This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A fact from Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
I think you are correct. Are there any more sources about the performance published in the aftermath? Feel free to add any information you find. Best, Thriley (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a few cited in the article, a Google News search turns up far more. Here are some that go into some detail from a quick search, mostly from the Associated Press:
Relevant excerpt: O’Connor, in a statement Thursday in London, reiterated her objections to the church, which she holds responsible for the child abuse she suffered. The Vatican uses “marriage, divorce and in particular birth control and abortion to control us through our children and through fear,” she said.Popcornfud (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant excerpt: O’Connor defended her actions by saying she wanted to draw attention to child abuse, which she blamed in part on teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. She has said repeatedly that she was abused as a child.Popcornfud (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant excerpt: The singer has publicly railed against the church-state relationship in Ireland, including prohibitions on divorce and abortion and warring among Catholics and Protestants. The singer sometimes wears a T-shirt bearing the phrase, “Recovering Catholic.”Popcornfud (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant excerpt: O’Connor has criticised the Catholic Church’s stand against abortion and earlier this year led an abortion-rights march through Dublin.Popcornfud (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed the wording to 'child abuse' from 'child sexual abuse' per the above discussion and O'Connor's own statement pertaining to reasons for staging her protest (detailed in the above discussion). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, the article still needs a major rewrite. If you don't have the context that the time her public statements were mainly about Catholic teachings allegedly leading to child abuse from the general population the whole thing comes off completely differently.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should definitely be covered in the reaction section — how the protest was interpreted and understood (or not) at the time. Popcornfud (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"per this Salon source" - this article was written 10 years later is basically retconning the event. Also, despite insinuations sometimes given, SO'C said that she was abused by her parents, not by priests or nuns (according to her article here). Str1977(talk)23:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the sources helpfully provided by Eldomtom2 above and pulled out some relevant excerpts (where they exist) about O'Connor's intent for the protest. I'll try to integrate these into the article next. Popcornfud (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" in revenge for the physical abuse she suffered as a child"
This is cited to two sources: [1], [2]. The first (when translated from Italian via Google) doesn't mention any physical abuse, the second (NY Times) I can't read because it's behind a paywall.
@User:Randy Kryn: We must be specific here because without further context this will be taken to mean O'Connor was sexually abused by the Catholic church. One of the Time sources in the Wiki article amended their article specifically to avoid implying this. What is the precise wording used in the NY Times source? Popcornfud (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence seems an important part of O'Connor's reasoning, whatever the context. She or the language used doesn't imply sexual abuse, but abuse. Catholic schools and personnel often used abuse to control the students (the infamous ruler on the knuckles, drinking green liquid, other forms of light but real abuse). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Times paywall, but if it's sourced to there it should be left up until the source can is read and verified or not verified. Goes to intent, just saying she took the photo off the wall and later used it misses the intention behind using that particular photograph. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
misses the intention behind using that particular photograph
Since you admit you have not read the source, how do you know that "revenge for the physical abuse she suffered as a child" was her intent? Do you have an alternative source showing this?
I have now read the NY Times article. In fact it does not say she burnt the photo "in revenge for the physical abuse she suffered as a child", so I'll go ahead and remove this claim. Popcornfud (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read any of the newstories published after the performance, you’ll see that the intention was not an attack on the church itself, but an attack on her abusive mother- the photo that was torn up belonged to her mother. Thriley (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll sift through them soon. There is definitely more we can explain about O'Connor's motivations and the point she was making. We just need to be careful to avoid ambiguous language and stick to the source. Popcornfud (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I currently don't have time to check out the source, but in the Performance section: SNL writer Paula Pell recalled personnel in the control booth discussing the cameras cutting away. If I'm not mistaken, Paula Pell was a writer on SNL from 1995 to 2020. This performance happened in 1992. Was Paula Pell actually there, or was it another person saying that? Spinixster(chat!)13:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A new section to draw further attention to the 2002 Salon article source, in which it is described how O'Connor's motive was not only child abuse but sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, and how she was unaware that the U.S. had a large problem with this but that Ireland did. Should this be reflected on the page, which at present is just going with 'child abuse'? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Fantastic and sadly topical article. Having watched this live it still has a piece of my brain. New enough, extensively cited, covers the story well, and the hook works and is directly cited. @Thriley: Needs QPQ, let me know. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls and Thriley: I just wanted to throw my two cents about your suggestions: ALT2 is more complete, while ALT3 is more correct, but they both risk to become too long and wordy, in my opinion... What about a compromise?
This was the second time that O'Connor appeared on SNL, and (at least) the third time she was invited. She withdrew from her 1990 invitation upon learning Andrew Dice Clay would be the host of the show.[1] I think you should weave in information about the previous performance and the reasons for her pulling out of her previously scheduled performance. For the moment the entry, as titled, is incomplete.
Thanks. I see you ended up creating a background section, which is probably the place to add her previous appearance on SNL. I'll look for a write-up later today, so far I've not found much other than primary sources ([3]), en.wp, or fandom. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥12:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted some of the recent changes. Here's why:
We don't need to go into exhaustive detail about every "controversial" thing O'Connor did. For example, we only need to say she had withdrawn from a previous SNL booking because she felt the host was misogynist. We don't need to go into detail about exactly when she came to this conclusion (viewing material by him etc), that's out of scope.
The Guardian source says: "Sinéad was not getting a lot of love at the time – she was controversial, she hadn’t had a hit in a while." The source does not say this was why she was booked on SNL.
It's useless to add a citation for her being the only person to refuse an award when we don't even mention that she was the only person to refuse an award. The existing source covers the existing statement.
The chronology of information is getting confused. For example, the changes meant the article was talking about SNL before explaining what SNL is or what it stands for. We need to introduce information in a clear, logical way.
Your bold creation of this section was reverted and you have now returned to your preferred version twice despite two qualitatively different approaches to correcting its infelicities. I'm glad after adding your favored text for the third time, you've started a discussion.
Refusing a Grammy is making a much larger statement than not agreeing to perform at the Grammy's. As the source you deleted says, it has only ever been done once.
The lede and the entry title have already explained what SNL is when the reader gets to the "background" section.
Immediately following what you cite as the topic sentence of the section, the executive says Anyway, first song, Steve Kingston and Brian Phillips – two of the most influential people in the world of alternative rock radio – look back at me and said, “We’re adding the record Monday.” Thumbs up. Everybody’s great. We’re breathing. which indicates that he was explaining the commerical logic of being there at the show with O'Connor (it explicitly states earlier too that they were promoting her most recent album, the mention of which would be another way you could improve your prose so it is more faithful to the source). It may be minor but as you've written it, the text gives the false impression that the executive thought she was "washed up" one year after refusing a Grammy, which is certainly not what the article implies ("Very often I’m asked, who are the most brilliant artists you’ve ever worked with? Nine out of 10 times, she comes in first.").
I would encourage you to read WP:SAY in the style manual. Saying what she felt is presumptuous, we can only report what she actually said. As for her withdrawing when she found out who was hosting, this is an error that I no doubt led you to. In fact, as the source says, she had no idea who he was, until she viewed his material.
It's not at all clear to me why her having a shaved head is controversial, especially given the explanation given in the Page Six source I added for readers to look at.
All that said, I'm not here to edit war with you. I've explained the problems with your bold addition (though I haven't mentioned the minor grammatical mistake you reverted back in twice). I see you did incorporate some of my improvements, even if perhaps you didn't get my main point about the first line. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥17:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a quotation problem in the article. Per MOS:QUOTE, we should be paraphrasing rather than quoting where possible.
For example, there is zero advantage in quoting she made a speech "connect[ing] her experience [of radio censorship] with the industry’s censorship of Black artists".
Apart from the fact that quotes should be used sparingly on Wikipedia anyway, it complicates the prose with [clarify{ing} parentheses like these] and obfuscates who exactly is being quoted (O'Connor, or the cited source)?
It should be possible to neatly and concisely summarise this without misrepresenting the source.
There was a problem with "paraphrases" misrepresenting sources which has now been resolved. Let's be clear: "was a controversial figure who had not had a hit song in a while" is not a paraphrase of "[...] she was controversial and had not had a hit in a while." insofar as it "borrows" every single word of the original with the exception of the personal pronoun and "and". It is incomplete because it chops off the first part of a continuous thought (as was explained to you already above).
I agree with you that the overlong Madonna quote should go, but for any others you should probably seek consensus first. Short quotations are more respectful of the work of the original authors whose work en.wp is "borrowing" than reductive paraphrasing.
In one of your recent edit summaries you deleted the word "though", which you called a strange qualifier, then asked and why would this be contrary to expectations? as opposed to what? The answer is simple. "though" is not a qualifier, it is what is known as a concessive adverb. This sounds all fancy until you know that it basically does the same thing as "but", albeit with a bit more flexibility. As you sussed out from the context, it indicates a contrast. The first song she performed was from the album she was promoting (as expected), the second (contrary to expectations) was a very famous Bob Marley song with (unexpected) new lyrics. The first song got DJs excited and led them to promise airplay, the second (contrary to SNL expectations) did not. In short, the first corresponded to the (expected) behavior of an artist promoting their album, the second was opposed to it.
Writers use "though" frequently. If you search for it on en.wp you'll find well over 1,300,000 occurrences. Since it is not possible to search for the exact punctuation used, you might have a look at some of the 2,000+ examples of "in general, though,", which is an example of a similar usage that is easier to search for, though of course it is not exactly the same. That said, since you feel strongly about the use of 'though', we can leave it out. This is another type of concession. :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥20:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the "hit song in a while" wording, I kept the original wording and inserted it into prose, sans quotation marks, because in my view it is such a basic formulation of words it isn't worth meddling with.
Fair enough, earlier (§) you had been quoting WP:QUOTE, which is indeed an essay. I notice MOS:QUOTE concurs with my point of view on short quotes being perfectly acceptable to illustrate a point of view and discourages close paraphrasing like the "borrowing" mentioned above. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥23:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I hadn't noticed this earlier, but speaking of incomplete paraphrasing, please compare:
A year earlier, O'Connor had told Spin that despite Madonna being admired as a campaigner for women's rights, she had "slagged [her] off for not being sexy".
and
A year earlier, O'Connor had told Spin that though Madonna was admired as a campaigner for women's rights, she had criticised her for "not being sexy".
You chose to remove two words that O'Connor used quite frequently in interviews and add two different ones that don't quite have the same meaning or feel. This being a BLP, or at least BLP-adjacent, I definitely believe we should allow the subject's voice to creep through. Where "criticism" can be fair, "slagging off" never is, much like Madonna comparing O'Connor's sex appeal to that of a "venetian blind" (source). As a result, I plan to restore that element of O'Connor's language, which more accurately represents her thought and voice, unless there is any objection, or a better proposal.
If you really want to pare down long quotes, again, I "invite" you to take a look at that 46-worder from Madonna immediately preceding this sentence that bothered you so, which I have little doubt you could boil down to ten words or less. Fixing that bit of long-windedness might not lead to popcorn drama, but it would actually improve the article. I still don't think we should be promoting articles about Madonna's products in this entry, but I compromised on that. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥22:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's try to be more productive about this. I'll back away from the edit button for now.
Let's break it down: the current phrasing based on Glass's arrticle: Daniel Glass, an executive at her record label, said that by 1992 Sinead O'Connor was controversial and had not had a successful song for some time. Are you OK with that or do you think it needs work? Popcornfud (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you are at 5RR, I think that would be wise. If you wish to be productive, please focus on how to reduce the very long Madonna quote first. Note that it is unlikely that Glass will sue anyone for completely representing his thought. Boiling it down to the essential we could improve the paraphrase from "was controversial and had not had a successful song for some time" to "had primarily been in the public eye due to controversy" which is considerably more faithful to the larger context (e.g. "not getting a lot of love"). Or we could stick with the short direct quote. Note too that he is not an author, things that interviewees say can and often should be quoted directly, when not too long. It's authors whose prose must not be pilfered. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥23:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's what a paraphrase does, it summarizes what the text says without using words that are in the text. Allow me to remind you that you are the one who has deleted what the source actually says. I'm puzzled why you want to quote the bit about the "hit" but seem allergic to the bit about "love". had primarily been in the public eye due to controversy and had not had a new song getting airplay in a while would also be good, as it anticipates the next sentence in the source, while also setting up a sort of distant echo for the reader when censorship is mentioned later. Also... not "the controversy", but "controversy". -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥00:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the article does not say that she had "primarily been in the public eye due to controversy" at all -- neither literally nor by implication. That's you providing some reading-between-the-lines analysis. We have to stick to the source.
We seem to agree that we want to capture the information expressed in this sentence:
Sinéad was not getting a lot of love at the time – she was controversial, she hadn’t had a hit in a while.
If we explain that she was controversial and hadn't had a hit song in a while, then we don't need to say she "wasn't getting a lot of love". That's a vague, fuzzy sentiment that we don't need to address when we have specifics to convey instead. Popcornfud (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. It looks like we'll have to stick with the direct quote as recommended by WP:QUOTE (quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words.). How's the boiling down of the Madonna quote going? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥00:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe the “lot of love” part is necessary, but if you feel it is critical to the sentiment, how do you feel about this compromise?
