Talk:The Closer (2021 film)

Top ten
Netflix top ten, The Closer at #3. -- 109.79.170.230 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Added. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have explained that since it has only been a few days and the weekend isn't even over yet it might be too early to add to the article, but I guess we can rewrite it later if necessary. -- 109.79.170.230 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Audience scores
Two things happened. Those two things were separate. One was not "Despite" the other.

I'm sure this article will change substantially as as more reviews from actual critics come in. I think it might be better not to include the WP:USERGENERATED audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes at all. Exceptions can be made for Audience scores but I do not yet see a reason to make that exception here. -- 109.79.170.230 (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For now at least, I have removed the Rotten Tomatoes audience score see WP:UGC. There may be exceptional reasons to include it later, we will see. -- 109.79.170.230 (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

GLAAD and the Critism section
The statement from GLAAD was shortened by an editor who said it was WP:UNDUE. I hope someone can explain that a bit more. I didn't add the link in the first place but I did expand that text because I thought it was important not just to say in general that they criticized the show but to include something more specific about their criticism. Also I thought it was better to give weight to comments from a representative organization like GLAAD rather than (or at least before) highlighting comments from individuals on Twitter. I still think it would be better to put more emphasis on the statements from GLAAD rather than specific individuals but I thought it would be better to discuss before restoring or rephrasing that text. -- 109.78.202.198 (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems due to have the statement from an organization as big as GLAAD about the subject. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 23:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just think it's unnecessary to have quotes from almost everyone who's just piling onto the controversy. I added a quote from Ted Sarandos but maybe even that shouldn't be here. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just seems weird that the only direct quotes are those that are being positive about the show in the "Criticism" section. Isabelle 🔔 23:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to avoid putting WP:UNDUE emphasis on the positive or the negative but looking at Sticks & Stones (2019 film) the mainstream reviews were negative (extremely at first) and there was a lot of negative press. The more considered evaluation and the awards came later.
 * I would have liked to say more positive things about the show in the "Critical reception" section but I was waiting for more reviews to come in and trying to keep a balance. I deliberately made an effort choose mainstream sources such as Vulture.com and NPR (rather than take the very positive review I saw on Rotten Tomatoes by Jim Schembri who I've never heard of before). I would have loved to address how the show is an achievement in story telling, (setup and callbacks like "Clifford", how Chapelle zigs and zags) or how the show fits into the context of Chapelle's body of work, revisiting old topics, and reprising old punchlines. But we have to do the best we can with the reliable sources available so that means a lot of emphasis on the criticism at least for now. -- 109.78.196.169 (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Quotations should be followed and according to that too many quotations are a bad thing. I think an effort should be made to minimize quotes were an accurate summary of the conversation can be made. In terms of “positive or negative”, I don’t think Sarandos’ comments are either. He’s just speaking about the type of content offered on the service. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To note, I have pared the quote from Sarandos down. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've went ahead and added a small section of GLAAD's statement, and split NBJC's call out into a different sentence. Isabelle 🔔 02:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good move shortening the quote from Sarandos, nicely done. -- 109.78.196.169 (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Again my point was to highlight a representative group, not to agree with the criticism. If there are issues of WP:UNDUE emphasis, I would give less weight to the comments from individuals, and I would not highlight the opinion of a TV writer (who to be clear had already left Netflix for Peacock) or a Netflix employee. Details from specific people is more relatable and good enough for the short term outrage cycle of the news media, but a representative organization such as GLAAD is more appropriate and serious for an encyclopedia article, and hopefully more meaningful in the long term and we can do better.

Someone also expanded the NBJC statement but it might be better to highlight a different part of their statement. Deadline included more of the NBJC statement than Variety and they make a point the deaths of many Black transgender people, which I might have highlighted if I'd thought of a better way to rephrase it. (The NBJC call to ban the special although is only a small step from book burning which I abhor and it is the wrong opinion, I would only have included if I was trying to highlight how stupid it is. It might be fairer not to highlight their censorious opinion at all.)

