Talk:Vogue (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"Vogueing" redirects here. What does it mean? -Branddobbe 02:13, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

From a talk show I saw a number of years ago, "vogueing" is dancing in a seductive manner that imitates the actions of models in music videos and such. I don't really understand it that well, but Madonna's video for her song "Vogue" does a pretty good job of portraying it. Catchphrase: "Strike a pose." Apparently, it's pretty popular in and was started in gay clubs. HTH Frecklefoot | Talk 19:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Then shouldn't it redirect to the Madonna? She was the one who started catchphrase, not the magazine. Vesperholly 19:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It predates the 1990 Madonna single. Vogueing is said to have originated in the african-american M2F transgendered community some time in the 80s. The movie Paris Is Burning (also late on the scene) depicts some vogueing. Sorry, I'm no expert, but there is an article on the topic. – edgarde 04:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Vogue and history?[edit]

This really is a stub of an article! Can I invite people to contribute material to do with how Vogue influenced the rise of particular styles and fashions? Also - some extraordinary coups. thegirlinwhite 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say so, Thegirlinwhite: I think that is encyclopædic.—Stombs 01:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Took out an overlong meander about Teen Vogue. The significance of the Vogue brand worldwide is to do with its flagship British, Italian, American, French and now Eastern adult titles. It's just too parochial to list regional youth variations. There needs to be more detail first on the 'main' titles. thegirlinwhite 12:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Vogue was originally British?[edit]

I'm no expert, but my understanding was that Vogue was originally a New York society magazine. I noticed that the claim that it was originally a British magazine is not referenced. Can anyone provide a source for the origin of the magazine? BarqSimpson 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

About Vogue[edit]

It's Headquarters are in London because I've visited them on a couple of occasions,so whoever told you New York is wrong

  • British Vogue you mean.Alex 20:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Lisa Fonssagrives[edit]

Restored discussion of the Vogue cover. Remove that discussion and you lose the fair use qualification for the cover. Her sheer number of covers alone is a record. She has still not been surpassed and her impact on both the magazine and the term supermodel is unique. Doc 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


The magazine shown in the movie "The Devil Wears Prada" (2006) was loosely based on Vogue and Meryl Streep's character was based on Anna Wintour.

Consensus says that trivia is not encyclopaedic and utimately all triva sections will be removed from Wikipedia. If you consider this important enough to mention work it into a paragraph. Doc 00:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? Trivia's not encyclopedic? Where's the discussion? I'd like to see it. I totally think trivia is encyclopedic (as long as it's true). — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Can someone source the claim that all trivia sections will be removed from WP?NYDCSP 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Where's the reference? Will all trivia sections be removed? They're an obvious reflection of what makes this encyclopedia so important... removing them would diminish it unnecessarily. Kalindoscopy 15:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

POV and original research concerns[edit]

This article contains too much POV and original research biased to the magazine. The whole "History" sections seems like a press release when read by someone unfamiliar to the magazine.

  • "Its success and influence have not been universally lauded" - This phrase has an implicity assumption that the magazine is "succesful" and "influent". We need a neutral criteria for defining "succesful" and "influent" and then explain why Vogue is "succesful" and "influent".
    • "succesful" ? "influent" ? they're not even words! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Its photography at the time reflected the imagery of contemporaneous Hollywood films: staged and luxurious" - It's original research.
  • "The historic relationship between Vogue and supermodels began with top fashion model Lisa Fonssagrives who appeared on over 200 Vogue covers" - The 200+ covers statement needs a source, but that should be easy to find. But where from comes the information that "the relationship between Vogue and supermodels began with Lisa Fonssagrives"? Whose opinion is this?
  • "As shown on the cover to the right, Fonssagrives at the height of her career could be both sophisticated and yet a cook, something with which every American woman could identify" - This is an opinion. This is an interpretation of the magazine cover picture. It's not suposed to be stated as a fact.
  • "Her presence in nearly every fashion magazine from the 1930s to the 1950s, from Town & Country, Life, Vogue, and the original Vanity Fair to the cover of Time helped to build her name recognition and the importance of Vogue in helping a model reach "supermodel" status" - Besides being more about Ms Fonssagrives than Vogue, this statement is an unsoursable opinion. How can we be sure that this or that "built the importance of vogue in helping a model reach "supermodel" status"? There's also the implicity POV that Vogue has an importance in "helping a model reach "supermodel" status". This has to be rephrased or removed.
  • "Being on the cover of Vogue became a symbol of success for models" and "Multiple Vogue covers becomes a cornerstone of being considered a supermodel"- Unless it's an opinion, some evicence must be provided.
  • "But Vogue truly hit its stride under the leadership of editor-in-chief so-so and art director so-so, when it began to publish the work of photographers so-so and so-so". This "truly" need some evidence.
  • " Penn and Avedon broke decisively with the stuffy conventions of previous fashion photography: Penn by a stripped-down minimalism that left his subjects in bare studios against stark empty backgrounds; Avedon by breaking out of the confines of dispassionate, static studio tableaux and shooting dynamic pictures of models at the height of emotion and in the middle of action." - This is an original analisys of the artists work and it's influence. I'm not sure an encyclopedia is the right place for publishing these opinions.

I'll stop here. I guees the idea has been given. I'm uncapable to fix this article by myself. Unfortunately, all I can do is to point what I see as problems. I hope no one takes this personally. I think the article's text is well written, but still unfit for an encyclopedia. Judging by it's subject, this article has the potential to become a WP:FA in the future,and I'll be glad to see that. --Abu Badali 01:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No answer so far... :( I'm going to remove what I feel unfit. I'm still open to discussing it here, though (but please, avoid re-adding stuff without discussion). --Abu Badali 12:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't finding sources be more productive than removing material? Stevage 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the items pointed out here do indeed show far too much POV and only harm an article about such an important subject. It would improve the article to remove the worst ones and improve those which would leave a hole (like the well-known fact that being on the cover of Vogue is highly important in the modeling industry) and can be easily sourced.NYDCSP 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've pitched in to try and clean this article up some more. After so much was deleted (and I must say, the editor who did so had a point), I've started to try and add back some more material, and have been zealously citing and sourcing it as best I can. I started with the lede and then moved down to the Wintour era in the history, and hope to find ways to add back in better coverage of the mag's artistic history (Avedon, et al) and to clean up the horror show that is that paragraph on the models and the relevance there. I think that if this article is re-tooled properly, it could begin to give birth to suitable daughter articles, such as on its editors, its impact on the modeling industry, on photography, on art/culture, on the fashion industry itself, on publishing, on the position of New York and other cities within the fashion industry and business generally. It's limitless where this can go if we rebuild this one article properly. SOURCE EVERYTHING PEOPLE! Pull any analysis or turns of phrase out of the verifiable sourced material (make it books, mainstream newspapers, news and business magazines, trade papers -- have it befit the subject!), don't just exercise your English degrees here. The article is about Vogue, it isn't about us.NYDCSP 22:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You're correct, this article had major POV problems even when I came to it (on September 25, 2008). Much of the History section sounded like it had been written by someone straight out of a cheap creative writing workshop. I have made some pretty extensive edits to change things to a more encyclopaedic tone without removing any actual information. I don't actually know anything about Vogue (I just happened across this article while reverting a particular IP's vandalism, and noticed that it had serious issues), I have just been working on the article from a style point of view, so if anyone who knows more about the magazine itself notices that I've made something incorrect or removed something important, feel free to restore it--but please don't restore any of the flowery prose that was in the article before; this is supposed to read like an encyclopaedia, not a poem! --Politizer (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


Why was the image of Anna Wintour removed? It belongs on this page. Great to have a picture of André Leon Talley added, though. KP Botany 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine any picture of Wintour was removed because of questionable application of fair use. Since the picture accompanying the article is free and does not have such limitations, I'm putting it in. Daniel Case 14:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it's Creative Commons licensed, the same one as in her article, and it does belong in this article.
Image:Anna Wintour.jpg
KP Botany 19:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what I meant. 'Twas me who got the photographer to change the licensing.

But there was one before of her and Claudia Schiffer that was fair use. Daniel Case 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work, then. Now let's get it back in the article, even 50 years from now an image of her would belong in an article on the magazine. And if you've ever seen my image formatting you would not leave adding the image back in to me, it will be more work to correct my dreadful formats than for you to just insert it. KP Botany 00:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I would if I had only the time to make that talk page comment at the time.

We need pictures of Mirabella and Vreeland as well, I should think. Daniel Case 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to split this up[edit]

NYDSCP said above, before he left Wikipedia, that this article could support a lot of daughter articles. I'm about to create Category:Vogue, as part of ongoing work setting up the new fashion WikiProject and he's absolutely right. A single article cannot do this subject justice and stay anywhere within a reasonable size limitation.

For starters, it currently deals almost exclusively with American Vogue (hence I will be putting a {{globalize}} tag on it). Yet the various overseas editions have their own unique personalities and status within the fashion world — the British and French editions are known to be more experimental, more cutting-edge. They (especially the oldest, British Vogue) deserve separate articles, as we've already done for Teen Vogue, Men's Vogue and we should do for Vogue Living.

Second, the history section is heavily biased toward the late 20th century and the Anna Wintour era in particular. It may be important, but it's still not the whole story. Perhaps we could have a separate History of Vogue article as well?

I will be putting the appropriate {{split}} tag on it as well. Daniel Case 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of different articles for international editions. But in this case, we would still have a Vogue article for the "brand", right? And then, I believe that the History of Vogue article wouldn't be necessary.
Yes, we would need a main article (this one). If the history section wasn't too complex, it could stay here. But I'm not betting on it. Daniel Case 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The international editions articles should be created according to demand. For instance, we shouldn't create Vogue (Mexico edition) before we have enough info to put in this article.
Exactly. Right now I only see a need for (I'll assume these will be the namings) Vogue (British magazine), Vogue (French magazine) and Vogue (Italian magazine). Those are regarded as the important ones outside the U.S. Daniel Case 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope I can be helpful in the processes. --Abu badali (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You have already been. Daniel Case
As no movement for the split has been made for 6 months, perhaps we should remove the tag? In its current state, the article is hardly ready for a split. -- 03:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Vogue[edit]

There is no discussion whatever on the origin of Vogue magazine. The "history" starts at 1960, while the majority of the magazine's history actually happened before that (i.e. it's 116 years old and the first 68 years are all but ignored)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre statements in introductory paragraph[edit]

There are some issues with the introduction:

"It has surpassed all other Magazines in total circulation and ads."

--this statement is untrue; Vogue is not even in the top 10. National Geographic and Reader's Digest, for example, have far wider circulation.

"Vogue is so named because it is said to be as a noun, Vogue suggests transient impermanent fashionability."

--this is, as close as I am able to discern, both grammatically incorrect and completely nonsensical even when the grammar is corrected. (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors-in-Chief section[edit]

The Editors-in-Chief section as it stands now is rather arbitrarily written and has problems with undue weight. (Note that my recent edits to that section have not changed the actual content, as I know nothing about Vogue; I have only been cleaning up the format of the section.) It lists the editors-in-chief of American, British, and French versions of Vogue...why choose those three in particular, and ignore the Chinese, Taiwanese, Indian, Italian, Brazilian, German, Greek....I could go on... If anyone out there has a good source listing the editors-in-chief of these other editions (or even these...the section, currently, is completely unsourced), feel free to add a column to the table and add those editors. If the table starts getting big (ie, if you need to scroll right to see the rest of the table on most browsers), it should be split off into a separate article called something like Editors-in-Chief of Vogue magazine.

If no one has started adding editors-in-chief of other internation editions of Vogue within the next couple days, I will probably just remove the British and French columns entirely from this article and change the section title to something like "Editors-in-Chief of American Vogue." That might be objectionable to some, but like I said, we can't leave the section as is for too long because of undue weight problems. --Politizer (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no response, I'm going to delete the British and French tables now. Please do not reinstate them unless you are prepared to a) make lists of editors-in-chief of all editions of Vogue; or b) somehow prove that these editions are more significant and notable than others. —Politizertalk • contribs ) 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend putting the table in timeline. (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


What is the word "vogue" supposed to mean? It might be interesting to mention it. I, for one, dont know what the original meaning of "vogue" was (if any). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition:
1archaic : the leading place in popularity or acceptance
2 a: popular acceptation or favor : popularity b: a period of popularity
3: one that is in fashion at a particular time
synonym; fashion
Etymology: Middle French, action of rowing, course, fashion, from voguer to sail, from Old French, from Old Italian vogare to row
Dreammaker182 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Vogue & Charity[edit]

Vogue was established to raise money for a terminally ill friend through art, dance, and fashion. Vogue has continued with this central idea. Vogue chooses a worthy charity to support and produces a fund-raising event for that charity each year. In 1988, When Anna Wintour became editor of the magazine, she decided to support organizations the help diseases such as AIDS and Breast Cancer.Cajoiner (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

biweekly history?[edit]

the present text says:

> He changed it to a bi-weekly magazine

does this mean one issue per two weeks, or two issues per one week? the word "biweekly" means both of those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminZClifford (talkcontribs) 21:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Circulation of VOGUE[edit]

Total circulation 2011: 1,248,121 That is not possible. only the september issue has more than 5 million sells. Can someone correct that? please — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! You are absolutely right. My group and I have changed this for our University Project and got the correct circulation from the Conde Nast Media Kit. Thanks for pointing it out! Emilyn Teh (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Vogue June 2010 Blake Lively.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Vogue June 2010 Blake Lively.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Vogue June 2010 Blake Lively.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Men on the cover[edit]

I added a brief sentence about there having only been four men ever featured on the cover of the magazine. It's trivia, but I think it warrants mention in the article. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that the controversy section of Joan Juliet Buck be merged into Vogue's criticism section. I think that the content in the former is more easily explained in the context of the latter, and the latter article is of a reasonable size in which the merging will cause less problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned as opposed to where it is now. (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I would argue against merging. This article was unique in the history of the magazine for its controversial subject matter. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue FOR merging with some editing down. Vogue's history isn't that long. It's also pretty clear that the magazine commissioned Joan Juliet Buck to write the piece, so seeming to lay authorship solely on Joan Juliet Buck, which is what we'd be doing by keeping that section in her article, misleads readers.-- (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This incident, still being discussed more than a year after it occurred, merits sections on both Buck's page and Vogue's page. (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Its a major discussion and I think it should have a separate page with links to both Buck's page and Vogue baring that it should be left in both IPWAI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
WHICH "above" please?--Aichikawa (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion that the controversy have its own page, with links to both Buck's page and Vogue's. (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • There seems to be some sort of consensus to create a new article, but the idea of a merge seems to have lapsed, so I am removing the tags from the two articles. Scolaire (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

National editions[edit]

I've added a list of national and regional editions, along with the date of first publication, best I could do with the information I could find on the various Wikipedias (in English and other languages). I tried to give the name of the magazine as it is published in its own language; for many, especially the Asian editions, I could not find the name. (How do you spell Vogue Thailand in Thai?). Listmeister (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

University Project[edit]

Over the upcoming weeks, we are hoping to improve this article as part of a class project. We would appreciate any assistance or suggestions that you might have and thank you in advance for your patience. Here is a link to our course page

Here is a brief description of what we are planning to do: 1. We hope to expand the History section and incorporate/update information regarding target audience, demographics, circulation etc. 2. We will add to the Media section with references to "In Vogue: An Editor's Eye" as well as the books published by and referencing Vogue. We will also address the newly launched Vogue video channel. 3. We want to reorganize the page to make it look cleaner, for example incorporating the Voguepedia section into the Media section, as well as the Regional and national editions within the Other editions section. 4. There are a few paragraphs within sections that specifically talk about current editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, but are not necessarily relevant to the sections they're in. So, we'd like to add an Anna Wintour section that puts all these paragraphs together in one place.

And here's a list of proposed sources

In Vogue : the illustrated history of the world's most famous fashion magazine Conde Nast Media Kit Grace Coddington: A Memoir Historical Dictionary of the Fashion Industry Voguepedia The Man Who Was In Vogue: The Life and Times of Conde Nast

For images, we will go through what the Wikipedia Commons has to offer.

Emilyn Teh will be working on the Media section, Paul Blank will be working on the History section and Haley Conover will be in charge of formatting.

Let us know if you have any questions or concerns. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, Emilyn Teh Paul Blank Haley Conover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyn Teh (talkcontribs) 02:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this is Haley Conover please refer to my sandbox to see all proposed changes. I'd love any and all feedback! Best. Hec44 (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Prof. Leshed
This is a good proposal, and I am glad that you thought of the fact that one of you needs to know well the wiki format and style to be in charge of that. Here are some comments:
  • It is unclear where the sources are proposing are - which are books, websites, etc. Be more clear about this.
  • It could be useful to address previous discussions on this talk page as a way to make progress on improving the article.
  • Remember to sign all posts on the talk page with four tildes ~~~~ to avoid "unsigned" posts.
  • The course assignment template needs to appear at the top of the talk page. Please move it to there.
  • Haley, please provide a direct link to your sandbox so others could find it. Also, don't be afraid to edit directly the article itself.
  • Happy editing! LeshedInstructor (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Niteshgoyalwiki (talk)

