This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
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 Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women 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.
This [[1]] involves the restoration of an article by slipsider, accusing the reddit subcommunity "donald trump" of being responsible for the bad reviews. This edit seems somewhat NPOV, and the general "reception" section brags incongruence with general audience reception. Despite poor audience reception, the majority of the section praises the show and minimizes criticism. I think that WP:UNDUE is relevant here. There is no way that an original "slipsider" article about original research into reddits role in netflixes poor review of the special should be given more weight than the rotten tomatoes audience score. The source is just..to be frank...kind of crappy, and un-encyclopedic.Petergstrom (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your message. I feel like there might be a miscommunication about policy here because you've mentioned original research a couple of times, but Wikipedia policy only precludes original research done by Wikipedia editors with no oversight; by contrast, original research published by independent media organizations with editorial process are secondary sources for Wikipedia's purpose and it's what the site relies on. (All reporters, researchers, scholars, etc. are conducting original research; we would have no encyclopedia without describing their work.) Moreover many other media organizations picked up the Splitsider account: Vanity Fair, Entertainment Weekly, Fox News, Time magazine, Harper's Bazaar, Flavorwire, People, etc. etc. NPOV requires us to give an accurate account of what they said. This is is a sufficiently pressing issue that cutting them means the last paragraph no longer makes sense: with the material about the Splitsider report deleted from the entry, it's impossible to understand what Schumer is replying to or why the Netflix changes are relevant.
I am always eager to improve neutrality so if there's information or phrasing you think needs to be adjusted, let's do discuss. But we can't just leave out something that's been central to the secondary source coverage of a topic: that's a clear NPOV violation. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no further objections, I'll restore the material now; please leave a message here if there are additional concerns. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's all always about Trump. Like no one sees it's real shit. Stop undermining people's opinions just because you think they come from ideological background. "You think" is stressed here. Zloidooraque (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please do have a look at the WP:NPOV, which explains the Wikipedia policy that articles should not reflect any editors' point of view, but rather the views of reliable sources. So there's no undermining of any given editor's personal opinion, which has no place in the entry anyway: instead the entry is a description of how reliable sources accounted for differing views, with references to those sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
