Talk:Who Is America?

Characters have Twitter accounts

They joined to Twitter on April 2018, so I guess it been used for the coverup:

• Erran Morad – https://twitter.com/ErranMorad
• Billy Wayne Ruddick Jr. – https://twitter.com/BillyWRuddick
• Dr. Nira Cain-N’Degeocello – https://twitter.com/drniracain

Sokuya (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Reception

I've edited the Reception section to avoid suggestions that reviews by critics of the first episode are represent reviews of the whole series. At the time of writing the critics have only reviewed the first episode. Unlike other series where the critics may have access to advance screeners of several episodes, none of the reviews claimed to be reviewing anything other than the first episode.

Sure Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic will misrepresent reviews of a single episode to generate a score and say it represents all of Season 1 (RT 65% from 31 reviews based on only 1 episode), but we should at least try to do better and not knowingly mislead readers.

I hope editors will be cautious and try to avoid making reviews of single episodes look like they are reviews of the whole series. Conversely I hope that reviews that do give a broad overview of the series will be added later, as the series progresses, or at the end of the season, or when it is released on home media. -- 109.76.169.117 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

good luck with that! rarely does any show on wikipedia get reviewed beyond the first ep. even for shows which had radical premise or cast changes between pilot and ep 2 or betw season 1 and season 2, say -- reviews are almost always posted right around the time of the pilot and...NEVER UPDATED.

with the exception of some megahit like seinfeld, you'd be hard pressed to find any review commenting in the least on anything beyond s01e01! believe me, i've looked.

fwiw, i thought e02 was waaaaaaaay better than e01. they should have led with that! but yeah, you'll never know it from the "reception" section here.198.147.225.20 (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail

{{BLP noticeboard}}

@BoogerD I've undone this unexplained revert, because it breaks policy on biographies of living persons. Let us discuss the issue here and come to agreement before making further changes to the article. I removed the original material because I believe it is potentially libellous and poorly sourced: all other sources that I could find justified themselves by referring back to the unreliable Daily Mail's report, which itself referred to an unnamed source. You reverted this change without giving a reason. Please explain. Cimbalom (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Where is there a consensus that Daily Mail is an unreliable source? Clearly many other reliable secondary sources thought enough of their report to also report on the alleged event. As for the fact that they cited an "unnamed source", that is a common practice in journalism in order to protect the confidence and privacy of sources. I intend to revert your removal as it was the original change to what was originally in the article and you are the one advocating for a revision. – BoogerD (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Here again is the consensus that Daily Mail is an unreliable source: WP:DAILYMAIL (the first time I mentioned it, it was slightly hidden by the poorly sourced label). Please read WP:BLP - it strongly urges removal of contentious material about living persons without discussion. As it says: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." So it is best to discuss things with the information removed. Cimbalom (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

After reading the discussion you linked to, it seems clear that policy is not to include citations attributed to the Daily Mail if at all possible due to concerns about reliability. I will openly admit that your edit is entirely reasonable and justified. I suppose this issue can be revisited at a later date if Simpson ultimately appears on the show in the way the article describes. To me, that would seemingly verify what the Mail was claiming. Time will tell. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

BoogerD, it seems like you acknowledge that the community consensus is to avoid citing the Daily Mail, so I don't really see why that would change here. If there is new independent reporting about the claim that Cohen paid Simpson, then it might be worth mentioning - but the fact that the Daily Mail was right about the least salacious part of the story doesn't confirm that the most salacious part is correct. Nblund ^talk 03:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: I mean, I suppose in my mind issues like this would be taken on a case by case basis instead of a blanket sentiment that all reporting from that source is utterly unusable. They clearly had it correct in regards to the people involved, the location, and generally what Baron Cohen was dressed up as (though not entirely correct). I still don't see why the mere act of filming with Simpson in that month couldn't be left in the filming subsection. Leave out the dubious claims of money exchanging hands, ok, but it is verifiably true that they were filming in Las Vegas. However, I won't press this issue any further. Simply put, it does not matter that much to me in the long run. @Cimbalom: I am notifying you of this update to the discussion since you were involved previously. – BoogerD (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: I just read an article posted this evening by Deadline Hollywood ([1]) where they confirm that Simpson was paid by Baron Cohen and his team. Mike Fleming Jr. writes, "I'm told it wasn’t easy and that Baron Cohen's intention was to elicit a confession. The gateway was one of Simpson's lawyers, who took a payout to put Monaldo in a room with Simpson, acting as a middleman for the fictional Sheikh, who was prepared to pay a seven-figure sum to hear Simpson say what really happened that night, a confession to be delivered while the Sheikh was having sex with a prostitute. Monaldo would have to hear the confession, before his client would pay up." On second thought, I believe the use of the Daily Mail source should be discussed further because, as it now appears, most everything they reported back in February 2018 has turned out to be pretty accurate. – BoogerD (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the reliability of Deadline, but the sentence you quoted says that Simpson's lawyer was paid, not Simpson. If better sources crop up to confirm that Simpson himself was paid, we should simply cite those sources - there's still no reason to cite the Daily Mail. Nblund ^talk 11:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

edit for the record, I generally agree that most RS questions should be taken on a case-by-case basis, but the DailyMail is one of a handful of sources where community consensus all-but-prohibits it outright. Even if the payout story is verified, DM is basically still unciteable without a compelling reason to use it - so we should just use those other sources. Nblund ^talk 12:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears now that any attempt to cite Daily Mail will be removed by someone regardless of discussion or reasoning. I still contend that with further sources from the last 24 hours, the Daily Mail's reporting has been verified. Deadline Hollywood is incredibly reliable (alongside such other entertainment trades such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter) and is widely used among many, many film and television articles across Wikipedia. I suppose I will try and re-edit the filming section further today as since the last removal of the Daily Mail-related content, it has been left in a rather incomprehensible state. – BoogerD (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

We have no duty to verify anything that's published in the Daily Mail. It's regarded, by means of community consensus, as "generally unreliable". Full stop. If we can find the same or similar material in any more reliable WP:RS publication(s), it can be included. If not, it's best left out. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

BoogerD: The Deadline source does not say that Simpson was paid, it says that "one of Simpson's lawyers...took a payout from Monaldo" - if there's any ambiguity here, the article later mentions the process of creating "credible cover stories for the Sheik and Mansour, so that the lawyer who pocketed the fee and others could Google and feel they were dealing with real people." Saying that he was paid through his lawyer is just a misinterpretation of the source. I think the other details on the filming seem fine, but saying that he paid Simpson directly is pretty controversial and it definitely hasn't been supported by subsequent reporting. Nblund ^talk 15:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: Totally agree with you upon reconsideration. As stated in my most recent edit summary, the paragraph has been amended to clarify that Simpson's lawyer was paid to arrange the sit-down. – BoogerD (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Jason Spencer

So how often to TV programs lead do political resignations? I thought this was a notable development and of direct relevance to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It is still in the article. – BoogerD (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's hope it stays that way. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Haha. Don't see why it wouldn't! Have a nice evening, BoogerD (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Opening theme

When watching episodes of Who Is America?, I was able to recognize that opening theme for the show (as well as the song used during the credits) is the song "Indomitable" by DJ Shub, featuring the Northern Cree Singers. Noticing that it was not already on the Who Is America? wikipedia page, I decided to add it to the info box as the opening theme for the series on July 23rd, 2018. This change was taken down quickly, though I understood why as I had neglected to add a citation. However, the only citation I could find that day was a tweet by DJ Shub that indicated his song "Indomitable" was being used as an opening theme for the series, which I admit was not the greatest source. Regardless, I added the opening theme again to the infobox using the tweet as the citation, also on July 23rd, 2018. However, it was taken down quickly again, this time with my change being referred to as "stealth vandalism". Since then, on July 25th, 2018, there was an article in a Canadian newspaper about the fact that this song is being used as the opening theme of the series, linked below:

https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/news-story/8761680-niagara-s-dj-shub-part-of-new-cohen-tv-show/

Using this newspaper article as the citation, would I be able to make the aforementioned update without my change being taken down or, perhaps more importantly, being accused of vandalism? Gmwikipedier (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this article!!! I wasn't the one who labeled your edits as vandalism (I'm honestly not sure I recall who that was) but I believe I was one of a few people who thought a more credible source was needed at the time. So happy you found one. I've gone ahead and added a subsection regarding the series' music to the production section and included the information in the infobox. Thanks again! – BoogerD (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem! By the way, well done on getting that section made so quickly. Gmwikipedier (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Describing 15-year-olds as women

They're adolescents, not adults - so they shouldn't be described as women. Jim Michael (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't usually get involved in discussions over minutiae such as little language disputes like this one. However, it seems so simple in this case I feel compelled to speak my piece. Young women/men is a common term plain and simple. I'm certain that the majority of people would agree with me on that (and a simple Google search corroborates that notion). Young women is a synonymous term for adolescent females. I'd understand the argument that one doesn't favor the language from like an aesthetic standpoint to claim that it is inaccurate is flat-out incorrect.

You have quite a prolific edit history and I sincerely value the work we've accomplished together editing this article. I would obviously give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that all of your edits are in good faith. However, on this subject I just have to disagree. Perhaps we can come to some sort of compromise and re-write the two or three sentences in a manner that we both can agree on. – BoogerD (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm certain that the majority agree with me that 15-y-olds should not be described as men and women. I have never heard anyone say that they have an adult daughter (or son for that matter) who is 15. Regardless of what the majority say, we shouldn't use incorrect terms in an encyclopedia. Young men and young women are adults (about 18-40), not adolescents. There are crucial differences in many regards, including laws. A 15-y-o cannot legally quit school, work full time, have sex, live alone etc. - yet actual young adults may do all those things. Jim Michael (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but when has a 30 or 40 year old ever been referred to as a "young adult"? Clearly it is your opinion that the use of the term in this case is inappropriate but it is a step too far to make the claim that using it is "incorrect". I'm curious as to how you reached the conclusion that "the majority" would agree with your position.

I'd like to take this moment to point out, again, that I'd be open to some sort of rephrasing of the two or three sentences. Perhaps we could using the phrase and avoid using repetitive language as well. I'd love to hear what you might propose. Hoping to keep things cordial and respectful, BoogerD (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Quoted Subtitle Form

I'd like to point out a subtle change that was made (to the Episode 4 section) that is wrong, but understandably so. In the show, the so-called Project Manager from the so-called yacht company is subtitled as "Project Manager, Luxury Yacht Sales Company". This does NOT mean that the name of the company is "Luxury Yacht Sales Company"; it means that the filmmakers intentionally used a generic term to hide the identity of the company, and of course kept the identity of the individual hidden as well. I used quotes in my edit (for both the individual's title and company's identity), but this was reverted and changed to suggest the title of the company. It's traditional to use word caps when subtitling like this, which in part accounts for the confusion, but "Luxury Yacht Sales Company" does not denote a literal title. Incidentally, some websites have used confusing and incorrect information about this episode/person as well, but the exact subtitle is as I have related here. It really should be changed back, or given a clearer format.

No takers?Mrzold (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No Season 2

Okay, so Showtime is being stubborn by not officially canceling the series, but if I were to add the show to the Programs ending in 2018 section of 2018 in American television using hidden text, would that be allowed?--Fradio71 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Plot Summaries

There is absolutely nothing wrong with casting the plot summaries as a list. This is routinely done for Saturday Night Live. See for example Saturday Night Live (season 44). BarbadosKen (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

TV plot summaries are not written in this manner on show pages, even for scripted/unscripted broadcast & cable shows the current method is most widely used. I would suggest you wait and gain consensus for the changes before reverting further, as you're at risk of violating WP:3RR. Esuka323 (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, citing SNL, and how those season articles are formatted, runs counter to WP:OTHER. Though, for the sake of argument, it might be pointed out that those articles do not list the plot of every single sketch in an episode but rather just trivial information pertaining to each episode. The general consensus has always been to format summaries into single paragraphs of 150 to 200 words. Also, it should be noted that unrelated subplots in episode summaries are not bullet pointed either even when they have nothing to do with each other. – BoogerD (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen once or twice users attempting to separate the paragraph on a show page only to be quickly reverted. There's just no consensus for changing the current plot summary style. Esuka323 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