  • Move the Template for Educational Assignment to the top of the Talk Page. It should be at the absolute top.
  • How do you plan to further divide sections into subsections - it might make sense to come up with a general map before you start filling in the missing pieces
  • Look for sources - for the questions you have, you should definitely be needing independent sources.
  • Engage with the previous folks on the Talk Page, especially the ones from 2012 and 2013. You can engage them with here or on their talk page.
  • Please propose your changes here instead of the sandbox. Sandbox is a good place to see how it looks like teh you want it. (Add the link to the talk page)
  • Remember to nominate your article to did you know by the end of class on Oct 1. Niteshgoyalwiki (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this is Emilyn Teh I have just added to the media section (About the In Vogue: the Editor's Eye documentary and Haley Conover worked on the table in the article under Edition Information. In addition, we have also nominated our article for "Did you know" and reached out to previous editors who edited this article. Emilyn Teh (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, I just added video channel information to the media section. In addition I thought it would be helpful to add "social" to style and influence as well. I know that there is already a separate Met Ball page but I thought it would be important to mention it as it is an important event that contributes to the lifestyle "brand" that Vogue wants to grow into. Any thoughts? Emilyn Teh (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal: other editions[edit]

I propose that Vogue (British magazine), Vogue China, Vogue India, Vogue Italia, Vogue Paris, Men's Vogue, and Teen Vogue be merged into Vogue (magazine). I think that the content of these other Vogue editions can easily be explained in the context of Vogue (magazine). I don't think we need eight different articles on Vogue magazine. They could probably be merged together and the subsequent article shortened into something that would fit an encyclopedia. Holdek (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the four big ones (Vogue (British magazine), Vogue Italia, Vogue Paris and Vogue (magazine)) could each stand alone. Merge Vogue China and Vogue India. Not sure about Men's Vogue, and Teen Vogue because those are different animals. Leaning merge on Men's and keep on Teen.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Each edition has its own identity with separate editorial teams, and its own history as distinct from each other, particularly the four big ones. Agree with Tony the Tiger that you could probably merge China, India, and any other Vogue offshoots into a separate article, but keep British, American, French and Italian Vogues separate. But generally, as someone with a fashion history background, I strongly oppose this suggestion - they may all be under the same umbrella, but I don't believe all the Vogues published in, say, January 2012, would have contents exactly replicated (albeit translated) across them, making them individual publications. Mabalu (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per others. At least the main 4 deserve their own articles, plus men/teens. Their contents are mostly pretty localized. No real benefit suggested. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Vogue (magazine)[edit]

Who was the first politician to be featured in Vogue magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Condé Montrose Nast purchase of Vogue.[edit]

Britannica and Condé Nast both have the purchase dated as 1909, not 1905 as in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Talking about Vogue[edit]

 I chose Vogue as the article to read about it. It is entirely talking about its(Vogue) history, its style and influence, its criticism, its media and some other editions. Vogue means “style” in French. In 1892, Arthur Turnure founded Vogue as a weekly newspaper in the United States, sponsored by Kristoffer Wright. Initially, this magazine affected new New York aristocracy and was based on Fashion. During the year of the 1920s to 1970s, the number of subscribing Vogues was going to a phenomenon of surge that many people started to read Vogue at that time, and also appeared in the second World War. In the very beginning, the purpose of publishing Vogue was to make it became the most influential fashion book for readers to study, and to pursue the style. Vogue made a significant effect in Technological, Economic, Political and Social. In the Criticism part, it showed about achievements in some areas. For example; personify the images, wrote a roman à clef. In 2007, Vogue drew criticism from the anti-smoking group, "Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids”, and any other else. In Media, it involved three parts, the Documentaries, the Video Channel, and the books.

In my opinion, the part of the contents that works for me is the style and influence part. Since it introduced Vogue in a concrete way for me to know about it. It is likely for me to use when I begin to write the background of the article that I chose. However, I think on the part of other editions does not work for me. Because there is no information, I need for my argument paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6A09:BD00:EDA5:DF17:1E7B:825 (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:November 1988 Vogue cover.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

File:November 1988 Vogue cover.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 non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free 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.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)