I have substantially edited the page. I paraphrased the quote from Madonna, substantially shortening it, and restored a fair number of things you had deleted from the original entry to its detriment (including the 1991 interview about Madonna which had originally been quoted at length). I see no consensus for the changes you made here on the talk page and am afraid you have a misconception about direct quotation, as both WP:QUOTE, cited above, and MOS:QUOTE make clear that short quotations are often better than incomplete paraphrasing. That said, in the case that has caused us to spill so many pixels I attempted to find yet another way of paraphrasing that might serve as a compromise. If that fails, we can restore the full quote. Please note that the references have been separated from the text to increase readability. New references are best added to the reflist (which is in alphabetical order by refname) in the "references" section. A "ref-name" call in the text works as normal. While inserting new references in the text will not break the page, it just defeats the purpose. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥15:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an acceptable compromise:
Daniel Glass, an executive at her record label, said that by 1992 Sinead O'Connor had become better known for controversy than for a recent hit single getting extended airplay
We can't put this in the article — because this information is not given by the article. You keep inventing stuff and just sticking it in there — and on top of that you keep making extensive rewrites before we can even agree on a single line like this one. Popcornfud (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue with you as I am not surprised by your reaction. I will restore the breezy direct quote immediately preceding the sentence about the record executive's relief at finally securing airplay for "Success Has Made a Failure of Our Home"...
It is virtually identical to the sentence quoted (which is taken out of context), so there is no point in adding language that further exaggerates matters. "for some time" has the nuance "in quite a while" rather than "in a while" (she'd won a Grammy the previous year); it's also ever so slightly inaccurate to say she hadn't had "a successful song" when in the very next sentence the exec says she sang "Success has made...", from an album which would go on to sell over a million copies in two years. Might as well stick to the source, since it's clear that the purpose of the paraphrase is not to summarize the source (writ large) but only to mask the borrowing of a breezy sentence plucked out of its context. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥17:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong on all of this. But I sense that nothing will dissuade you from continuing to enforce your edits away from the status quo, without consensus. Oh well.
The long-standing version of this section (10+ years old) can be found here. The person responsible for the very recent changes (which dramatically reduced the readability and interest of the section in my opinion) is back to remove what he calls "editorializing" in the proposed compromise version, but which is, in fact, an accurate and more complete rendering of the text linked above. I have reverted their recent bold edits based on WP:BRD to something which more closely resembles the text as it had been for over a decade before his intervention. I also met their revert halfway by removing "not hesitating to" in wikivoice as it isn't absolutely necessary. If anyone else supports the new, more staccato version, which in my view is not a full representation of the text it summarizes, please say so. (We can also restore the full quotes of the original if anyone prefers just to go back to the original version.) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥17:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dibs on this, will be reviewing this probably around afer this weekend. Right now, i have done a quick skim for 5, 6a, 6b. 49p (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
No big citations omission i saw. One missing citation
One non-free image, but the link that was used to get it is dead (gettys). Can be replaced with another link as the image is popular. Otherwise, it's fine.
Only two images, both of O'Connor. They are on topic. I feel like we can add more. I added the Pesci's monologue as it's available from the official SNL youtube page
7. Overall assessment.
@Thriley: Great work, there's like two thing to do before this is a pass.
See 2d and if you can shorten or paraphrase the quote as Earwig complains about it. (The one about the press conference in London)
There's a citation missing on VH1. I couldn't find a source for it. Remove or add a citations.
I removed the uncited VH1 sentence. Would it be ok to leave in her long quote from the LA Times? I think it's quite helpful to give such a long statement to give readers insight into her specific reasons for her performance. Thriley (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I think in that case it'll be fine. I would preferably move it to a blockquote or some sort but it's fine as it is. Will be passing this 49p (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I notice that there is very little to no information about media/shows that have referenced this incident in this article. If that's by design, I'm probably happy to leave it, although I'd argue that at least 30 Rock's reference to it is noteworthy due to that show's ties to SNL and Fey.
I've removed some of this type of content from List of Saturday Night Live incidents (removal diff here if anyone wants to restore some of that content or put some here) and may even remove the 30 Rock mention from that page, as it may work better on this page, perhaps under the Legacy section. I understand that this article has hit GA status though so thought I'd just put all this here and get input on this from some of the main contributors here. I've also put a similar section on that article's talk page. Thanks. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_(cropped).jpg)
Fantastic and sadly topical article. Having watched this live it still has a piece of my brain. New enough, extensively cited, covers the story well, and the hook works and is directly cited. @Thriley: Needs QPQ, let me know. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
QPQ complete, GTG. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Done -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
