Talk:The Hollywood Reporter

message: 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)
thread_title:  THR1 

message: 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)
replies: text: "someone who knew the inside scoop". Yeah, that's a huge problem with this article.  There's quite a clear policy prohibiting any "inside scoops"; see Wikipedia:No original research.  What you have now is various people affiliated with the topic editing the article to make themselves look good and their enemies look bad.  It's an absolute disgrace.  The place for "inside scoop" articles is in newspapers or journals.  Then, if the writer is judged notable enough, those articles can be sourced on this wikipedia article. Esn 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a wonderful article regardless of the missing "The" 

message: 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)
replies: text: This whole article has numerous problems.  Large parts of it violate WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, WP:NPOV/WP:NOR and WP:V... among others. That section you deleted seems to be back now.  I would urge all regular contributors to look at those policies.  Until then, the POV tag stays on top of this page. Esn 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Public relations section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BLP 

message: 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.PaidContent, April 9, 2008. In December, another 12 editorial positions were cut at the trade paper. Deadline Hollywood, Dec. 4, 2008. 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, Broadcast & Cable, July 8, 2008 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)
thread_title:  THR Today 

message: 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)
thread_title:  THR Today 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "a unique hybrid publication" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  As To "Hybrid" Status-- 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000845237
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified