Talk:Cosmopolitan (magazine)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cosmopolitan Men?![edit]

The article claims that a spin-off called Cosmopolitan Men exists. I could find no evidence for this whatsoever, and the only publication I could find to carry this name has been a calendar that came with Cosmo. Is this thing in the making or something? --Tomsintown 00:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reader's Response[edit]

Not in the spirit of Wikipedia but I think the "Reader's Response" section needs to be eliminated. The section entirely covers one letter about (presumably) one article. Lotsofissues 17:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comsopolitan?[edit]

What's it with the spelling Comso and Comsopolitan appearing in the subtitle and caption? Is the magazine really nicknamed that way, or is it a typo? Is it a reference to the Komsomol, Communist Union of Youth? mtreinik 09:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a typo -- I've heard the magazine referred to by that nickname. jdb ❋ (talk) 02:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is called Cosmo, but I've never heard Comso. The OP is trying to say that Comso would be a play of them being Communists... ★Dasani★ 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a typo. in the midwest US (that I can verify for certain) it is commonly called "cosmo" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.27.250 (talk) June 27, 2006

Yes, Cosmo is a nickname, not CoMSo though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.130.55 (talk) July 22, 2006

Sex[edit]

"The magazine features mostly feminine topics such as sex, makeup, hair tips, etc."

Sex is a feminine topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.223.140 (talk) July 21, 2005

Can someone please fix that line? I don't want to presume to know what the author was getting at. The word feminine in that context is unsuitable in any case...unless someone can explain to me how a topic acquires a gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.3.110 (talk) July 2, 2006


parhaps sex from a feminie perspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.156.71 (talk) November 9, 2006

Why is the word "sex" always the biggest words on the cover of almost every single issue? Women do not think about sex every second of the day. There are other issues women are concerned with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.66 (talk) April 26, 2007

Cosmo is a prurient magazine?[edit]

Why in recent years became Cosmo a so-called "prurient magazine"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin villafuerte85 (talk • contribs) September 15, 2005

Tell me the answer when you find that out, because you're not alone in your question. ★Dasani★ 23:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A long time ago there used to be a cat's silouette on the magazine ,in the letter N in the lower corner,and in the end of each article used to appear the silouette of this cat's head.What happen with thet logo and why is no longer in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.134.75 (talk) February 19, 2006

The cats head, which was a response to the Playboy Bunny, disappeared when Helen Gurley Brown ceased being the editor of the US edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.103.33 (talk) June 30, 2006

Advertising[edit]

Cosmopolitan is historically important for its propaganda development role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.30.82 (talk) July 10, 2006

Fair use rationale for Image:Cosmo636.jpg[edit]

Image:Cosmo636.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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Some parts of the article, especially in the 'Cosmopolitan today' section, read like an ad. Zazaban (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.75.189.245.141 (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

This article needs serious help. Who says this magazine is the most popular among women in the world? I highly doubt such a claim. This magazine is packed with garbage. Every issue is about how to give good blowjobs or how to lose 112 pounds in a week. And is the section referencing our popular culture really necessary? I've never picked up an issue and never will, so I'm just going to wait for somebody else to come along and fix this. I know it sounds rude for Wikipedia, but this article's tone isn't doing too well either. ★Dasani★ 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kroger[edit]

"Kroger, the nation's largest grocery chain, currently covers up Cosmopolitan at checkout stands because of complaints about sexually explicit headlines". Which nation? I've never heard of Kroger and I'm sure many readers of this page won't have either. Let me guess, its an American because of course they are the centre of the universe...... Alskar (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're goddamn right we are. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV, low quality, advertizing/magazine style[edit]

Large part of this article (I have made some minor clean-ups) are written in an unencyclopedic way wrt to both language and impartiality. In fact, many formulations are of the kind one would expect in a un-intellectual magazine like Cosmo it self. (Note that this is not an implication about undueness, just a statement about quality.) 88.77.152.180 (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have removed the PoV tag, as the justification for it, above, seem not to actually allege a point of view. It has gone unaddressed for two full years-- time for it to go. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Shouldn't the criticism section be expanded? There is still a lot of complaints about Cosmo from women's feminist and intellectual circles (and lots of individuals too) about the magazine's focus on beauty and how to please your man, as they feel it doesn't agree with their ideas about empowerment and independence and instead pushes young women to the opposite direction. Its quite a common argument, I'm surprised its not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.153.202 (talk) April 29, 2010

Also the kind of stuff that's in here: http://www.cracked.com/article_19066_7-psychotic-pieces-relationship-advice-from-cosmo_p2.html . Obviously not a reliable source but that advice is utterly insane and I'm sure similar criticism exists elsewhere. 98.239.189.230 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

In this article it states directly that sex without social repercussion is an "empowering message." However, it is merely a message.

24.77.163.48 (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Matthew Fransen June 30, 2010[reply]

Racism[edit]

The article states that it discusses "women's issues" though it seems to focus exclusively on white women. Racial clarifications are made on similar pages like Jet and Essence. I'm adding a line to make the page's format more similar. Gustavadolphus (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Especially in the beauty section, I find the tips unusable as they assume white features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.108 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, although it will be necessary to find reliable sources that say explicitly that Cosmo is targeted at white women. I haven't found any so far that say so explicitly, except for a master's thesis, which isn't enough in my opinion. There seem to be some sources that discuss the issue without really saying enough explicitly. There may be a way to get something out of this one here:
— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put a sentence in about the audience being white women. As the source is on JSTOR and thus behind a paywall I thought I'd quote it here since this information seems to be controversial:

Cosmopolitan's self-help advice and feature articles assume a white audience. Models, if third-world, which is not often the case, are represented in codes which signify differences as the culturally exotic.

