Talk:The Onion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wisconsin

Why is this part of wikiproject wisconsin? ReverendG 23:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "The Onion was ... originally published in Madison, Wisconsin. ... [S]uccess was limited to the Madison and Milwaukee areas until it began its website in 1996." -- Tmhand 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Shinn

I agree that the Shinn section should be added. It was seriously awesome, and probably the most earnest Onion-taken-seriously event ever (in that the guy defended himself three times before he acknowledged, backhandedly, that the Onion article wasn't real).

This should be re-added

"*Peter Shinn of Monthly March For Life [1], a pro-life blog, wrote a response in 2006 to an Onion article published in 1999, I'm Totally Psyched About This Abortion! [2] The Onion article (written by a fictional "Caroline Weber") satirizes the notion that any woman would enjoy the painful abortion process. After Peter Shinn received a deluge of comments pointing out that The Onion is satire and "Caroline Weber" is fictitious, he wrote several responses in defense of his original post, [3] and [4]. He has since hidden the thousands of comments made on his blog,[5] but they can still be found via direct link on some weblogs.[6] Additionally, an unafilliated mirror of the blog has been set up to allow new comments to be posted [7]"

This was deleted, because it wasn't published anywhere. However, it is a famous event that tons of very big blogs (like DailyKos) all linked to and discussed, so it was, in a sense, published. It should be re-added. 68.34.19.64 04:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

taken seriously

unless I understand this wrong, "An article from The Onion appeared on the 2005 Advanced Placement English Language and Composition test, in which students were asked to write an essay analyzing its use of satire. [3]" that does not sound like it is being mistaken for real news, as all the other in that catagory but looked at as analysis of satire, maybe it should be moved somewhere else in the article.JohnRussell 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Influences" Dr.Who section, delete?

There is a small entry in the section with the header "Influences" that mentions a spoof of The Onion done by "Doctor Who Magazine." I believe needs to be deleted, for a couple of reasons.

First, it seems wrong to label something an influence if it was influenced BY the Onion, rather than the other way around. A more appropriate heading would be something like "references to the Onion in popular culture" or something else. "Influences" should be reserved for things that had an influence ON the The Onion, such as that National Lampoon book which pre-dates The Onion, but is a very similar mock-newspaprer.

Secondly, how many people read "Doctor Who Magazine"? It doesn't seem to have enough of a readership to warrant this mention on the page for The Onion. Hell, Mad Magazine ran a very good parody of the Onion in one of their issues, and that has a much bigger readership (and at least non-readers of Mad know what it is and have heard of it).

Not everything that has referenced The Onion deserves a place in this section, and it is not clear if "Doctor Who Magazine" was actually referencing the Onion or if it was merely ripping off the style of the Onion without implicitly acknowledging it.

Here is what the "influences" sections says, jut for the record:

The Panini TV tie-in, Doctor Who Magazine recently ran a series of spoof news reports called The Space Time Telegraph in the style of The Onion. These pages always had the same picture of a devastated woman being comforted, but with different news headlines.

POV

Isn't it POV to state that the Onion story was "clever"? Susan Mason

Yes it is, and leave it the hell alone. :)-'Vert

It seems discussing POV sets off some kind of intruder alarm for User:Zoe. I see what you mean... Susan Mason

Eh? I didn't contribute anything to this article or this discussion until you brought my name up. -- Zoe

On this ocassion I agree with SM - I'm taking out the word "clever". The article loses nothing without it (there's a link there anyway, so people can decide if it's clever for themselves; I don't think it is, particularly). --Camembert

---

The noteworthiness of this story was largely a matter of luck: the paper went to press election night, at a time when the uncertainty was not yet noteworthy.

Can someone cut this down to just one "noteworthy"?? -- Sam

---

There was another Onion story re-published as legitimate news--the one about the Chinese woman who had to choose which of her twins to keep. Possibly not noteworthy. I don't remember which paper republished it. Koyaanis Qatsi 12:44, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

It wasn't one of her twins. The story was that she gave birth to seven babies and had to choose one. The rest, according to the Onion article, "would be thrown off a mountaintop." Mike H 17:19, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

---

None of these links to Onion articles stay current, unfortunately - they don't keep articles posted in their online archives indefinitely, it seems. --Xinoph 01:26, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

I added links to Archive.org's versions of the linked articles so anyone can see them. If this violates The Onion's copyright, they can be removed. --Dinojerm 20:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Slogan

The Onion 's slogan is "America's Finest News Source" — perhaps a parody of the New York Timess motto, "All the News That's Fit to Print." I don't understand the second part of this- the two slogans seem completely different to me (apart from mentioning news, but that's hardly distinctive for a newspaper). Has anyone suggested a connection (other than here)? Markalexander100 03:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that there's supposed to be a connection between the two. If you read "Our Dumb Century" or pick up a copy of the actual newspaper version of The Onion, you'll find that their motto (are mottos and slogans the same thing?) is "Tu Stultus Es," Latin for...well, I'll let you figure it out. --Joe

A long time ago, they used to use the slogan Number One In News. Not sure why they switched. ~ ~ Reaverdrop 07:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Authors?

