This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Callmederek (talk | contribs) at 18:16, 23 March 2012 (→Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:16, 23 March 2012 by Callmederek (talk | contribs) (→Requested move)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the TMZ article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
Reporter's Names
Does anyone have a list of their names? The blonde guy named Max is the only one I can seem to find the name of, and that's just 'cause I can google "long hair" 63.26.92.126 (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Martha
Tara Conner
Tara Conner WASN'T dethroned.
Pay for stories
Levin said on Larry King less than two weeks ago that TMZ DOES pay for stories and that anyone news tabloid show who says differently is lying. There is a statement here that says they don't pay for them. I will look for the transcript but this is just a heads up.Hilljayne 07:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Melinda Dolittle Racism Allegation
I was just on the TMZ site and there was an article stating if one was upset that Melinda Dolittle got voted off last night's American Idol, and to not worry because she will come out in threaters this weekend. Next to a photo of Melinda Dolittle was a photo of Shrek! The article has now been removed, because of allegations of racism, do to the only feature they shared was their nose, a nose of African American origin. I think this should be added to the article, because here is a site who reports everyone else's racist outburts, but turns a blind eye to their own. I say put the page on protection.
They do have the same features
What? TMZ was not the only, nor FIRST organization that claimed that. Besides, the hair, neck, weight, teeth are all comparable.
TMZ TV
TMZ will be producing television segments... I don't have much more info, but here's their site info: http://www.tmz.com/about/tmztv Dreammaker182 07:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Criticism
I added a criticism section to the site in leiu of many objections to the site that people have made. I believe that before this, this article almost looked like an advertisement for tmz.com and there should be a balanced discussion of the site and its effects on celebrities as well as culture as a whole. If anyone can find any scholarly articles discussing this, please add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.231.49 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There should be a criticism section, but you should cite more sources, instead of using the Fox News weasel words "many have said", "many believe", etc.72.78.9.230 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Alec Baldwin, as much as I dislike the guy, was dead-on when describing TMZ and many of the people that work for it. The organization is a sleezy gossip column which inflates any celeb's slightest mistake into an attrocity. Look at their column on Cheryl Burke, where they lambast the poor girl just because she "doesn't cheoreograph all her own moves" Well, good for her. I wonder if every TMZ journalist gets all his/her own photos, networks, and leads without the help of others. I doubt it. I wonder how many of them are bitter individuals who get their ya-yas by destroying the dignity of people with far more talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
14 Year Old Revelations. The source cited to support the claim that TMZ is in breach of Californian Law is inappropriate. Leads to another blog that deals with the morality and ethics of the case (in an an emotive, not journalistic fashion). I couldn't agree more than TMZ is scum and what they did should be against the law, but I do believe accusations of this sort (law breaking) need to be accurately cited. 90.209.81.57 (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
cnn zone Time-Warner zone
- It was often said that "Everything entertainment happens in the 'Thirty Mile Zone.'" So essentially, the "Thirty Mile Zone" represents the center of Hollywood.
Southern Beverly Hills may be treated as Hollywood's center; but, it is not physically accurate.
Despite my having misplaced my maps, I had walked Hollywood during much of the 1980's, 1990's,....
Going from East to West, I think that it would be:
- cnnega, uh, Cienega Bl., la Cienega Bl.
- Is Robertson Bl. next??
- The actual cnn had been @ Cahuenga Bl.
I may have neglected some streets. If you can suggest some, okay,... Do I have them out of order, or in order??
Hollywood's physical center could, theoretically, be claimed by any number of locations including such disparate choices as Central Av., on one extreme, or somewhere in Santa Barbara County, on the other. Hollywood could be claimed as anywhere that there's a movie camera, which would include Mars, planet, &/or townships.
There are many reasons that this article should not endorse Cienega; but, it could cite that many persons would be of this opinion.
Thank You,
] 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, another issue, does West Hollywood end East or West of Cienega Bl?? Could W. H. be Northeast of Hollywood's center??
] 23:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
List of scoops
At a certain point, the list of TMZ scoops begins to detract from the article. Are you planning to keep this up for the next 5 years or more, listing every single scoop? Text is preferable to lists most of the time, and the more of this you can incorporate into the narrative the better. I'd suggest a paragraph about the most "famous" scoops in place of the list. -Jmh123 (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
None of the references in the list of story's they broke prove that they broke the story, they only show that the site reported on them, the references need to show that TMZ where the first to do so, because that's what the section is for. 17:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, its been 3 weeks, I'm removing the list entirely, it doesn't add much to the article even if it was true, and the references don't prove anything. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /(C) 10:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Michael Jackson's death
TMZ reported the death at 5:20 PM EDT, and claimed the story as an exclusive. This was around half an hour before the LA Times report. This is not an attempt to hype TMZ, but to point out that it was the first news outlet to be featured on rolling news channels claiming the death. Other early reports are claimed, and could some evidence be provided here? See also . The consensus seems to be that TMZ broke the story, regardless of how reliable the sourcing was at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use the TMZ site as a citation that they were the first to break the story. --Tom (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- The LA Times citation says "The 4-year-old website last week broke its biggest story yet -- the death of Michael Jackson ". This is a reflection of the consensus that TMZ did break the story. The current phrase in the article "is credited with" could be seen as weasel words, but it is an accurate reflection of what mainstream media sources have said.--♦IanMacM♦ 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- You added that they claimed as an exclusive, but where does it say that in the citation? --Tom (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- The edit added the link to the actual story posted by TMZ . This was added so that people could look at the story and make up their own minds. As yet, you have provided no WP:RS that TMZ did not play the major part in breaking the story.--♦IanMacM♦ 18:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- How can I prove a negative? Not trying to be a dick, but as you mentioned above, I would avoid the weaselly wording and stick with first to cover/report ect. rather than getting overly specific. --Tom (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- ps, it actually looks pretty good now. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- How can I prove a negative? Not trying to be a dick, but as you mentioned above, I would avoid the weaselly wording and stick with first to cover/report ect. rather than getting overly specific. --Tom (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- The edit added the link to the actual story posted by TMZ . This was added so that people could look at the story and make up their own minds. As yet, you have provided no WP:RS that TMZ did not play the major part in breaking the story.--♦IanMacM♦ 18:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Gaffes?
