Talk:Kennedy (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Untitled
Why was the history for this page purged?? --Allycat 19:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy's "popularity" (or lack thereof)
I don't see why the paragraph describing why Kennedy is not considered a popular character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer has to keep on being removed - it has been made very clear on several sites (including IMDb) that Kennedy is just not popular with a majority of Buffy fans, and there is also a fan reaction paragraph concerning the Alias character Lauren Reed on that character's Wikipedia page (which also describes how unpopular that character is and why), so there is a precedent for having a similar paragraph for Kennedy. By repeatedly having that paragraph deleted, all it does is hide the truth about how most Buffy fans feel toward Kennedy. Starbuck-2 07:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Check out Wikipedia's policy on "Weasal Words" such as "Most fans..." or "Many people..." or similar variations:

"...it remains uninformative: Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay"
 * Who says that? You?
 * When did they say it? Now?
 * How many people think that?
 * How many is some?
 * How many is most?
 * What kind of people think that? Where are they?
 * What kind of bias might they have?
 * Why is this of any significance?
 * You mention what the "majority" of Buffy fans think, but it's really only an opinion gleaned from comments on message boards, which only account for a small, and unquantifiable percentage of the Buffy audience. It's far too vague for an encyclopaedia to say, "Many people think..." or "Others think..."  You have to cite sources.  Unfortunately fan sites and message boards (including IMDb) aren't considered reliable sources.  If you can find a quote by, say, Iyari Limon, or Joss, commenting on the character's lack of popularity, then include it, without any editorialising.  It's not an attempt to whitewash truth, it's an attempt to remove hearsay.--Nalvage 10:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely hearsay is acceptable as long as our article does not imply endorsement. Something along the lines of a recent survey on the Watchers Syndicate web-site found that Kennedy was the "most hated" character in the Buffyverse (see reference blah blah blah) would be perfectly appropriate, would it not? Leeborkman 23:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * btw, I think it's ridiculous to say that Buffy fansites are not a reliable source for informaton about the views of Buffy fans. Buffy is well known as a show that engaged with its audience directly through the Web - Whedon and other writers have spoken about this often.  If that is true, then Buffy fansites, in particular, should not be dismissed so easily.  As long as the article is properly written, and these referenced properly mentioned without any kind of implicit endorsement of their opinions, then the mere fact of the opinions themselves can be cited without any problem.  Or am I barking mad as usual?  Leeborkman 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Surely hearsay is acceptable as long as our article does not imply endorsement."
 * If you've got verifiable and reliable sources then it's no longer hearsay and can be included. The one's you've added look fine at first glance, though the references don't seem to be working. Wiki code screw up.
 * "I think it's ridiculous to say that Buffy fansites are not a reliable source for informaton about the views of Buffy fans"
 * I don't think this applies to the references you've added, but I think the point is that Buffy fan sites aren't a reliable source for the opinions of "Buffy fans". They're a reliable source for the opinions of the specific Buffy fans who contribute to them.  A set of people whose biases we don't know and whose identities are typically anonymous. Also, you're gonna find comments by fans that express every opinion imaginable, so the simple fact that an opinion is expressed by a fan doesn't make it notable. Anyway, my objection was just to the comments about what "most" fans think, which gave no verifiable evidence to back that up.--Nalvage 06:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But you are happy that opinions on fansites are evidence of fan opinion? As long as we cite them appropriately and don't endorse the opinion, nor claim that the opinion described is universal, then we are okay?  We can report the fact of the opinion?  Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 06:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My interest here is somewhat philosophical re this encyclopedia, ie by far the most notable thing about Kennedy is her extreme unpopularity in online fandom, and what that might tell us about both the character and the show, but also the nature of fandom, shipping, etc, and this must therefore be highlighted in the article. The encyclopedic challenge is in finding a way to document this.  I have placed this subject in the trivia section for now, where it is really non-controversial, but I actually think that it deserves much greater prominence. Leeborkman 06:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who spends time in or on the edges of Buffy fandom can be unaware of Kennedy's unpopularity. It's the elephant in the room that Wikipedia is studiously ignoring. Like you say, the trick is finding a policy-acceptable way of documenting it. One worry about citing fan opinion is that it becomes competitive. There's then nothing to stop a Kennedy fan adding a section on how some fans think she's wonderful, and referencing a Kennedy fan site. At which point the article's saying nothing beyond, "A bunch of fans think this, a bunch of other fans think that", which is gonna be the case for every character and every storyline and every episode, and isn't notable. So it needs to be something more than just direct fan opinion, a secondary source like, I guess, that Zapt2it article. All of which is just based on my understanding of Wikipedia's stance on these things.--Nalvage 07:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto

It's also worth noting that "fan opinion" is noted at least three times in other Buffy related write-ups. By mentioning that Beer bad is considered the worst series episode and by mentioned that Hushed and the Body are considered two of the best. Dirk2112 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kennedyepisode.jpg
Image:Kennedyepisode.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)