On 16:38, 28 Apr 2004 the following Onion authors were added: Other writers have included Rich Dahm, Scott Dikkers, Todd Hanson, Tim Harrod, John Krewson, David Javerbaum, Mike Loew, Robert Siegel, and Maria Schneider.

Does anyone have a citation for this?

-Rich Dahm, Todd Hanson, Tim Harrod, Mike Loew, Rober Siegel,Maria Schneider, and John Krewson are all listed on the title page of "The Onion: Ad Nauseum Volume 14" (Three Rivers Press, NY, 2003.) A google search for "Scott Dikkers Onion" or "David Javerbaum Onion" turns up numerous citations for each, including this one for Dikkers and this one for Javerbaum.

I'm tempted to think this is a different Robert Siegel. Can anyone make a confirmation either way? I just don't see one of the principle journalists on NPR being a contributor/editor of the Onion. -R. fiend 19:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is a different Robert Siegal. --TheGrza 23:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect external link?

Just read the Wikipedia entry on the Onion. Tried the external link that should point to the september 19, 2001 edition of the Onion for which the following URL is listed in the article:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010927221133/www.theonion.com/

However, this link seems to point to the september 26, 2001 edition of the Onion.

I have looked around on http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://theonion.com, but was unable to find the correct URL there. The archive lists the 19 september 2001 under the following link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010919093414/http://www.theonion.com/

but this in fact leads to a 'page not found' error message, so it seems there is also an indexing fault in web.archive.org .

From the Wikipedia entry on the Onion, which I found very informative by the way, I understand the 19 september 2001 article was considered for a Pullitzer, so it seems worthwhile to update/replace the link with one that leads to the article in question.

Is this indeed an erroneous link? If so, can someone provide a correct one? Would have done it myself, but have not been able to find a correct link and would also like confirmation that the current link is incorrect before I edit the page.

Thank you,

Regards,

Jacco

03:35, March 23d 2005 (GMT+01:00)

For the moment I've changed the date in the article to Sep 26. There's a link on the Sep 26 page to the 12 Sep issue, which oddly makes no mention of the attacks. My guess is that they were adding things day by day then, so the issue dates are arbitrary. I can't remember that far back, though. Mark¹ 02:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From what I recall at the time, there was no Sep 19 issue. The first post-9/11 issue was the Sep 26 one, which dealt almost exclusively with the attacks. I am almost certain that that is what would have been nominated for a Pullitzer. --Rob. 20 Apr 2005

That is correct; there was no Sept 19 issue.

The Sept 12 issue makes no mention of 9/11 because it was already printed & delivered by Sept 11. The next week, Sept 19, I'm sure there was no new issue. I'm fairly sure that, instead, they re-issued an older edition (they do that sometimes, over Christmas or during the summer--I guess when they take the week off).

Thus the Sept 26 issue was the one that dealt with 9/11--I added a link to the correct issue.

(I think they've changed their archiving system, because the link I found to the 9/26 issue is not in the same format as the links above, and it seems stable, in contrast to the complaints above that the archived links don't work after a while. We'll see I guess).

Vcrs 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fictional newspaper?

Anyone think this should be added to Category:Fictional newspapers? --the wub 10:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. The Onion is an actual newspaper with a tangible, physical presence in reality, which happens to contain (primarily) made-up content. Category:Fictional newspapers deals with newspapers which don't actually exist physically, and whose only existence is a mention in some other ficitional work. -- Tmhand 15:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Onion Radio News

I've heard short audio clips produced by The Onion on the Howard Stern show, although none recently. Are they still in production? Were they produced exclusively for his show or were they syndicated somehow? --Feitclub 06:28, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

iirc, one or some of the local madison or milwaukee radio stations used to broadcast them regularly, circa 1999(?). so, i'm fairly certain they weren't produced solely for stern's show, but i could be wrong. --Wedge 05:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Strike for real?

Is the Onion writer's strike for real, or is it just a not funny joke while they take a week off in the summer for vacations. Google News doesn't mention it at all. What's up with it?

Charles (Kznf) July 6, 2005 17:48 (UTC)

It is indeed just a joke while the staff takes a break. --Jacobw 7 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Outdated links?

The links at the end of the page are dead. They shouldn't be deleted until there are some replacements found. I'm sure those articles are still on the web somewhere.

