Talk:Vice Media

Duplication eliminated

I've eliminated duplication in the company description though the system seems to be getting false-positives.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vice Media, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090309152116/http://www.harpmagazine.com:80/reviews/book_reviews/detail.cfm?article_id=6822 to http://www.harpmagazine.com/reviews/book_reviews/detail.cfm?article_id=6822

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Who owns it Now?

Page shows current ownership adding up to 110% – needs correcting.

Lots of ownership history:

"In August 2014, A&E Networks, a television group jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company and Hearst Corporation, made a $US250-million investment in Vice Media for an ownership stake of 10%.[32] In November and December 2015, Disney made two additional individual investments of US$200 million totaling $400 million.[33][34]"

So who owns it Now?...should be in the Lede.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8A2:C7BE:2556:7899 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

snoop lion

im not sure, but snoop lion is snoop dog now right? didnt fix it due to LOI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielTheDon (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Digital Media

The words digital media link to an article on digital storage, rather than internet-based news/blogging/video/entertainment. I think that in this context, "digital media" refers to (and should link to) the latter. Whyme943 (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section

I boldly deleted the "Controversy" section (added June 6 of this year) which consisted only of the fact that Gavin McInnes founded Proud Boys eight years after leaving Vice. I completely anticipate my removal being reverted, so I figure I may as well start the conversation while it's fresh in my mind.

The fact that McInnes founded Proud Boys is already in the article, in the "History" section. Repeating things in Wikipedia (besides in the lead) is frowned upon on Wikipedia.

That McInnes founded Proud Boys is controversial. That he did it eight years after leaving Vice is not a "controversy" for Vice per se according to any source I've seen. It is completely undue weight to have a heading of its own under "Controversy". The recent addition of how the Proud Boys were involved in the Capitol riots is even further removed from anything related to Vice.

Additionally, there are real controversies involving Vice, which actually involve Vice itself, for example, their photoshopping images with intent to deceive that were simply put under the "History" section.

In sum, a brief mention of McInnes's link to Proud Boys is warranted, and already appears in the "History" section. But a section of it's own? Not at all. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, the only time any political affiliation is mentioned it is with McInnes, while Vice's political affiliation is clearly the opposite. There's a very clear bias in this article and you can either fix that, or remove these gaslit 'controversies'. 2A02:A444:478A:1:2043:FB75:6A65:2631 (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

The article has numerous NPOV issues, such as poetic wording in Wikipedia's own voice. "[...] has routinely advocated for their "immersionist" brand of journalism in the pursuit of more authentic and interesting stories" and "[...] who bristled in an exchange with [...]" are two such examples in Wikipedia's own voice. I have added a template letting other editors know to look into these issues as well. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:A82B:E55B:1AB6:9D03 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Vice Pulled a Documentary Critical of Saudi Arabia after partnership deal

This info might be put in the article:

• Vice Pulled a Documentary Critical of Saudi Arabia. But Here It Is. By Nikita Mazurov. September 9 2023. The Intercept.

"In June, six months after announcing a partnership deal with a Saudi Arabian government-owned media company, Vice uploaded but then quickly removed a documentary critical of the Persian Gulf monarchy’s notorious dictator, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS." --Timeshifter (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Bruce Dixon, current CEO

I recently created Draft:Bruce Dixon. Any help would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)