Talk:King of the Hill/Archive 3

HANK of the Hill
I know it says in IMDB that in "Western Europe" (wherever that is) the show is known as Hank of the Hill, but no one actually knows it by this name. No English speaking population know it by this name. And if anyone would care to do a Google search they'd find there's only one result for "hank of the hill" and that's a spoof of the show.

Could we please remove this fallacious statement?

Sincerely, Someone from "Western Europe" 195.222.108.153 (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dates of run
Do not change the end date for the run of the series to the last episode. This makes it seem as if the series has ended, and is misleading. See the article on The Simpsons for precedent. S. D. D.J.Jameson 20:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * People are fast with the updates. Wow. Now I'm hoping they bring back one of the greatest shows: Beavis and Butthead.(BaldKojak (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC))


 * With sufficient warning having been given, changes of this type are simply being reverted as vandalism. S.  D. D.J.Jameson 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

References in popular culture
This section is not a random collection of trivia. It is a list of discrete references to this show in other shows. There are entire articles like this, it should stand as a valid section to have in this article. I removed the trivia tag.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 02:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Cancellation
"It has been reported that ABC might secure the rights to the show. It was reported later that the deal had fallen through." The news article cited here (7th citation, I believe) makes no mention of the deal with ABC having fallen through. Is there any source for that? Th 2005 (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Political neutrality, accusations of homophobia
On descriptions of \ and While on the list of characters page there is a more blatant example : "...and it is made clear he tries very hard in many ways to prove his masculinity and tends to be somewhat homophobic, but has a healthy relationship with his family..." I haven't looked on other pages about him, but I'm fairly certain that this'll be continued. If anyone wants to word it better, please do so. I can't think of anything at the moment but deleting these mentions. Wolvenmoon (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering his overall politics he's really very accepting of homosexuals. (Somewhat unbelievably so, IMO, but to portray the likely attitudes of a small-town Texan Reaganite over 40 might be too offensive to some viewers) In My Own Private Rodeo he was maybe a bit uncomfortable with the "gay rodeo", but mostly more respectful to them than Bill or Boomhauer. He was generally nonchalant about "Earl" the black-gay gun-club member, not even indicating any suprise or amusement on Dale's group having a black-gay member. Even his attitude to Bobby is never spelled-out as being about fears he's gay, although I'd agree it was implied a fair amount. He was upset that Peggy's "first time" was with a gay man, but this is the only clear example coming to mind. On the other thing I think his "passively sexist" thing isn't just about how he views Bobby. He only reluctantly hired a woman in one episode and seems to have some preference for traditional views of women. Although mostly it's a mild sexism and he seems to see his Dad's, as well as Buck Strickland's, tawdrier sexism with disdain.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The real reason that Hank was upset about Peggy's "first time" was that it was not with Hank himself. Peggy allowed Hank to believe she had no previous partners before him and therefore that they were both virgins and lost their virginity to each other. Hank only learned years later that he was not Peggy's first. Hank is typically uncomfortable with many "personal" matters such as the issue of sexuality, regardless what orientation. Hank's issues with Bobby seem mostly to deal with Bobby's overall eccentricity which Hank has trouble relating to. Bill pretended to be gay in one episode because he found it made him likable to women and helped him get a job at a hair salon with Luann. Bill seemed to enjoy playing the role of a gay man. Galeforce winds13 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hank is disturbed by and uncomfortable with homosexuality to even a greater degree than other sexual topics. However he is polite about it and dosent treat various gay characters poorly. Wizard magazine stated hanks fear of bobby being gay as a major plot point of the series. It is directly evident in may episodes. When bobby said something to the point of "maybe i dont want to go out with girls " hank looked very angry and told peggy to close the shades, when he found bobby kissing connie he walked around the corner of his fence and breathed an sigh of relief or the episode where bills gay brother gave bobby cloths and hank gets rid of them and will not let bobby sit by him. That all said there is a difference in disliking or disagreeing with someones life style and hating them for it. 65.183.214.150 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). Ikip (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep it as "is"
It still is a show, even if it's canceled. Look at all the other shows that have been canceled and you will see they all say "is." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belasted (talk • contribs)


 * See here and here. —  C M B J   09:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review 2
The article has improved since the last nomination, but it still doesn't meet the good article criteria. A lot of information lacks inline citations so they cannot be verified. For more information, see the previous GA review. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. — The Le ft orium  21:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoghan1234 (talk • contribs)

Clarification of appearance in Adultswim
Can someone clarify the significance of KOTH scheduling to Adultswim? As it is, I am not sure if the series is moving to the network or if the network merely earned syndication rights.--Kencaesi (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that it is just syndication. I am not sure how that is really noteworthy - many networks around the world have syndication rights so I am not sure why this particular one is mentioned.  So I've removed it rather than clarifying the statement. Wolfrock (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK now someone has put this back in, although in a different section this time. So are we going to add in every single station on which King of the Hill is syndicated around the world? If not, what makes this one so noteworthy? If so, why? I would prefer just to get rid of the mentions of the particular networks that show it in syndication and just leave the fact that it is syndicated around the world in the lead. Surely, that is enough detail for a minor fact like this. Wolfrock (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, this sentence is written like an advertisement. The broadcast schedule for all the networks the show is syndicated on (or a particular network as it is now) is not really in the scope of this article.  So, I am going forward with cutting this again.  Wolfrock (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity voices
Is the Celebrity voices subsection needed? There are a few voice actors worth mentioning, such as those who voice the main characters, or regular guests such as Chuck Mangione, but they are all mentioned in theList of characters in King of the Hill article. I don't feel that Celebrity X's guest appearance is really noteworthy of mention in the main article about this TV show. Articles that I have read for other TV shows don't discuss guest appearances.

Moreover, this section is riddled with errors. Many one-time guests are listed as having recurring parts in the show. I thought of carefully correcting this section but I'd rather just get rid of the whole thing for reasons mentioned above.

Any thoughts? Wolfrock (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at some of the older revisions of this page to see how lengthy this section can get. For example this version of the article has eleven sentences just containing the names of celebrity guest stars on King of the Hill. It's been trimmed down in the past only to grow again.  The current state of the article isn't that excessive, but I still question why it should be included for the reasons given above. Wolfrock (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, as there has been no response over the last couple weeks I am going to be bold and cut this out for the reasons given above. Wolfrock (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note on "Nancy Does Dallas"
I didn't know where to put this, but I think it would be interesting to note somewhere that Hank and Dale's discussion in "Nancy Does Dallas" about installing an excessive amount of air conditioners is at one point almost identical to the one about global warming in the episode where Bobby gets hit by a baseball and someone calls Child Protective Services on Hank out of suspicion. I forget that episode's name. --63.230.10.209 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be interesting. I would think the best place for such a fact might be an article about the episodes in question. Many episodes have articles so you might want to check on articles for these episodes (if they exist) Wolfrock (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The episode in question concerning Child Protective Services was the series' pilot episode. It is actually called Pilot. Galeforce winds13 (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed from WP:GAN
This article was once again nominated despite several obvious concerns. There are several unreferenced sections and multiple "citation needed" tags. It is also missing a lot of information - many sections present in The Simpsons are not included here, which leads to a lot of unanswered questions about production, themes, reception, merchandise, etc. I urge you to use that article as a guideline (not every section will be appropriate, obviously) to add the necessary information. Once that is done and the article is fully sourced, another Good Article nomination might be in order (although a peer review would be useful. Best wishes with your future improvements to the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cleveland Show
How much detail do we really need about the Cleveland Show? I cut it out once and now I see it was just added back in yesterday. This is, after all, an article about King of the Hill. Wolfrock (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed; more than a passing reference to The Cleveland Show is totally unnecessary. I've removed all but the name and the fact that it's a Family Guy spin-off. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree; this is an important fact pertaining to King of the Hill. Why wouldn't it be?  You need to inform completely; people will want to know why such a show is being cancelled.--Epithanyseeker (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What the hell do you cite to support your claim claim that Seth Macfarlane is some kind of maniac seeking to control all of FOX's animation programming? Granted this is an article about a cartoon, but for christ's sake lets have at least a single drop of encyclopedic style here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.130.22 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding the end of the show
There has been what looks like the start of an edit war in this article over the last couple of days. I'd like to attempt to cut it off now and start a discussion here rather than continue with all the reversions.