Fairly significant one Enigma 04:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is interesting, and it shows why news organizations like CNN were reluctant to accept that Michael Jackson had died on the basis of a report from TMZ. Perhaps there is WP:RECENTISM here, but it shows that TMZ is not infallible. To be fair, it seems that other news outlets made the same mistake. All well-trained journalists know that it is regarded as a huge gaffe to report someone as dead when they are not.--♦IanMacM♦ 07:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Even worse, to "confirm" that someone is dead and then pretend nothing happened. I think this is an answer to those that wanted TMZ to be considered a reliable source after the Michael Jackson story. Enigma 06:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Harvey Levin, TMZ's boss, responds to criticism of his site in this LA Times interview. TMZ has a good track record of showbiz scoops, including the rants by Mel Gibson and Christian Bale.. However, it is still regarded with suspicion by mainstream sources, which see it as essentially a showbiz gossip site. The death of Michael Jackson showed that when the chips are down, the media still wants information from tried and trusted sources.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Reliable on Misplaced Pages ?
Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Misplaced Pages article, even if it is on a scientific topic. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. I would certainly argue that TMZ.com is a reliable source, and that any objection to this source amounts to a type of posturing (WP:POV). ADM (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
First Paragraph
Other than the very first part of the first sentence, there is no description of what TMZ is. The rest of the paragraph(s) is all about who owns it. While one does not want to over-indulge into details in the first section, more information than simply "a celebrity news website". Honestly, that tells almost nothing. It should say something like "it is divided into several different components making up the different types of celebrities from blah-blah to blah-blah. The information uploaded on it... blah blah blah". In a nutshell, it's too vague. Don't add a lot, but add a little bit more. 72.191.116.59 (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
That newspaper article cites TMZ as the Thirty Mile Zone, but there is also a correlation to the Kodak Film TMAX TMZ 3200 speed: http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-T-MAX-P3200-Professional-TMZ/dp/B0000520I6 Should this be noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.133.185 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
 | It has been proposed in this section that TMZ be renamed and moved to TMZ (website). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move |
TMZ.com → TMZ (website) – Previously moved boldly to this new title. I reverted and brought it here as a matter of procedure after unsuccessfully encouraging the page mover to do so himself. See also Talk:Salon.com#Requested move. --DeLarge (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Violates the MOS guideline WP:TITLECHANGES, namely "if an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." The TLD suffix is widely used as a disambiguator for websites (see Category:Websites and its many subcategories). WP:NCDAB does not make any insistence on using a word in parenthesis as the primary style of disambiguation, and in fact offers several alternatives. Page mover cited three other recent move requests where the ".com" was removed after he'd added it, but that was in cases where the title did not need disambiguation. See also WP:NCCORP, where the legal status suffix (e.g. LLC, inc., Ltd, etc) is recommended as a disambiguator where required, but not used at all when this is not the case. --DeLarge (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support; reliable sources just call it TMZ, not TMZ.com. Powers 14:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support; As DeLarge himself contested to remove ".com" at Talk:Radar Online, Talk:Slant Magazine, Talk:Comic Book Resources and Talk:Comics Bulletin, the name of the site is the name of the site, and should be treated as official and sacrosanct. "Website" and ".com" are synonymous — they mean exactly the same thing. So it's proper to use the version that doesn't change the name of the site. WP:TITLECHANGES allows changes if there is a good reason, and respecting the name of the site is a very good reason.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Soft Oppose. (Website) and .com are not the same thing generally and especially not here. Obviously no one has even bothered to check out their "about" pages.
www.tmz.com is a URL;
TMZ is (or should be–their editors aren't the greatest and they themselves muff this) the name of the product; and
TMZ.com is (definitively) the legal name of the Warner Bros. subsidiary that owns the URL and creates the product.
TMZ.com signs the paychecks of the people who write for TMZ, which is a website magazine located at www.tmz.com. As long as the Misplaced Pages page uses TMZ.com as the name of the product (e.g., "On July 28, 2006, TMZ.com was the first to report..."), then TMZ.com is definitively the best namespace for the article. If those uses are corrected to TMZ so that the article is clearly talking about the magazine and not the Warner Bros. subsidiary, it's fine to rename it. — LlywelynII 15:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)- The article is indeed meant to be about the magazine-style site, TMZ, just as The New York Times article is about the newspaper and not The New York Times Publishing Company. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- oppose for precision. Its not lots of domains like google or yahoo would have, its just tmz.com. Callmederek (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)