I had intended to highlight the troubling Anti-Semitism in the special ("Space Jews") and that is part of why I included the review from NPR, but ultimately I used it to make the broader point about oppression in general. There doesn't seem to have been significant comment on Anti-Semitism yet, although groups such as the Anti-Defamation League might comment later.

Thanks to you all for your efforts to improve the article and maintain a balance. I appreciate that people are willing to talk it though and keep making adjustments. It's a good start and hopefully the article will keep getting better. -- 109.78.196.169 (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've changed one of the references to link to the full statement by the NBJC. I considered adding a sentence on the death of black trans folx, but decided it would veer on undue. If another user feels like expanding it, please do so. With regards to asking for the removal of the show from Netflix, whether one agrees with it or not, it is probably the more important message from their statement, and should stay.
 * The memo by Netflix seems to be relevant, and the paragraph could be expanded with some more info about it. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 15:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean... the "troubling insert offence taken here" by all of these pieces is at the end of the day news media not understanding the premise of comedy. None of the content of the special is likely intended to be taken literally as it's not a TED talk or a manifesto but a comedy special. I would avoid pieces like the anti-semitism article because they are clearly reading too much into what's constructed as humour. The trans community's response has been mainly what has dominated the news cycle anyway (must be a slow news week). Recentism should be avoided where possible, a summary of events should be recorded. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't get to judge that. There is enough coverage by reliable sources that it is due to represent those points of view. Isabelle 🔔 19:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The comedy can be provocative and criticism can be valid too. Context matter "It's gonna get worse than that" he's clearly baiting the audience. The authorial intent is be one thing, but not the only thing. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and we do get to discuss, consider WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM, and make subjective editorial judgements about what to include and how much of it. I think we're doing okay so far. We are going with the sources. -- 109.78.196.169 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate the intent behind trying to condense the section I think it was better to have quotes that showed what the representative organisations said, rather than only mentioning their call for censorship. I'd like to restore that first paragraph of the section back to what it was before, because I thought we'd discussed above already why it was there. (If you're looking for more ways to shorten the section I'd be happy to see the "If this is what being canceled is" quote go away, or at least merge the two responses from Chappelle into a single paragraph.) -- 109.77.207.91 (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I put a quote back in. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But that's not quite what I meant. My point was to include the "why" not the "what" (the call for censorship). I'll try and do it myself, you've given me some ideas about how to keep it more concise. -- 109.77.207.91 (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