One part of a sentence that has been taken out and added back in several times is:"there will be no chance for a Family Guy/Futurama-like resurrection"

Several editors have noted reasons for removing this. My main problem it is that the source in the sentence clearly does not say anything like this. Why should this be included?

More broadly, there have been several hard facts added to the article without sources, primarily regarding the end of the show. If you know something as specific as the end date of the show please add it along with a source. Surely if you know something as specific as "it will air its last episode in December 2009" you can add a reliable source to ensure the article is verifiable? Similarly, fact tags have been removed for statements like these. How can the article be verifiable without citations for those facts?


 * There are a number of problems with the statement claiming a final season of 13 episodes will air between September and December 2009. For starters, there are no citations.  Secondly, Fox has never aired 13 new episodes of King of the Hill in the fall season.  The most ever was 11 and this was the second season.  The average is around 8.   Last Fall, they only aired 7.  Due to Fox's NFL and MLB coverage, they only have so many slots available on Sundays in Fall and if The Cleveland Show and Sit Down, Shut Up are set to premiere this Fall in addition to The Simpsons, Family Guy and American Dad, when will they have time to air KOTH?  Remember when KOTH was moved to 7:30 EST it was regularly preempted by football.  Also, I question why Fox would announce they are canceling a show over a year before it's final episode will air.  Normally when a show is cancelled it is done in the middle or at the start of the season that is to be it's last, not "it's cancelled" but then "there's one more season".  This just doesn't add up and the un-cited information leaves more questions than answers.  71.207.109.181 (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we would all like to make this article better. One thing that has been noted in the failed Good Article reviews (see Talk:King of the Hill/GA1 and Talk:King of the Hill/GA2) is the small number of citations in this article. So I would like to propose that we stick to only adding material for which we have citations (and, of course, add citations for the material that is already here). Wolfrock (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I heavily agree with this statement. The lack of citations in the article is outrageous and despite my attempts at adding more in, there is just too much for one person to do. Add information you can cite and find citations for the present information. Eoghan1234 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the current state of the Cancellation portion of the article is exactly as it should be, and should be left as is, unless new facts arise. It's clear, concise, and free of speculation. The "resurrection" line was someone speaking in their own words, without a source, and was unnecessary. 24.185.87.88 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I honestly doubt that the sentence "On October 30, 2008, Fox announced that they were cancelling the show after they realized how boring the new episodes were and recieved one million complaints on the issue" is accurate in any way. However, since I'm fairly new, I don't want to remove anything myself.

Production
The next thing the King of the Hill article needs is a Production section. I have mentioned this a few times in posts above but nobody is paying any attention to them. So King of the Hill needs a production area but information is scarce. Just see if you can find anything and post here. This is the only one I could find. Eoghan1234 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Age of Bobby Hill
There's a conversation going on here about Bobby Hill's age. One line of thinking says that he ages on the same timeline as the "read world" which would say that he's 23 even though he's still in middle school. The other line of thinking says that time moves more slowly in the King of the Hill world and he's ~14 (because he had his 14th birthday in a recent episode). Ol Yeller '''Talktome 01:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Couple things I noticed while browsing.
Hello all. I understand that this may be out of place as you all have done a good job with this page. But while browsing (as I am an occasional fan) I noticed a couple things that are off. And, in keeping with how Wikipedia is supposed to be operated, I decided to bring it to the talk page before just editing the whole article. First off, the infobox lists Adult Swim as an "original channel" which isn't true as it is just syndication, which, from what I remember, we never list in the infobox. Secondly, the "Cancellation" section really should be a subsection under "History". It doesn't seem very stable as its own section. There are other minor things al, but those are the two I mainly noticed. If there is no objection I will change these things within a period of 24 hours. Thank you all, you've done a great job, and happy editing. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 01:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no one seemed to have any feelings, so I'm gonna do a little cleaning to the page. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey. I didn't look at your edits but your points seem reasonable.  I support the points and I'm sure your edits were fine.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 14:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