There's more about it there, but I believe that this supports the sentence I put in.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an outrageous statement that is backed up by one reference - http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3812809?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102094456597 which is basically someone's opinion rather than fact. The journal article is behind a paywall but the abstract says it is based on analysis of some articles in 38 issues between 1976 and 1988, and the article itself claims to be predominantly about gender and class and not race. I could analyse some articles of 38 issues (out of a potential 156 - less than a quarter) and prove virtually any point I wanted to, and maybe it would get published but that doesn't make it the absolute truth 25 years down the line.Rayman60 (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC) and it seems as though those magazines mentioned above are targeted at a niche, specialist or specific audience whereas Cosmo is mass market (at women obviously, but all women in general). I really don't think these arguments hold weight. You get magazines in India that give tips for brown features. They're not aimed at brown people, it's just what the majority of their audience is.Rayman60 (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous "tips"[edit]

Cosmo's terrible sex tips are everywhere, it's the magazine's most notable "feature" and has been for years, why isn't there anything about it, especially in the criticism tag? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Cosmopolitan (magazine). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaimed[edit]

I removed this sentence 'In 1967, the magazine reclaimed the name Cosmopolitan' and edited the phrase about New Cosmopolitan out, as there is not the slightest evidence on the covers of the magazine that any such name changes took place. This appears to be an error. Nick Beeson (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopolitan has 64 international editions[edit]

Cosmopolitan has 64 international editions? How can it have more than one? I suspect that "Cosmopolitan has 64 national editions" is meant. 109.153.242.36 (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Underage[edit]

"using (then) underage celebrities, such as Demi Lovato and Selena Gomez, as well as other celebrities popular with teens such as Ashley Greene and Dakota Fanning, in an attempt to gain the attention of underage girls" makes no sense. Under what age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.242.36 (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.164.222 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
18, according to critics including Victoria Hearst[1] -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cosmopolitan (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cosmopolitan (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cosmo was widely known as a "bland" and boring magazine by critics."[edit]

Really? It would be nice to prove that - this is the first time I hear such a statement. Where is the source? By the way - the old Cosmo is online as microfilm. A link would be usefull. https://archive.org/details/pub_cosmopolitan Matthias Kaether

Trashy and salacious sure, but bland? I don't think so. I checked the nearby references, and they do not support that claim. Seems a lot like vandalism. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "bland and boring" characterization does not belong in the article without references, but when included in the article, it referred to the era before Helen Gurley Brown took over the magazine in 1965. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glamorizing obesity[edit]

Piers Morgan is an idiot, but Cosmo was nonetheless criticized for putting an obese model on the cover. It happened. Different opinions are available and the newspaper used as a source disagreed with the criticism too, but that does not mean the criticism did not happen. It is not mischaracterizing[2] the source to use it to say the criticism exists even though they clearly disagreed with it.

This article has bigger problems, but I restored the status quo because it was reliably sourced. Also it made the mess of a subsection heading into a bigger mess since it no longer contained "and other mixed criticisms." -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganized a bit. Honestly we don't need to keep every line of text users add to these articles, especially if their contribution fails WP:NPOV. This is what made the source mischaracterized. Also: see WP:BALANCE. Mottezen (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be WP:UNDUE to give attention to Piers Morgan but pretending the criticism did not happen is not balance. There may be some valid reasons to remove that paragraph but WP:SECONDARY sources reported it and his stupid comments did generate a wave of discussion. Taking a neutral point of view and using a source merely to say the criticism existed is not mischaracterizing anything. Maybe the reputation of this magazine has improved but I doubt it. I think the lack of balance is more likely in the other direction and that editors could probably find reliable sources with plenty more substantial criticism of the magazine if they really wanted. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today[edit]

Today is a bad section title for an encyclopedia, see WP:RELTIME (also vague words such as "currently" should be avoided too.)

The section could be renamed and the History section reorganized and restructured. Dividing things up by era might be more consistent, and changing the Today heading to something more specific like "Since 2000" or "2000-present" might work. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Market magazines?[edit]

The lead currently states:

Cosmopolitan fashion magazines are located in the Hearst Tower, 300 West 57th Street or 959 Eighth Avenue, near Columbus Circle, Midtown Manhattan, neighborhood of Manhattan in New York City and market magazines are located in the 32 Avenue of the Americas, 32 Sixth Avenue, Tribeca, neighborhood of Manhattan in New York City.

Aside from the unusually redundant method of listing these addresses, what is this about "fashion magazines" and "market magazines"? The article doesn't say anything about there being two versions of Cosmopolitan, one being a fashion magazine and one being a market magazine -- whatever a "market magazine" is supposed to be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found that the magazine's website states in much plainer English, "The Cosmopolitan office is located at 300 W 57th St. in New York City ...." [3] and removed the inaccurate addresses and redundancies. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cosmopolitan_(magazine)&oldid=1194471149"