CaffeinAddict removed the quotes again. I understand the need for brevity but sometimes the flow of coherent paragraphs is better than short pithy bursts that seem more like a list of bullet points. I still think it would be better to keep the quotes from representative groups like GLAAD and the NBJC rather than individuals as they provide a useful overview. Also that the specific quotes included speak to not only "what" they were demanding (that it be removed) but also "why" (they believe speech increases violence). But I'm not going to try and add it back this time, I'd edit something else instead. -- 109.78.208.59 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the edit as "not an improvement". I don't see the need to remove GLAAD's and NBJC's partial statement, as well as the ERG statement about Netflix and Sarandos. The addition of years every paragraph is also not needed, as that can be inferred from the sequence of events. The paragraphs about Chappelle's screenings should stay merged, as they are about the same subject. No explanation for removing the mention of the virtual walkout. We should also discuss the removal of Joey's statement that happened earlier. Despite not being associated with Netflix, they are notable (which is a reason many statements have been removed from this article in the past) and their presence was reported by multiple RS. Isabelle 🔔 13:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OVERQUOTING - simple as that. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * From the article: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing. Long quotations crowd the actual article and distract attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working small portions of the quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified, there is no need for an arbitrary limit but quotations should not dominate the article." CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit did much more than remove excess quotation, as I've mentioned in my comment above. Not only that, your removal was only of some of the quotations, not all, so that needs to be discussed. I've again reverted your editions and ask you familiarize yourself with the WP:BRD cycle. Isabelle 🔔 16:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I’m well aware of the BRD premise - I believe in paring back all of the quotations and summarizing the points made. This controversy is conflated by the media, and we should focus on an encyclopedic summary of what has actually transpired. Which isn’t much. I’ll wait for your arguments  CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. My issue with the edit is that it removes without explanation some information that are not quotations (such as the virtual walkout), and adds back the years, which is superfluous, since it can be easily inferred by the reader that the events all happened in the same month of the same year. WRT the quotes, although I appreciate wanting to reduce those, I don't agree with all the removals, and some did not have a concise summary added in their place, such as GLAAD's and NBJC's, which I'd say are some of the more important point of view to be present in the article. I had a similar reservation about the LA Times interview, as I don't believe the summary you left behind is at all useful or insightful (it would be better to remove it entirely than to leave that summary in).
 * You also removed the ERG's statement without leaving a summary, which I believe is necessary to give some more background to the walkout that would happen later. Same for one of Chappelle's later statement (you did summarize the one from 21, though) Isabelle 🔔 15:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * * The quotations go along with everything - I think almost all of the quotes, for the most part can summarize what is happening.
 * * The virtual "walkout" is not even... real? A virtual walkout is just people protesting on the internet? That's is not a real thing. Like it's people protesting on the internet yes but it's not... a real protest. By that logic we should mention every tweet about Dave Chappelle from twitter in this article.  CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by Could you please explain me? As a reminder, my issue with the edit was not simply for the removal of the quotes, but the fact they were not replaced by summaries, meaning context was removed from certain sections. Isabelle 🔔 13:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ratings and Audience Score
Many other movie titles have audience scores provided, however it appears that given the political nature of Chapelle's message, it is inconvenient to allow it here. Only movie critics (with a specific set of political ideals) are permitted to provide sound opinions on movies. We do not want positive scores on this movie title because we are trying as hard as we can to make this comedy special appear as unpopular as possible, thereby causing viewers to avoid it due to certain socio-political messages contained within that we do not approve of. We will continue to apply this bias and double-standard to as many titles as we can that do not adhere to dogma that we believe should dictate the lives of our readers. We realize that this deep, inherent bias is what causes wikipedia to be disregarded as a credible reference in any academic setting, but we have prioritized this political bias over truth, and will continue to do so. We will do our best to eschew an approved underlying message over facts and transparency. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, but only a special few have been granted special privilege (as dictated by political beliefs) to be the end-all goal keepers of "wikitruth", thus lulling readers into a false sense of power to edit these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.86.84.91 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I personally disagree with this policy as well. It was also done to sticks and stones. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Many other movie titles have audience scores provided" that statement is false. There are very few exceptions to the rule against including audience scores. I wont waste any further time to refute the rest of your false statements and conspiracy theories. Do you want to improve the article or not?
 * There are plenty of things Wikipedia does that I do not agree with but I strongly agree with the policy against including audience scores and other user generated content WP:UGC because it makes sense and fundamentally comes down to matter of reliable sources WP:RS. I'd much prefer to use more sources like for example Nielsen ratings than user voted web polls. There are still rare cases where we might make exceptions but instead of ranting you need to start explaining why an exception should be made.
 * I know the policy and I know that the exception was only made for Sticks and Stones because I made it happen. The reason I did that was because secondary sources widely reported the disparity between the critics and audiences (not because I have any confidence in the IMDB score itself only the conclusion that there was a significant disparity). If you are serious about improving this article and don't just want to rant you need to show your sources and convince people. The Atlantic mentions the disparity (Archive ) but I so far I haven't seen many others mention it. I do not think there is justification to make an exception and include the audience scores here yet, but that could change if the disparity is highlighted as noteworthy by more sources.
 * Find more secondary sources if you want to justify making an exception. -- 109.78.202.31 (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is 7 critics on rotten tomatoes even enough to be notable? Aren't movies usually reviewed by hundreds of reviewers before the metric is considered accurate? CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First the attempt to add Rotten Tomatoes audience scores to the article needs a lot more work and is not good enough yet. Labelling the subsection "Analysis" does not hide the fact that it is a weak attempt to force audience scores into the article. This article has overnight changed to include a whole lot of low quality unreliable sources and reviews from random critics and commentators. It will not surprise me if editors remove it, but I'll wait and see.