References.
I just came to watch this page a month or so ago, and I've done a little clean up since I've been here, but haven't messed much with the already existing references. But while just now looking through, I noticed some refs that wouldn't really pass guidelines. I think we should rally together to not only find more sources (this show has been around for over 10 years, there has to be some) but check the current sources. I don't believe the Adult Swim wiki is reliable because no wiki is reliable. Also, some of the sources need to properly formatted. I think we should collaborate on this article. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

King of the Hill
It's 6:10 p.m. Central Daylight Time on September 13, 2009. The series finale 1-hour episode has not even aired yet. The information on King of the Hill says it "ran" until September 13, 2009. It seems sort of ghoulish to refer to the show in the past tense already. Puts me in mind of a vulture.Lindalj (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bobby
Why does it say Bobby is 13 years old? King of the Hill is not the Simpson's! The characters age as the story progresses, there's no magic "reset" after each episode. Also, why no mention of Bobby's real name, Robert Hill.

Also, why not expand Luanne's description? No mention of the "Manger babies", which brought her 15 minutes of fame. Including a stint on TV's channel 84 & a set of dvd's. I also think it's really important to include the fact that Luanne moves into Hank's Den. A move that he seriously resets. This is a recurring issue throughout the first few seasons, until she moves into the house vacated when Pop's dies.

More should be included for Bill, for instance he was an All-City offensive linemen, & the all-time Touchdown leader at Arlen High. And for that matter, why not include that Hank is the all-time single season rushing leader.

I think another very important fact that's being ignored is their Football days(Boomhauer QB, Hank RB, Bill OL, & Dale, Towel Manager). Their run at "state" is one of, if not the single largest factor which cemented their friendship, & is referred constantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinloyal626 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The 13 thing, I'm not sure on, but the others can be saved for their articles. This gives a brief description of who they are in the show. Not every detail is needed. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 02:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bobby is 13 throught the entire show, because if he were to age, the show would fundamentaly change. This is similar to Family Guy where in characters such as stewie are the same age throught the entire show.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost9420 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

DVD season collections
King of the Hill has released the first six seasons on DVD but this was never mentioned, nor why the other seasons haven't been released as of yet; or even if they will be released. This is an important area inwhich was overlooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.206.58 (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

the reason why the rest of the seasons are not being released is because people arent buying them. why release another season and not make a profit off of it. i would enjoy having the rest on dvd seeing how i have the first 6. there could be a time in the future when they decide to release them but it might not happen soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.230.20 (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Who Agrees With Me?
Is this the most realistic fox cartoon ever or what. no fiction whatsoever. BlackScarabZ (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning KOTH as abbreviation?
I don't know how to edit an article, but i feel that this should be included in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost9420 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

satire versus realism
I realize this page is not for the discussion of the subject, but... The author states: "It attempts to retain a realistic approach, seeking humor in the conventional and mundane aspects of everyday life." This is literally true, if one contrasts "King of the Hill" with The Simpsons, which doesn't hesitate to go "over the top" or even be surrealistic. However, "King" is primarily a satire aimed at middle-American values and attitudes. Its realism -- and even affection for the principal characters -- is secondary. A Texan friend of mine, a Republican who liked the show, once remarked "My friends don't see it as a satire -- they think it's a documentary."

The author might Google "king of the hill" + satire, for various articles discussing the show's satirical nature, such as

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/37564156/I-Am-Not-Down-with-That-King-of-the-Hill-and-Sitcom-Satire