What policy requires this? What common sense rule does this fall under? The plot summaries have much better readability in a bulleted list. Readability is why we do or don't use formatting styles like bullet points. And so here, my two cents is that we should use bullet points. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a "specific policy" that explicitly says no bullet-ing of episode summaries. However, in nearly all short summaries found in episode tables in television articles on Wikipedia, the formatting is oriented in a single paragraph. General consensus has always been that, that is the parameter is meant to be filled in the template. Aesthetics and readability should always be taken into account. I agree wholeheartedly. However, consistency is also of paramount concern. The only argument to back-up this change to the article has been the fact that the season articles for Saturday Night Live use bulleted lists. However, as I've pointed out above, those articles don't even summarize the content of each episode but rather they merely list whatever trivia is deemed notable from a given episode. They are in no way similar to 99% of television articles and are really an outlier. Not to mention using them as a defense would seem to run contrary to WP:OTHER. Furthermore, one could argue that episodes with subplots that are unrelated to each other might be made more readable by being separated into bulleted lists. However, again, that has never been implemented. Bottom line, consensus has always supported the single-paragraph formatting when detailing the content of an episode and it seems unnecessary and inappropriate for this article to be the lone exception to that practice. – BoogerD (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure who you're now referring to as I didn't mention SNL, but since you bring it up again, I do think it's a good analogy. No, those lists don't look like they're in brilliant shape, but I don't think it's the bulleting that makes the pages low quality. "That has never been implemented" isn't an argument, simply a statement, so I can't counter it, apart from possibly pointing out that "we don't do this on other articles" is also contrary to WP:OTHER and in fact it has been implemented on SNL, the very page you bring up! Who are these abstract entities that support single-paragraph formatting? Where's the policy backing this up? Readability is the bottom line—it's the only sensible thing to consider here, from which we should be deriving our other rules, and in this case I believe readability is best achieved through bulleting. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion here. I was more responding in general to the discussion though my comment was nested below yours. I don't feel the need to restate in full why using SNL season articles is a bad comparison here as I've stated it above. But, to be brief, they don't actually summarize the content of each episode (such as each sketch) but rather they merely rattle off trivia related to the episode in question. As I've stated, a more apt comparison would be summaries of episodes with unrelated subplots. While the plots have little to nothing to do with each other they aren't separated by bullet points. Why not bullet point all summaries where the episode doesn't feature all of the show's characters in the same room together? I don't know how many articles have summaries written where phrasing is simply: X was off doing this or that. Meanwhile, Y and Z were over there doing that together. Multiple subplots/storylines/etc. can and do exist in a single paragraph as near all articles attest to. Readability isn't the be-all-end-all and consistency should always be taken into account. – BoogerD (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Repeating my comments from the MOSTV talk page: Just because some editors have tried it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Bullets inside a table just waste space, making boxes and tables longer. And you're insulting the intelligence of readers, who are not likely to have issues with "separate segments" collected in a paragraph. All plot summaries combine chapters or scenes into paragraphs. Every show has multiple storylines that may or may not directly intersect. I don't see how this show is so different that it would require bullets. And I don't like it in your SNL example either.— TAnthony^Talk 21:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't require bullets, there's nothing to say it really needs them. Even the most complex shows in terms of plotting work perfectly fine with just a single paragraph. Esuka323 (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no such thing as wasted space unless you happen to have been printing out these articles. It's not at all patronising—using bullet points clearly segments the description into the appropriate number of parts, so the reader looking for what happens to be the third entry can see it immediately rather than having to skim through the whole thing to get there. I can't imagine what sort of person is insulted by the presence of bullet points. SNL is a good comparison for obvious reasons. Most programmes' subplots intermingle, but even when they don't there's a difference in quantity. It matters whether we're talking about two or four. "Consistency" is a formal way of saying "but what about this other article" and we're back to WP:OTHER. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

How does WP:OTHER really support your counter argument? He's simply mentioning that there has clearly been a long held consensus among TV editors to summarize plots in a single paragraph. I don't think using one example can really override that. Esuka323 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Long-held consensus? No-one's presented evidence of any such thing. Where are the policies? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look at pretty much any American Broadcast & Cable television show on Wikipedia to see how summaries are written, you may notice they all follow the same format with plots. Esuka323 (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, they do follow the same format: ineloquent and full of fancruft. Guess we'd better update the FAs for consistency. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

That's frankly horrible to be so critical of the efforts of other editors who I'm sure do their best to produce something great for the show pages on here. Well I'm done here, there's no consensus for the proposed changes and I don't agree with your attitude. Esuka323 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

My apologies if I've upset anyone. Of course I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's contributions. But the general state of the average article is quite suboptimal so I was trying to humorously make the point that we shouldn't be looking to emulate it. Clearly that's backfired so again, I'm sorry. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

General observation: I don't think I see any policy arguments here so far that actually address whether we should have these bullet points. Rather than engaging in complicated exegesis of the policies here, why not just have a show of hands about which option looks and works better for readers. I think the bullet points work better, but of course that's subjective. Why not count up how many editors want it which way, see if there's any consensus, and then call it a day? It's just a bullet point display issue. The article works either way. Alephb (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

General consensus on WP:TV and MOS:TV agree that paragraph format is preferred. — Lbtocth^talk 01:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Should we add practical joke for the series?

Baron Cohen has duped many political activists into doing actions perceived as foolish. Would this qualify as practical joke? If it isn’t genre, why do articles such as Punk’d have practical joke as a genre?2605:6001:E7C4:1E00:3059:23F4:AEC9:98E8 (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I think political satire sort of covers pretty much everything in that regard. I also think context probably applies too, considering Punk'd was more a hidden camera practical joke type show with an emphasis on fooling people for comedy. This show is more satire with the way it blends its politics and comedy. Esuka323 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)