 * Sure some editors will argue that Rotten Tomatoes should not be included when the review count is low, but do you want to make that argument? Do you want to remove Rotten Tomatoes? How many reviews would you want before including it? -- 109.78.200.220 (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * either the metrics from RT are unreliable or they aren’t. The positive reviews come from RT too, so instead of removing it all altogether, I balanced the negative and mixed reviews with positive ones from the same conglomerate (RT). CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An editor explained it once, as follows: The New York Times is a reliable source, the letters to the editor are not a reliable source. That's WP:USERGENERATED in a nutshell. -- 05:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed the title of the section as it didn't seem to fit. I think it would make more sense to note the audience reception in the critics section when noted by the critic, if there are enough. But I'll refrain from removing the score as I don't want to risk edit warring over it. Isabelle 🔔 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It took quite a lot of effort to get the Audience scores included in the Sticks and Stones article and in that case I believed an exception was justified and there were enough reliable sources to support it. (Even then someone recently removed the subsection and merged it into the reception section which I did not think was an improvement.) I don't think we have enough reliable sources here yet. Fox news? Seriously? WP:RSPS I don't think the inclusion of audience scores will survive closer scrutiny and I expect some of the very active Wikipedia film/tv editors will remove it again, I'm willing to wait, but if people want to keep it I can already tell them: better source needed. -- 109.78.200.220 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's completely the same process as sticks and stones, because denying the fact that people are watching laughing and enjoying something despite a select few film critics sitting in their ivory tower feigning offence is a dishonest portrayal of how this special is being received. Here are the facts: 1 - the film is #3 on Netflix 2 - Audiences seem to be enjoying it 3 - Hashtag activists and film critics are complaining about the special (whether they've watched it or not). CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As the person who added the user rating to Sticks and Stones (the version that eventually stuck) I'm telling you it is not the same, the sources here are not good enough yet, and the disparty has not been widely reported. This special is hasn't gotten half the attention as Sticks and Stones did. Also if the sourcing was stronger you wouldn't need to explicatly state the sources in the article text. I'll discuss it further later, gotta go. -- 109.78.200.220 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm simply going off of precedent set by the final paragraph at Sticks & Stones (2019 film)
 * Seems like the smart thing to do would be remove the audience score from both Sticks and Stones and The Closer then, since it's causing problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.86.48 (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be highly opposed to this. Leave the two articles with only negative reception, disregarding the amount of people who watched them? CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In my experience some editors can be very strict and sources like Fox News are unlikely to be good enough for them, see WP:RSPS, and they will remove the audience scores. To strongly justify making an exception to the rule the sources need to be better. It's a decent start but more work is needed. Removing the audience scores would not be "the smart thing to do" it would be best to think about the actual point the scores are being used to make, that audiences liked the show, and instead find more sources to better make that point. -- 109.78.205.4 (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think, when considering the legitimacy of "reliable sources", it is important to consider what the claim that is being made concerning that source is. Stating that the special was a rousing success and then using the RT Audience Scores to prove it might be drawing conclusions from an unreliable source. Simply stating that the RT Audience Score show a 96% approval rating is a cold, hard, verifiable fact. ChimpWarfare (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Plenty of films have massive discrepancies between Audience Score and Critics Score, for a lot of reasons, but the audience score doesn't get more than a sentence in those cases. In the case where the film is highly politically charged, I would argue the already unreliable Audience Score (due to Self Selection Bias) become even more unreliable due to vote brigading (there's plenty of evidence for that in Dave Chapelle's case, such as the fact that Sticks and Stones has 25,000 audience ratings, compared to say, Kid Gorgeous at Radio City which has 100). If you want to play up the Audience Score as more than a sentence, then you have to come up with a good reason why we should ignore those things and treat its audience score as somehow more important than other movie's audience's scores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.86.48 (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm pleasantly surprised, I thought it would need stronger sources to support the exception but the Rotten Tomatoes Audience score has survived in the article this long. It is a good sign but no guarantee that severe editors will not get around to it eventually, or that it will pass quality review. -- 109.78.199.44 (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Daphne Dorman
Regarding the statement about Daphne's online harassment for supporting Dave? There appears to little evidence to back up this statement. In fact, the response to her defense of Dave prior to her death seemed to be largely neutral to positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WooHead (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the reason for her suicide, as it's not talked about in that source. Isabelle 🔔 13:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Synopsis doesn't necessarily need sourcing. Chappelle talks about this in the special. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a source anyway. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Explanatory footnotes or Efn are worth considering as a way to give context to the a plot/synopsis section. -- 109.78.205.4 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Jaclyn Moore
Is the Jaclyn Moore story even notable? The show she works for on Netflix had it's series finale on Netflix on September 22, 2021. Saying she's "quitting" Netflix is a misdirection - she no longer had a job there anyway. If the person was notable enough to have their own page maybe it'd warrant inclusion in the article, but it doesn't seem to fit. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is a mistake in general for an encyclopedia article to highlight Twitter comments in most cases. I also think it is important for an encyclopedia article about a comedy special to stay on the topic of the comedy special. (Moore is reportedly working on a version of “Queer As Folk" for CBS/Peacock.) I would not highlight the comments from Moore, I would instead emphasize the statements from representative groups like GLAAD, as I said above. -- 109.78.205.4 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Chapelle calls t girls "dudes" and gets accolades
Chappelle misgenders several trans women and calls one trans girl a "dude".Netflix is under pressure to pull Dave Chapelle’s offensive anti-trans “comedy” amid mounting condemnation from GLAAD, the National Black Justice Coalition and Dear White People’s Jaclyn Moore.