or

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7140/is_200907/ai_n32330467

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As I write this, the adult swim reruns have looped and restarted with the first episodes. It's interesting to see how some of the voices, the way the characters are drawn, and even (to some degree) Hank's personality have changed. "King of the Hill" is sufficiently complex (it has never been completely clear to me exactly what the show is "about", or trying to do) that this article badly needs references to intelligent critques of the series. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The article says that adult swim showed the final 4 unaired episodes. despite adult swims claims to being first local networks showed the episodes nearly a month before on late night showings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.214.150 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jumped the Shark
Should we mention when the show jumped the shark as voted by TV Guide users? I believe they voted when the character Lucky was introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CABEGOD (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Hank of the Hill"
While I can't vouch for Western Europe, I have never seen the show referred to as 'Hank of the Hill' in the UK. It's 'King of the Hill' here in every context I've ever encountered it. If this statement is to remain, it needs a reference. Sordyne (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Characters
I was wondering should Bill, Dale and Boomhauer be added to the character list because they seem to be just as important as the Hill family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoghan1234 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I guess it depends on how.  If there was a similar amount of content for these characters as there is for the four characters already disccussed the characters section would start getting fairly long.  Perhaps the thing to do is have a single paragraph that outlines the main characters in the show - the Hills, Bill, Dale, and Boomhauer - and leave it to the List of characters in King of the Hill and the articles on the characters give more detail.  This similar to what The Simpsons article does, for example.  That may also solve the problems with citations in this section, too. Wolfrock (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Definately, Bill, Dale and Boomhauer are very much main characters! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.45.164 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The character descriptions of Hank, Peggy and Bobby place unnecessary emphasis on minor issues which give a distorted impression of their characters. I've read the first three character descriptions, all of which are misleading. Over 10+ years, I have seen dozens of episodes but (1) I don't recall Hank ever mentioning his narrow urethra; I don't agree it warrants a mention, let alone strong emphasis. His sexuality in general is not a frequently mentioned topic. (2) While Peggy is definitely naive, she is not invariably so, and I do not agree that she is particularly arrogant. (3) Bobby was interested in girls' toys and games in the early series, but he grew out of that. In A Loser's Manual, Series 12, Episode 22, Bobby is accidentally presented with a doll as a gift, and he makes his displeasure clear. He spends most of the episode building a boat and taking over as "man of the house", due to Hank's fear of bats. There is far more complexity in all these characters than a reader of this article is led to suspect. I don't have time for a rewrite nor am I well placed to attempt one, but I request that other editors familiar with this show review all the character descriptions. Rubywine (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Article
Do you guys think this page is ready for another good article nomination? Eoghan1234 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is quite ready. I think the article has come a long way with regards to citations, but there is still some material that is missing.  For example Talk:King_of_the_Hill mentions says that the article leaves too many questions about things like "production, themes, reception, merchandise, etc.".  Perhaps that is something to work on now that the citations are almost all there. Wolfrock (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Article has improved since we started on it but it needs more. If we are ever going to get it up to featured article then we will to follow The Simpsons example. Right now, King of the Hill needs a production section but I have been looking on the internet but cannot find anything. 86.45.148.215 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this article does not do the programme justice. The charm and brilliance of the show is in its gentleness and subtlety. There is no reflection of that in this article. See my comment above under Characters. Rubywine (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

confused pronoun reference
"Peggy stated that Hank's greatest fear was his father dying without telling him how much he loved him..."

Who is "he"? Cotton telling Hank how much he loved his son, or vice versa? Cotton is such a thoroughly obnoxious person, and so often expresses outright hatred of his son, that the former seems likely. The sentence needs to be rewritten to clarify who is speaking about whom. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Section of Race in the Series
An anonymous user deleted the section I had been working on all morning which dealt with race as depicted by the show. This appears to be gratuitous censoring. I can not understand who could object to the deepening of the article by the consideration of various parameters such as race, age, sex, gender or other factors in view of the fact the show itself tackles such issues. I am reinstating these inclusions. they are indeed based on observation, but since we are taking about a popular television program and not the character of a historical figure, I can not understand why there would be such a scrupulous call for documentation. The show itself documents that there are Asian characters by identifieying them both verbablly and visually as Asian. Furhtermore, there is no accusaiton or interpretation, but merrely faitful reporting of the facts.
 * Your opinions and/or interpretations about a cartoon cannot be fact checked. Any person on this planet can form an opinion, but that doesn't make it fact. I stated why I reverted you in my edit summary that this content is a clear violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy so there's no mystery as to why this content shouldn't be included. This has nothing to do with attempting to censor you (a lame argument but not at all surprising). If you want to muse about the way the producers of the show depicted varying races in this cartoon, there's a whole wide internet to do that thus you are not being censored. An encyclopedia that requires facts is not the place to do that. 70.242.1.148 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

 * This article is not protected, and there is no actual request here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Race and Ethnicity
Since VaniNY appears to have issue with me removing these section from the article (which (s)he has added twice), I'm bringing this to the community for opinions. This section was not in the article before and I believe the section(s) violate Wikipedia's policy on no original research and neutral point of view. All of the asserted claims are not supported by any reliable source and are seemingly the observations of the user adding the content. These sections also add no encyclopedic value to the article and, in my opinion, should be removed. 70.242.1.148 (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is 100%, undeniable original research. This section may not remain in the article unless the interpretation was made by reliable sources.  VaniNY, you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding how Wikipedia works.  Please read WP:OR, which is once of our core principles, and which says that we may not include our own interpretations of primary material.  If some other source, like an academic journal or a trade publication has analyzed the use of race/ethnicity in King of the Hill, then we may report, briefly, a summary of what they have stated (assuming that the source is both reliable and is sufficiently weighty).  I have removed the info from the article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The perception of race as a factor to be considered in an American television series that is now internationally syndicated ust be acknowledged. Race is an important element in a racially diverse culture. Dismissal of race or the determination of race as irrelevant can only be made by those who are indifferent to the toxic role of race in Western culture. That is to also say, those who discount the role of race in Western culture are probably the same who benefit from ignoring or discounting the role of race in our world. Race is not a subjective but is a easily observable dimension of our world. Deleting my comment is narrow-minded, ignorant and racist. I made a request to protect this page until a decision can be made by a large group of individual not a couple of racist buddies.VaniNY —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC).


 * While I disagree with Qwyrxian's immediatism while this RFC is still attempting to achieve consensus, I do agree that the material is original research and should be removed if sources can't be attributed to it.


 * VaniNY, it's fine to say that the perception of race in this television series must be acknowledged, but Wikipedia's policies are clear that the person doing the acknowledging must not be you. You must provide reliable third party sources to support your analysis, otherwise it cannot be included. The issue has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the quality standards Wikipedia enforces. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And if this were a regular content dispute (like "I think this sourced material belongs in there" vs. "I don't think it's necessary"), then I might have let the RfC run and just given my opinion. But, in this case, this is an unambiguous violation of one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia policy.  To be honest, this didn't actually need an RfC--it could have been raised at the OR noticeboard or elsewhere.  Also, though, in this case, the burden was really on VaniNY to let the information stay out per our standard "Bold, revert, discuss" editing model. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what some of these abbreviations mean. Since not all are initiated in Wiki-language - please have the courtesy to write out the abbreviation RfC. Primary sources and original research is an important aspect of encyclopedic work. Diderot, who conceived the idea of the Encyclopedia, did much work based on his own observation, experience and research. It is easily verifiable that there are two Asian families which figure prominently in the King of the Hill series. Why is this perceived as any more subjective than the fact that Hank Hill is from a conservative upbringing or that Gribble's father is homosexual? I accuse Wikipedia of overlooking non-verified facts concerning political leaning or sexual orientation but of censoring simple observations concerning race. If the burden of verification is placed on the contributing author, then where is the documentation to support any of the facts concerning sexual orientation, political orientation, or women rights which are included in the King of the Hill article? This is visual media, that is readily available for viewing. It is unjust that I should be forced to find written research on popular visual media; it is well known that there is likely to be none. It is a cruel hardship to require a contributing author find written, race-related research on an long-canceled television series. I accuse you all of race-related discrimination with the goal or ignoring, excluding and marginalizing. VaniNY (talk)


 * An "RfC" is a "Request for Comment". That means that User:70.242.1.148 felt that it would be helpful to have more editors involved in this discussion, so a notice was posted in a centralized location inviting others to comment.  Second, you are correct that Diderot did all of his own research. You are incorrect in assuming this has anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia.  In all situations, we require that editor not provide their own analysis.  I'm sorry that you feel that it's unjust to "find written research on popular visual media", but that is what is required of all Wikipedia editors on all articles.  Second, there is a fundamental difference between stating the fact that Gribble's father is homosexual and what you wrote.  The first is a statement that is explicitly and unambiguously made in the show.  Your analysis combines together multiple episodes of the show and further judges the show to have an overall racial prejudice. The first is a statement of fact, the second is interpretation/opinion. Again, you appear to not have read WP:OR, our policy on original research--please do so, and understand that no amount of unhappiness on your part will change this (as a policy, it actually predates Wikipedia itself, and was a part of our prior organization). Finally, please do not accuse others of discrimination, especially when all we are doing is following one of Wikipedia's most basic policies.  Accusing people of discrimination is a form of personal attack, and is expressly forbidden (see No personal attacks).  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note, reliable sources don't have to be written. We do accept image, video and audio sources, provided they're verifiable and reliable (and generally are secondary sources). TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * TechnoSymbiosis is correct in that reliable sources do not have to be published sources, but these assertions were not cited in any way, shape or form. Watching the show and then making assumptions about what the producers wanted to say by creating or not creating a certain character of a certain race is not even close to encyclopedic. That's the problem with the content - this is all VaniNY's original research and observations. Phrases like "The program seems to go out of its way to include Asians" make this rather obvious. If there were even one review or analysis cited on this supposed issue I could see including it, but this addition seems to be more about a user keen on adding content about a racial issue where there isn't one. I hate to burst your bubble VaniNY's but I'm a black woman so your claim that I'm racist because I disagree with adding this content is laughable at best. For the last time, this is about you adding content that is basically your very own opinion to an encyclopedia. There's no place for anyone's opinion in the article space which is why the no original research policy exists. Moreover, calling people names because they disagree with you is childish. Your cries of censorship and racism against those who do not want to see your opinion in the article space does not strengthen your argument and further personal attacks on people you don't know and know nothing about will likely earn you a block if you continue. Please learn to comment on the content and not the contributors. If you feel you can not separate your personal feelings over a cartoon or issues of race, perhaps you should find another subject to edit or stop editing Wikipedia altogether as this is suppose to be a collegial environment. 70.242.1.148 (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a cruel hardship to require a contributing author find written, race-related research on an long-canceled television series. - Um, no it's not. If you can't be bothered to find sources for content that others are challenging, do not expect the content to remain in the article as the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material to provide a reliable source for the content as stated in WP:VERIFY. This is Wikipedia policy that must be followed. 70.242.1.148 (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Again the anonymous party is fighting very hard for exclusion of evolved moral and spiritual approach to this article's subject matter while hiding his/her identity. However, you are not worth my time and energy. I defer to the rules of the game. I will take the issue of race in King of the Hill elsewhere and I hope that it will have greater meaning and impact elsewhere. The program is widely perceived by many Blacks and Latinos (excluding whites and Asians) as racist. It is a show that is based in Texas but which does not feature ANY Latinos as friends, acquaintances and neighbors, excluding a few offensive tokens. It is a show that endorses exclusion and attracts like-minded fans such as the determined anonymous party. I perceive a protectionism for racist policy that is repulsive. I hope that all that support this type of ruthless implementation of Wikipedia policy is making it a suffocating place for those who would like to see more inclusion. I cherish great hopes for all turn a blind eye to segregation, exclusion and racism.07:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs)
 * Doesn't matter where you take this "fight" or what cherished hopes you hold, your additions in regards to this article will likely be rejected by anyone with an iota of knowledge about actual policy. You continue to bring up issues that have no bearing all while ignoring the fact that this content is your personal opinion and not verifiable fact. That right there signals that you have no understanding of policy and can't hold an intelligent conversation without resorting to personal attacks on people you don't know. Not worth the time and energy indeed. 70.242.1.148 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

