Talk:Santa Inc.

Name
The reliable sources call it Santa Inc without any period after the Inc. But on the official website its called Santa, Inc. in the description, but in the writing with the imagery above it it just Santa Inc with a spot where the period after Inc would be.  D r e a m Focus  22:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"Controversy" section and "user scores"
This series caught my attention due to the so-called controversy, and the videos done on it by the exact same right wing youtube trolls that have been doing this stuff since 2014.

I would like to remind everybody here that audience scores are NOT reliable precisely because of the kind of coordinated review-bombing that has affected this series. Audience scores are only noteworthy in the case of review-bombing (see the Captain Marvel movie) and if reliable sources find said review-bombing to be noteworthy. If this is the case, the act of review-bombing needs to described as such, and not painted as genuine audience reaction (indeed, the overwhelming majority of people involved in review bombing campaigns have never watched the film, series that they're trying to downvote).

You claimed in your last edit comment that A natural article should not be alluding agreement to white supremacy being to blame of the subject matter's audience reception. This is not true. A neutral article should be reflective of what reliable sources say on the matter. If reliable sources claim that poor audience scores were due to review bombing by white supremacists (or holocaust deniers, or antisemites)- something that anyone here can independently verify as true by checking out what kind of people this "negative audience reception" comes from and what kind of "jokes" they post - then a neutral article will claim the same thing - not "allude" but explicitly claim.

Also pinging  and  for further comments, in the hopes of establishing a consensus on how to cover this engineered controversy. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Seth, is that you? JettaMann (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Widely negative reaction is not "review bombing" unless you can prove it. If it was a wild smash hit, it wouldn't matter what a handful of malcontents did, other than to slightly lower the score. Sometimes, sucky content just sucks so bad people feel the need to warn others. But yes, let's make sure we follow the narrative and blame it on white supremist misogynists.174.0.48.147 (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's review-bombing when reliable sources say it's review-bombing. If this is indeed "sucky content" as you claim, the reviews from professional critics will reflect that, without the need to cite a source as vulnerable to malicious brigading as "user reviews". There's a reason why wikipedia does not consider user reviews to be reliable. What IS reliable is how reliable sources interpret bad user reviews. When a plurality of reliable sources claim that the show was review bombed by white supremacists and antisemites, and no reliable sources dispute that, then that is what wikipedia will need to say. This is how site policy works. And antisemitic "jokes" are not simply "people feeling the need to warn others that the show sucks". 46.97.170.115 (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which of these "reliable sources" state the TV show was review bombed? All of my research into the matter doesn't come back with any solid confirmation with good evidence that it is being review bombed, it just brings up articles acting hysterical over the fact that Seth Rogan legitimately claimed the negative feedback was not legitimate; but rather thanks to an organized effort of apparently 200,000+ white supremacists who all within the span of a few hours completely nuked the public reviews, with almost nobody who isn't a "White supremacist brigadier" stepping in to provide a more "reasonable", positive review.
 * It's also important to take into account the role of these critics that are being paid to do criticize things. Media, along many other things, is mostly subjective. A critic will only be paid in one of two situations: the first of which is that the critic is able to competently articulate the opinions and ideas of a large portion of people on a subjective matter. The second is that the critic is being paid to do lip service. Ignoring the ridiculous conspiracy that it's "white supremacists" who aren't happy with the TV show's quality, it's easy to infer that what's going on with the most flattering reviews from critics is the latter scenario. 2001:56A:F6C1:F800:72:EC9:9552:2189 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Santa Inc Controversy
Hello all. I just wanted to add to the discussion that this topic should be covered in a neutral standpoint and should have both sides of the discussion shown. While the Daily Dot article was the only article covering this topic at the time, the writer of the article did not do diligence to show the numerous amounts of comments on the YouTube trailer that did not have anti-Jewish rhetoric but focused on the fact that the show was not of interest to them. We can’t see this now due to YouTube personal shutting off the comments. This is not a coordinated attack by the “far right”. These are mostly middle ground viewers who don’t care about the far left and the far right. It would be just as bad if people were lumped in with far left people just for giving their opinion that is counter to a conservative.

In the future, I believe that we should do our best to show relevant information from both sides and not take only one source. Isn’t the rule to have three verifiable sources?

Thanks and I hope to have open dialogue with you all. JLWire (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The article is neutral when it gives a balanced presentation of all sides as covered by reliable sources. If the Daily Dot, which is a reliable source according to WP:RSP, states that the negative comments were antisemitic in nature, and no other reliable sources dispute that, then the neutral position is to cover the antisemitic aspect of these negative comments accordingly. What you want isn't neutrality, it's WP:FALSEBALANCE, between reliable sources and your original research wich, might I add, is unverifyable, now that the comments have been disabled. Find a reliable source that says what you claim and it might be considered for inclusion. Considering that this is last week's news and there's been no further development, it is unlikely that you will find such. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And here is why Wikipedia's concept is doomed. 134.102.85.184 (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Co-signed. Wikipedia is royally screwed when users like JLWire basically say that the mainstream media's point of view is the only one worth consideration, and really leads to a lot of dissonance between reality and wikipedia. At this point, I'm kinda hoping Wiki dies the slow painful death it's desperately attempting to stave off. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request
Page protected so I can't edit

Please move "The stop motion animation is produced by Stoopid Buddy Stoodios" to a new production section. It doesn't seem worthy of lead, and lead shouldn't have citations as the information should be in the main body in greater depth cited

Please add template { {HBO Max}} to the bottom of page

Please change date format of Dec 19, 2021 in the reference of Barbara Ellen to match other references in article

Have added link to HBO Max extenal links section via WikiData but the navigation template is missing so not showing

86.10.25.197 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)