--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia is not a forum. Please try to keep your comments on the subject of how to specifically improve this encyclopedia article about the comedy special by Dave Chappelle. -- 109.78.205.4 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Transcript
A transcript was added to the External links section, but it was reverted with an edit summary saying it was "not needed". A reference to the transcript was removed from the plot section with an edit summary saying "it's likely copyvio". (WP:COPYVIO) I'd like to get a clearer answer than "likely", how can we know if it is a copyright violation or not? Copyrights on jokes and comedy is complicated (see Joke theft and also consider Performing rights). Also I've seen film articles before that had links to the script in the External links section. Wikipedia Song articles frequently link to lyrics pages. I checked WP:MOSFILM and I don't see anything on it either way. (I was also under the impression that subtitles were not a copyright violation and they are not even as simple as a transcript.)

WP:EL I seems to me like we could include a link to a full transcript in the External links section if that is something we wanted. Do we want to include a link to a full transcript? -- 109.77.194.24 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @14Jenna7Caesura was the editor who added the transcript link. In case it isn't already obvious I also think adding a link to a transcript would improve the article and help give readers a better understanding of the show. I'd like to get more opinions before adding it back. -- 109.77.194.24 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead made a WP:BOLD edit and restored the link to a full Transcript to the External links section. -- 109.77.197.226 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Are we trying to be neutral?
Both positive and negative reactions need to be included.

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/dear-white-people-jaclyn-moore-dave-chappelle-netflix-1235083197/ Jaclyn Moore got deleted

Stand-up comedian Robin Tran got deleted

Actress Hannah Gadsby negative comments don't matter.

Mainstream actor Channing Tatum's disapproval doesn't matter.