First request: Please cease to engage me. I am clearly disengaging from you. I do not wish any direct contact from you. I do not want any comments regarding myself coming from you, it is exceedingly offensive to have contact with you. There is no need for any contact.VaniNY (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * VaniNY, You can request that the editor not contact you on their talk page, but 70... has as much a right to discuss this issue here as you do. 70..., I think that when VaniNY menas "take this elsewhere", I think xe means that xe's going to take it off wiki. VaniNY, it's a shame for you to "go", but it does appear that WP isn't where you want to edit.  There's a lot of important work to be done in the world in criticizing popular culture through the lens of feminism, post-colonialism, and racism, but, alas, Wikipedia is not the place to do that.  I encourage you to take your enthusiasm for your project and channel it into serious scholarship/writing.  Qwyrxian (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, I apperciate the clarification regarding VaniNY's comment and for your defense of my very presence here. I must say I find it ironic that someone who claims that they're fighting against racism and other forms of prejudice (albeit over a cartoon article on Wikipedia of all things) is being so outright hostile and prejudice against someone who is simply editing through an IP address. That kind of nonsense almost makes me want to create an account, but something tells me there would be some other reason that my opinion isn't deemed valid. Perhaps I should start an article about the injustices of IP address editing prejudice ;). 70.242.1.148 (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * VaniNY, I have every sympathy for what you are trying to do, but you are going about this the wrong way. If you suspect that the presentation of race issues in this series is an important aspect, you need to do some research and verify that there are indeed sources commenting on this aspect.
 * Look in Google Books; for example, there is what seems like a useful source here.
 * Also look in Google News; I was able to find a few brief references here, here, and here.
 * Try Google Scholar to see if there are any analyses of the race issue there.
 * Once you have sources, it is perfectly fine to add a summary of what these sources are saying to the article, citing a sources for each statement you add (see WP:CITE). Hope this helps. Best, -- JN 466  01:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Accusations of racism towards editors removing non encyclopedic content and/or orginal research??? Sounds like the guilty party is the accuser. The obnoxious Western Culture jabs are meaningless and offensive, given the hatreds, racism and tribalism throughout ALL points of the world, with most cultures NEVER self analyzing, self criticizing or even bringing the issue up. And anyway this certainly isn't the place to discuss such an important, multi-textured topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.236.127 (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

2nd Request to Be Left Alone
This is a 2nd request. I deplore above comments. Discuss the Race and Ethnicity issue but do not discuss me. Do not write comments concerning me as an individual or address me directly in an open forum. No user, whatever his role on Wikipedia, has a right to prolong any contact with me once the issue is finished. This matter is closed. This seems to be becoming personal and unhealthy. I wish to avoid a dispute - Please forget me entirely and I will do the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution VaniNY (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Length of run: apparent contradiction(?)

 * "The show became one of Fox's longest-running series, and at the time of its cancellation the second longest-running American animated series" – second par of intro


 * "Fox renewed the series for seasons eleven and twelve, making it the third longest-running American animated television series after The Simpsons and South Park.[7]" – section "Facing cancellation"

Since both The Simpsons and South Park are both still running, one of these statements seems to be inaccurate, and given that the second quote is more specific about what shows ran longer, it seems likely that it's the first one.  tomasz.  13:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Arlen, Tx
The intro has "...in the town of Arlen, Texas, based loosely on the real life Houston suburb, of the same name." Then throughout the page it talks about how it's a fictional suburb of the Metroplex (DFW). Moreover, throughout the series the characters make reference to being in or imply they are in the Metroplex. I also think in the episode where Peggy is in the boggle tournament, or some other episode they Hank complains about having to travel so far to Houston. (For those not from Texas, it's about +4 hours, and it's not even half the distance across the state.) I'm not sure how this stuff is changed but I think that should definitely be changed.

74.196.112.27 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Erikk
 * The mention of Houston, the Dallas ones are sourced. C T J F 8 3  19:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Britany Murphy's death
Did her death have an effect on the cast, writers and producers to feel like shutting down and not going on without her? Was it a contributing factor to the cancellation? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to ask. Article talk pages exist only to discuss improvements/changes to the article, not as a general forum for discussion.  For some requests, Wikipedia has a reference desk that can help you do research, but I doubt they'll be able to find out the motivations of staff members.  16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Musical
There is no source given with this addition, and searches on Google have not turned up anything. Also, the reference to 4chan makes me suspicious that this is not legit. Can anyone find and provide a source for this information? - SudoGhost (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Length of run, continued
Wikipedia and several sources (apparently based on wikipedia) claim that KotH at the time of cancellation was the second longest-running American animated series ... clearly that's not true now as South Park has surpassed KOTH's run, but according to the the list of longest running US tv shows PBS's Arthur had the same number of seasons as KOTH (13) at the time of KotH's cancellation, AND premiered 4 months earlier (Sept 2, 1996 vs Jan 12, 1997), so it appears KotH is either the second longest running US primetime animated series or the third longest running US animated series at the time of cancellation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.193.93.34 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)