Talk:Maxim (magazine): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:11, 16 May 2007

Can someone get the starting date for this magazine? I remember it being discussed in a cultural studies class as something fairly recent.

I added some content information that is verifiable and pertinent... why was it deleted?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ListenUp (talk • contribs) .

I accidentally deleted the content. It has been restored. Thanks. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 22:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in a recent issue they said they got the name from the machine gun inventor... Hiram_Stevens_Maxim — Preceding unsigned comment added by TErminater116 (talk • contribs)

Magazine Cover

The text "Apparently you can't use a magazine picture to describe a magazine, pretty stupid if you ask me. See here for more info: Template_talk:Magazinecover" appears in some revisions prior to and including 02 September 2006. I've read the template talk and it would seem that you can, as other magazines do, and there exists a sensible fair use tag. So I've restored it. Please feel free to remove if you can justify it - I can see a reason that you can't. Da-rb 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

charges of racism

I'm not a fan of this magazine per se, but none of the referenced citations give any creedance to the magazine being racist or homophobic. A few of them appear to be nothing more than blogs (not exactly a credible encyclopedia source), the others discuss the objectification of women...if there is a credible explanation from a credible source as to how the magazine if racist or homophobic, it needs to be added...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk • contribs) 13:35, October 13, 2006 (UTC)

I removed the entire criticism section. It was horribly biased and the sources were atrocious. Most were blogs or NPO sites heavily promoting an agenda, rather than a reputable and trustworthy news source. One source was, of all things, an old epinion.com review. Come on.

In addition, the entire section was added by a one-time contributor, in one big chunk and a single edit, making it look an awful lot like this contributor is pushing a POV.

I'm sure there are plenty of reputable newspapers and magazines that have levied changes of sexism towards Maxim. The charges of racism and homophobia, I suspect, will be very hard to back up with reputable sources, but I may be proved wrong. General accusations of sexism don't really belong in the article anyway - hasn't every magazine that's ever put a scantily clad model on the front, from Playboy to Cosmopolitan, pissed someone off? Only specific mentions of particularly scandalous or widely publicized incidents really belong (eg. the Gandhi thing, which probably deserves a mention but will need much better sources than what appeared to be the people who organized the letter-writing campaign against the magazine).

An amusing postscript: I'd never heard of or read Maxim until an article recommending it strongly by a famous, though controversial, feminist author. - dharmabum 08:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The charges were placed back in the article and I removed them but left all the sources that have references to actual events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.238.42 (talk • contribs).

This magazine is defenetly racist.And it is just disgusting when people try to downplay it.It was very suggestive of racism in regards to the Ghandi thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.50.199.106 (talk • contribs).

I just retooled this section to remove the unsuitable sources and claims again (ie. tolerance.org), as well as removing all that stuff about the "Real Hot 100", which is only here to promote the website as far as I can tell. the so-called "Real Hot 100", by the admission of Jessica Valenti in the Guardian article used as a citation, is a tool to promote her friends' and colleagues' careers, which is entirely inappropriate for the article (and, IMO, stunningly hypocritical to use a recognizable Maxim brand like "The hot 100" to promote their careers if they hate the magazine so much). If it WERE a "Real Hot 100" about women who break boundaries and all that, why is there not a single woman who not only meets the criteria but reached the pinnacle of their profession and is well-known (Sherry Lansing, anyone? Oh, she doesn't need promotion...) on the list? 154.20.48.244 08:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the Real Hot 100 is that the women are real everyday women creating positive change in their communities. They do not have to be well-known and nominations are open. They are recognized for their accomplishments, not merely their physical attributes. If you had read either of the news sources you deleted, you would have learned that. - Jamie002

This is way dated, but I read this when checking the page for changes and had to respond. I fully understand the point of "The Real Hot 100". I fully understand that they do not need to be well-known and all that. I fully recognize that these women are 100% qualified to be recognized by "The Real Hot 100". I have admiration for most of the women whose entries I read.

You are entirely missing the point, however. "The Real Hot 100" itself is, mostly, a promotional tool for those on it, as the creator of the list affirmed. The fact that well-known, successful women are absent from the list - despite the fact the creator is probably aware of many and could add them themselves, without anonymous suggestion - reinforces its intentions, as they do not need promotion. The hypocrisy of using a Maxim brand to promote them can even be ignored. The real point, though, is that a list created entirely for promotion of unknown people, no matter how admirable its aims, does not belong as part of the main body of an article about a magazine it is irritated at and which circulates to millions of people. Maybe if it was a widely-known, widely-accepted satire or counter-example, sure. But it clearly has little mainstream media notice, and the one mainstream article - the Guardian piece - is, frankly, a fluff piece. No other media sources noticed or cared. That means that, until it is notable in its own right and has more widespread notice than a single fluff piece, it does not belong here - except as a means of promoting the site itself. That's not what Wikipedia is here for.