All of the above were removed by the article creator! Very funny and amusing.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, neutrality is the goal on all wikipedia articles. Many of the examples you have posted have edit summaries explaining why, and if someone lays out a good reason for keeping them with consensus they get edited back in. I suggest you read WP:NPOV - are you trying to keep this article neutral? Based on your edits you only add negative reactions. Also based on your contribution history and the concerned editors on your own talk page, perhaps it's best that you read some more about how wikipedia works. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have added positive items also. Namely, that Chappelle set up a college fund for the surviving child.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do people feel it is appropriate to elevate these particular opinions? Why highlight the opinion of one Netflix employee? Why highlight the opinion of Channing Tatum? Why highlight the opinion of former comedian Damon Wayans? What are they adding that hasn't already been said? State your case. I think it is WP:UNDUE and more than a little redundant.  I would argue that we should include significantly less than we do now. It was a strange choice to include every single one of the 7 reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes, we could probably stand to trim that back to the more notable publications. Again it is repetitive. It still doesn't balance out how disproportionately long the criticism section has become.  Complaining about this special in isolation seems to me a lot like complaining about the 6th film in franchise, people should really know by know what they are getting from Chapelle (that's taking it on good faith that all the people complaining have actually watched this special). I'm still hoping a commentator or academic will do some deeper analysis and put the show in context, as "The Closer" of a series of six shows (in particular a comparison to "Equanimity" could be insightful).  It might take more time to settle down but I believe an encyclopedia article that was a neutral evaluation of this comedy special would not include so many recent news items and marginal opinions but instead would focus more on the contents of the show itself. -- 109.77.197.226 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was going to wait, stick to the notable comments on this and eventually pare it back. It's getting flooded now. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If 14Jenna7Caesura first acknowledges the edit summaries that already given when things were removed and then still wants argue point by point for including specific people I will refute those points, but broadly speaking most of it comes down to WP:UNDUE and WP:RELEVANCE. I don't think it has been stated before but comments from Damon Wayans should excluded because he is quoted as saying "I can’t speak about the content of the show" so his support for Chappelle and free speech in general isn't relevant to this article about this comedy special. -- 109.77.197.226 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Needs a copyedit
The summary section of this article needs copyediting to establish an encyclopedic tone. It also does not accurately reflect the script I’ve read online. Namely, important content in the script is missing. The summary omits the bit about Dave watching television during his COVID-19 convalescence, which has the punchline that his body is fighting “foreign invaders” like the Black Americans he observes attacking Asian Americans on news reports. It is also missing the entire “Space Jew” section, and it does not elaborate on Dave’s arguments that LGBTQ people have more privilege than Black people. (A major theme, if not the major theme, seems to be that a secret group of LGBTQ and Jewish elites are oppressing Blacks in the United States.) The “big line” of the piece, about how “empathy is bisexual” because it has to “go both ways” (paraphrasing here) should also be included. Please let an experienced editor copyedit this for you.RandomFrequentFlyerDent (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Don't wait for an experienced editor to show up, do the best you can and see what happens. The article needs a lot of work, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The synopsis/plot section does need a rewrite could cover more of the points you mention to provide context for any commentary or criticism of those issues later in the article. (Also I'm fairly sure Chapelle was joking about Zionism to be deliberately controversial and was not trying to say something about Jewish elites. I don't think Dave is competing in the oppression olympics, he's making edgy jokes and calling for greater empathy.) Please note that WP:FILMPLOT says that plot sections should be 400-700 and that's for a feature film (which is usually 90 minutes or more), and WP:TVPLOT says to keep plot sections under 500 words (tv shows are normally 45 minutes without commercials), so it would be wise to try and keep below 500 words. At the moment is below 200 words so 500 words should be plenty. -- 109.77.197.226 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC on The Verge
I have made a related RfC on the reliability of the The Verge on social issues here for anyone that's interested:  CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there anything The Verge has reported that has not been reported by other sources? I do not think anything would be lost by replacing the Verge with sources that report in a more neutral way. There are only 2 reference to the Verge in the article at the moment, and I think they're both clickbait. The proposed Walkout was not really an actual walkout but a virtual walkout or a work stoppage, but plenty of other sources have accepted the phrasing "walkout" at the face value. Also "activist is reinstated following suspension" seems to misunderstand what being suspended from work means, a suspension is normally temporary unless it is escalated to a dismissal. The headline that Netflix "fired the organizer of the trans employee walkout" is a lot different from employee is fired for leaking internal data to Bloomberg. If people want to raise the issues about Netflix and California employment law which allows companies to terminate "at-will" employees at any time and for any reason or no reason at all, then that is a subject for another article, not this article about the comedy special Dave Chapelle's: The Closer.
 * We should replace both the references to The Verge with other sources. -- 109.77.207.91 (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Controversy - what stays and what goes
I'd like to open up commentary on what is the important parts of the section and what is WP:UNDUE. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would almost take out the entire section following: "Reactions to the special by the public were mixed. The Los Angeles Times interviewed three LGBT comedians, asking for their opinion on The Closer. Deven Bouchet was quoted as saying "I understand certain parts of the gay community being upset, but I'm Black, I'm a female, and I'm a comedian, and I'm not easily offended", later clarifying that "I have been gay-bashed but I also grew up in Indiana and experienced a lot of racism" and that "we're still being mistreated by systemic racism. So yeah, I can understand what [Chappelle] is saying."[30] In the same interview, Billy McCartney stated that "it's not that the jokes are bad because I even laughed, up until the end of the show even in the final 10 minutes when I was like, 'Oh, buddy, here we go, that's just inaccurate — you clearly don't know enough trans people'". Tuesday Thomas said that "when you say you're a TERF and you agree with J.K. Rowling because you think, trans women are putting on Blackface [...] there's no joke there, I don't find the punchline", and went on to acknowledge that "I know about the white patriarchy of the white gay community. They moved [gay civil rights] forward and the reason they could move it forward is because of systemic racism because cis-white males can make more money than anybody else."[30] Black transgender comedian Flame Monroe was supportive of Chappelle's special, saying that "there's three dogs I have in this fight: as a comedian, I don't want to be censored; as a trans woman, I want equality; and as a black person, I want fair treatment in this country that we've been trying to get for 400 years" and added that "what the great Dave Chappelle has just done has opened up a forum to have a real conversation between the heterosexual and the gay community."[31]"

