|WikiProject Magazines||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Film||(Rated C-class)|
Article Could Use Some Work
This article sometimes refers to Variety as a magazine and sometimes as a newspaper. It's really neither -- it's a trade publication, or a hybrid of both.
This article could use some cleanup work. It never makes clear which are the three editions: it's actually East Coast, West Coast, and Weekly.
Some mention of the controversial editor Peter Bart is probably also in order.
I also find the claim somewhat dubious that a "significant portion" of the pub's ad revenue comes from Oscar "for your consideration" ads. I think some solid stats are in order to back up that claim. David Hoag 07:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Some NPOV issues...
Specifically concerning this paragraph regarding "The Hollywood Reporter":
"Daily Variety's down-the-street competitor, The Hollywood Reporter, avoids showbizzy headlines in favor of a contemporary newspaper reporting style, and without bastardizing the English language. The papers have a long history of bad blood, but editorial talent migrates between them."
The tone implies that THR is superior because of its stylistic choices. Furthermore, the statement is fundamentally false, because although THR's headlines are historically slightly tamer than Variety's, THR uses many of the same headline conventions (a recent headline, "You Ho Hum: It's 'Pirates' again", for example). The next sentance, which implies that Variety, unlike THR, "bastardizes" the English language, rather than use a contemporary reporting style, is also tonally biased and factually incorrect. Although THR doesn't use uber-Variety slanguage, like "boffo" or "whammo," they do employ liberal use of "slanguage" such as: skein, sked, netlet/weblet, ankle, topper, and tix.
Filmmakker 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"is delivered nationally"
"is delivered nationally" is Wikipedia supposed to be an American encyclopedia? 22.214.171.124 18:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Article full of copyvios
Now-blocked User_talk:Chalet09 (formerly JenniferVariety) did a lot of editing in February 2009 which introduced a lot of material copied from Variety's website.--Larrybob (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Variety-logo-sm.jpg may be deleted
I have tagged File:Variety-logo-sm.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 10:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Location info out of date
Variety's logo is no longer on the top of the building at 5900 Wilshire (I drove by on May 6, 2014).
Variety's contact page lists a different address: http://variety.com/static-pages/contact-us/
See also http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/variety-deadline-westwood-building-headquarters-pmc/
Tom239 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
My reversion of most of Variety1's changes
I have no proof of conflict of interest whatsoever and wouldn't even exactly go so far as making accusations, but here are some facts. Recently, this article was edited several times by an account called VarietyPMC, and several times by another account, called Variety1. Both appear to be new accounts, both have the subject of this article in their names, and both have edited only this article.
VarietyPMC's edits actually seem fine. I really don't know much about Variety, so I can't speak to the truth of such claims as the archive content dating back to 1905 rather than the previously stated 1914, but the previous date didn't have a citation either and I have no reason to believe VarietyPMC is incorrect about that. I have made some minor, cosmetic changes to some of what VarietyPMC did, such as replacing "it's" with "its" when it was a possessive, but VarietyPMC's edits are generally fine and I have no problem with that user.
Variety1's edits are quite different. There are some changes that user made which were beneficial (and thus which I revived after reverting the rest of the changes), such as replacing "While the publication did briefly provide free access, it brought back its paywall in December 2009" with "however the paywall was removed in April 2013. All content on Variety.com can now be accesses free-of-charge"; this is an update of the article to reflect new and true information. However, the majority of the edits were either neutral or detrimental.
Many of Wikipedia's stylistic guidelines that were previously adhered to on this article were broken from in this edits; even just the lead was made to feature the magazine title un-italicized, the first references to names for the subject of the article unbolded, and an unnecessary line gap before the contents.
Many of the changes (such as the new sentence "Since 1905, the most influential leaders in the industry have turned to Variety for timely, credible and straightforward news and analysis — information vital to their professions") create a tone far more fitting for an advertisement than an encyclopedia. This, coupled with the fact that the account has "Variety" in its name and hasn't edited a single other page, makes it seem fairly likely that there is a conflict of interest issue here.
Again, I don't have proof, and all of this is circumstantial. However, whether or not there is a conflict of interest issue, those edits were definitely detrimental for the most part, and so I've mostly undone them.
If Variety1 is reading this and you do indeed have some connection to Variety, I would encourage you to read Wikipedia's policy regarding conflict of interest. If you do not have any connection to Variety, I am sorry for my insinuations, but I would encourage you to check out Help:Getting started so that you can get a better handle on how to help this crazy, stupid, amazing project that it is Wikipedia. Either way, I hope you come to be a valuable and beneficial member of the Wikipedia community, and I hope I didn't come across as annoyed at you so much as explaining my reasons :) BreakfastJr (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)