevulture.net/ArthurLazere-Journalist/Journalism-OntheJob/DomesticPartners.htm

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Backpage.org
The Village Voice apparently is owned by the Village Voice Media that grosses over 20 million annually from its site Backpage from prostitution and the sale of mostly under age girls to its customers. Apparently it has a corner on the market share of similar web pages that include under age human sex trafficking at approximately 70%. See Kristof article in the NY Times dated March 17, 2012. Backpage pays the Village Voice to advertize these services.

I removed the following from the article as it was poorly placed, not properly cited, and not written in an encyclopedic manner. However, I do think that this is information which should be in the article, so I am hoping that someone with access to the NYT article can rework it, which is why I've copied it to the talk page. --171.66.112.234 (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Backpage really needs to be apart of The Village Voice Wikipedia. Also apart of all other publications Village Voice owns--Evenhanded-justice (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * See Backpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.222.37 (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

New publication activity
On 18 January, 2021, new stories were published on the website. I added this information to the page. Prauls901 (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hentoff bio.jpg