the only benefit here is it actually gives trans comedians a voice which is in essence the people who should actually be commenting on this subject. None of them are notable people however. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @CaffeinAddict. On the one hand I like how you've shortened the section but on the other hand condensing it all down to artistic freedom and objecting to the content misses some of the nuance. I'm not sure how to do a better job of saying it in a concise way but both Bouchet and Monroe touch all the bases, "I'm Black, I'm a female, and I'm a comedian, and I'm not easily offended", "there's three dogs I have in this fight: as a comedian, I don't want to be censored; as a trans woman, I want equality; and as a black person, I want fair treatment" so I guess you'd say that they talk about the competing freedoms of expression, race, and gender/sexuality. I'm not sure. There's a reason why editors rely on quoting so much, writing a concise and insightful summary is hard. -- 109.77.204.25 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Critical reception
"Craig Jenkins of Vulture.com gave it a mixed review, and wrote: 'how much you enjoy The Closer will depend on whether you're able or willing to believe the comic and the human are separate entities and to buy that the human loves us all, and the comic is only performing spitefulness for his audience.'"

Can we replace this replace this with something more direct that actually espouses an opinion rather than pseudo-intellectual garbage? 199.120.30.203 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What specifically would you suggest?
 * Please read the review and suggest different quotes or add more points so that the article is not trying to express a whole review in a single sentence. Maybe it would be better to include quotes like "Chappelle is a master of pressure-point work, of transgressing toward profundity" or "Dave works crowds like a boxer. He keeps you off-balance" or even "he's going for the predictable jabs and rehashing takes that were old hat five years ago. His head is up his ass. He needs new ideas." -- 109.77.207.91 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone else went ahead and rewrote it replacing what I thought was a fairly neutral quote with stronger criticism. The review asked a question about audience perspective, and the reviewer comes down on the negative side but I think the question of perspective was insightful nonetheless. -- 109.79.165.40 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Positive reactions versus Negative reactions
Instead of deleting so many of the reactions, how about creating 1 section for positive reactions and 1 section for negative reactions? We can list them all.