There's a simple answer: write an article about it. Put it through a notability process to see if it qualifies as a Wikipedia article unto itself. If that's the case, I will happily add the line ""The Real Hot 100", created to satirize the Maxim list, offers an alternative view on women who are changing the world around them based on their merits and skills, rather than their appearance." If the site itself can't pass notability, then... that's that. dharmabum 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, to the anon above - it's pretty amusing to see someone accuse a magazine's racism as "definite" while using the phrase "suggestive" to back it up. Regardless, I totally see how your opinion is justified, but opinion doesn't mean much in terms of the article. I think it's poorly written and their photos are badly airbrushed, but that doesn't belong in the article either. dharmabum 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Magazine Experts On Comedy?

Since when did the people on Maxim magazine and its readers become a viable source on comedy commentary?

Its like Hustler or Playboy or Sports Illustrated writers and readers being experts on comedy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.29.86 (talk) 18:16, December 3, 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - Jamie002

My POV in the Criticism section, mostly regarding User:Jamie002

I was accused in edit-comments of pushing a pro-Maxim POV. I want to make it clear that I don't give a sweet fiddler's fart for this mediocre magazine and their point of view. I was only interested in trying to mitigate a very, VERY clear feminist POV agenda, which has mostly been added to this page via Jamie002's changes. They assert that the "St. Pauli incident" is well-documented, but only add a German-language reference as a source, which few visitors to the English wiki can read and judge as a good source. A formulaic addition about the "Real Hot 100" is constantly added by them, despite the fact that the creator of the mentioned list admitted in a solid source that the site was created only as a promotional tool for their friends and peers. They claim that me removing the "St. Pauli" reference and a major allegation about sexism backed up only by references to a couple of bloggers is vandalism. They assert that adding an official, published comment from Maxim's editors in regards to an allegation of racism is "not appropriate".

I've been accused of all of this, but please note that I have thousands of edits on hundreds of pages, few or any of which involve lad's mags or feminism (outside of a couple earlier arguments about this specific article with the involved parties); the only edits Jamie002 have made entirely centre on adding their POV to this one article and its talk page. I have never removed the properly sourced parts of the Criticism section, only ones which were clearly POV or poorly referenced.

I'm reverting this idiotic POV-pushing crap one more time (not all of which is Jamie002's, I should make the point). If it's added again I'll begin a WP:RFC about it. Seriously, Jamie002, your intentions are as transparent as glass, and while I am uninterested in Maxim as a source of good reading, I'm sick of agenda-pushers like yourself, and I've decided to make a point. I'll fight you right down to the wire on this, as far as the Wiki-process will take me. Stop it. dharmabum 08:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 The point of the Real Hot 100 is that the women are real everyday women creating positive change in their communities. They do not have to be well-known and nominations are open. They are recognized for their accomplishments, not merely their physical attributes. If you had read either of the news sources you deleted, you would have learned that. - Jamie002
+:This is way dated, but I read this when checking the page for changes and had to respond. I fully understand the point of "The Real Hot 100". I fully understand that they do not need to be well-known and all that. I fully recognize that these women are 100% qualified to be recognized by "The Real Hot 100". I have admiration for most of the women whose entries I read.
+:You are entirely missing the point, however. "The Real Hot 100" itself is, mostly, a promotional tool for those on it, as the creator of the list affirmed. The fact that well-known, successful women are absent from the list - despite the fact the creator is probably aware of many and could add them themselves, without anonymous suggestion - reinforces its intentions, as they do not need promotion. The hypocrisy of using a Maxim brand to promote them can even be ignored. The real point, though, is that a list created entirely for promotion of unknown people, no matter how admirable its aims, does not belong as part of the main body of an article about a magazine it is irritated at and which circulates to millions of people. Maybe if it was a widely-known, widely-accepted satire or counter-example, sure. But it clearly has little mainstream media notice, and the one mainstream article - the Guardian piece - is, frankly, a fluff piece. No other media sources noticed or cared. That means that, until it is notable in its own right and has more widespread notice than a single fluff piece, it does not belong here - except as a means of promoting the site itself. That's not what Wikipedia is here for.
+:There's a simple answer: write an article ''about'' it. Put it through a notability process to see if it qualifies as a Wikipedia article unto itself. If that's the case, I will happily add the line ""[[The Real Hot 100]]", created to satirize the Maxim list, offers an alternative view on women who are changing the world around them based on their merits and skills, rather than their appearance." If the site itself can't pass notability, then... that's that. [[User:Dharmabum420|dharmabum]] 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
+Oh, also, to the anon above - it's pretty amusing to see someone accuse a magazine's racism as "definite" while using the phrase "suggestive" to back it up. Regardless, I totally see how your opinion is justified, but [[WP:NPOV|opinion doesn't mean much in terms of the article]]. I think it's poorly written and their photos are badly airbrushed, but that doesn't belong in the article either. [[User:Dharmabum420|dharmabum]] 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 == Maxim Magazine Experts On Comedy? ==