Positive reactions
Caitlyn Jenner Defends Dave Chappelle Against ‘Woke Cancel Culture Run Amok’

Negative reactions
Channing Tatum addresses Dave Chappelle controversy: 'I understand and hate that he has hurt so many people'

--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The point of an encyclopedia article isn't to list every reaction, but to explain what happened. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Change "Critical Reception" To "Critical Reception and Response," change "Jokes about the Transgender Community" to "Public Response" with subheading "Jokes about the Transgender Community"
Other Wiki articles have a single section for criticism and response, but here the "response" is peppered into other sections. We could solve many of the issues discussed in "Critism [sic] and GLAAD Response" by reformatting along those lines. Post criticism first, then Sarandos's and Chappelle's responses when appropriate.

Most, if not all, the negative criticism of The Closer focuses on his Trans movement commentary. We'd break NPOV if we put all these critics in "Jokes about the Trans Community" and left only positive criticism in "Critical Reception," but we're currently breaking NPOV by double-counting negative criticism of his Trans movement commentary. We should change the "Jokes" heading to something more abstract like "Public Response" and make the current heading a subheading. These changes would clarify whether further additions belong in "Jokes" or "Critical Reception & Response." 24.217.32.13 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Lack of Evidence
There is no evidence that Daphne Dorman "experienced online harassment from the trans community", despite the page presenting such assertions as fact. This article is a good breakdown of the lack of evidence: https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/dave-chappelles-some-of-my-best-friends

I believe it to be important that the page should clarify that the relevant statement is unsubstantiated, as it would mislead readers otherwise. Condenser Coil  20:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This article does not appear to be a reliable source. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite being a self-published source, the author himself is an established investigative journalist who extensively links publicly available information as sources for his claims. Not to mention that a special by a comedian is hardly a reliable source either--I'm not sure what policy would apply here, but it doesn't seem to meet the WP:SELFSOURCE criteria (it makes an exceptional claim about a third party involved in an event not directly related to the subject). As well, articles about other works that make unverified claims usually do add caveats instead of restating the claims in their plot or synopsis section. Condenser  Coil  15:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think clearly attributing that sentence to Chappelle should be done, instead of adding any "allegedly" or the like. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 14:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. I've edited the article to have that instead. Condenser  Coil  15:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, CondenserCoil. I think the way the sentence is now should be good enough. Isabelle 🔔 02:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased editing
User:CaffeinAddict, your edits are way out of line with neutrality guidelines. More than 20-30 times, I estimate, you have removed sourced statements from the article from more than 20 different editors. These editors aren't me.

I understand comedy. Chappelle repeatedly says, "I'm transphobic" in this comedy special. If an ugly man or woman with facial deformities tried to hug me, I would never push her off. This is what Chapelle did and owns up to. It's what he did. He hasn't come back & stated that part was a joke. His pushing off of the t girl wasn't funny like the joke, "I knew your father… [audience laughs] …and he was a wonderful woman" (just a couple of examples).

Chapelle :"she grabbed me real tight, hugged me, squeezed me. And I pushed her off violently, ’cause I’m transphobic. I said “Boundaries, bitch!” https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/comedy/dave-chappelle-the-closer-transcript/

I won't waste my time edit warring with you. If you were on Chapelle's PR team, you wouldn't be editing tendentiously to this extent. OutPoping the Pope! --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a joke though so it's not objectively true that the special is or is not "transphobic". CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge in content from Daphne Dorman
A recent AFD resulted in a 'Merge to The Closer'. At the moment there is content about Daphne in several locations on this page, and that already covers perhaps 70% of the content to be merged in. What to do with the rest? Options include: Chumpih t 02:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * New section with all the content from the source page. Low effort.  But where on this page?  Could be parred back to reduce duplication with other text on the page.
 * Distributed information where the missing content is put near to the other references to Daphne.
 * Something else - but what?


 * From my perspective her entire notability is based on opening for Chappelle, as well as her mention in this special. Unless there’s more relevant information to this particular article it seems to be enough of a mention. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)