Wikipedia makes The Onion

In the Sep 28, 2005 issue - "Congress Abandons WikiConstitution" I don't know which is worse, the implication that Congress allows its members to "edit" the Constitution (or otherwise interpret it for their own purposes), or that Joe Editor would upload inappropriate items into it. In any case, its funny.... --Easter Monkey 02:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I retitled "Homage to Wikipedia" to "Wikipedia References", (and added the Larry Groznic one) which seemed more descriptive, or at least, slightly less assumptive. :D Is that okay? --Wedge 05:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Why was this section even there? The only possible reason a Wikipedia mention was notable is because this is Wikipedia, average person doesn;t care... List it on the media references of Wikipedia (or whatever that page is) but not here. DreamGuy 08:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The Onion makes fun of Wikipedia here Hilarious! Bluecollarchessplayer 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of Bush Lawyers Threatening The Onion

Sasquatch suggested I shorten the article on this - he removed it entirely but wrote to ask me to put in a shorter version, which I did - and moved the rest to its own page. He therefore did not intend to remove the section entirely, since it's a pretty relevant event for The Onion.

By the way, the Bush lawyers pulled the same cease-and-desist with the satire site whitehouse.org, which didn't have good lawyers like The Onion and caved, and changed their presidential seal to a spoof seal with a vulture on it - last I checked.

Ok, I'm going to open myself up here. I don't have a problem with a section on Bush vs. The Onion. What I do have a problem with is having a completely separate article about Bush lawyers "threatening" The Onion. I am a huge fan, I had a subscription at one point, and read it weekly online. However, the Onion satirizes a great deal of topics, not just President Bush, noone is immune to their satire. Devoting a section of the article, fine, but making a whole article about it is un-encylopedic. Furthermore, I think that the section heading needs to be changed. Threatened? Perhaps, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think that "threatening" works. We can still have the information, but we can be much less inflammatory about it. --Easter Monkey 04:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's reasonable that someone who gets a cease-and-desist letter from the White House Counsel's office - especially from this White House - is going to feel "threatened" rather than peachy. With the added fact that the White House is using this presidential seal statute against a target that happens to have doggedly criticized the administration, a target that qualifies as well as anyone in history for the statute not applying to them, it's clear they're trying to intimidate a potent critic into silence. That is threatening, not only to the Onion but to the country - calling it such is the most accurate description we have to objectively, even encyclopedically, report the facts of the situation. Taking that stance is not "inflammatory", it's "acknowledging the First Amendment as part of our Constitution" - something even Republicans might want to try. ~ Reaverdrop 07:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"it's clear they're trying to intimidate a potent critic into silence" is a pretty biased statement, and one that's certainly pretty ludicrous if you think about it. "That is threatening, not only to the Onion but to the country - calling it such is the most accurate description we have to objectively, even encyclopedically, report the facts of the situation" PLEASE please please go read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View before making such rationalizations again. DreamGuy 08:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, a couple of things: A. This is the english (language) wikipedia, not the American wikipedia. A good deal of wikipedians do not have any kind of protections under the first amendment of "our constitution" (whose constitution? wikipedias?) B. Inflammatory? I say yes. Tomato, tomahto perhaps, but in this instance I feel very strongly that it is. Anyway, like I said, I don't have a problem with the entry stating that there has been a conflict between Bush and the Onion, but you're going about it the wrong way and we need to keep politics out of the article in general. --Easter Monkey 09:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The recent edit to the section in question by Kznf looks acceptable (to me) as it is factual and written in a detached, unemotional style. --Easter Monkey 03:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed... Although it would be nicer with italics on names of publications per style guidelines. DreamGuy 07:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Movie?

All of the editors of The Onion are listed on imdb.com as being in The Onion: The Movie. Does anyone know what the heck that is? -Arctic.gnome 02:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Nightline Episode

I was surprised to not see a mention of the fact that The Onion was once profiled in an episode of Nightline. That was a classic. A classic farse.

AV Club?

As the current article notes, the AV club was overhauled within the last year. In its online incranation, at least, the resulting "AV Club" has undergone an almost complete mitosis from its parent site -- it presents itself under its own domain name, with a much more formal and self-contained infrastructure.

I have added some content to reflect this, but it begins to bulge at the seams. Perhaps the AV club needs its own section? Its own entry? I'm noo much of a newbie to note rpecedence, but if nothing else, the additions I've made will hopefully provide parity of coverage for now between the Onion and the new, improved AV club. -- Jfarber 23:18, 19 January 2006 (EST)

Hey, I'd love to see an A.V. Club entry. But then I'm the A.V. Club editor and I understand it's not wiki-cool to write your own entries. I'd help anyone out who wanted to write it, however. You can contact me via the site. -- kphipps3000 14:25, July 17, 2006 (CT)

Predictions and Correlations to reality?

Should there be a section for articles that actually have a strong basis in life, or have predicted something? For example the five bladed razor -- JeebusSez 17:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Mention should also be made of this infamous article, which fits in somewhere between uncanny prescience and the satirically deadpan reporting of the obvious: Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over' -- User:kjkrum

Parody or satire?

It is stated in the article that The Onion is a parody newspaper. But according to the article on parody, this is specifically aimed at other artworks, while The Onion uses to poke fun at a variety of topics. I think it'd be proper to refer to it as a satire newspaper. Andrés D. 19:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Was curious about this, so I read up on parody. The definition of parody seems to allow easily for application of the term to not just a specific artwork, but to a form of art, and, as far as I can tell, the Onion is parodying the newspaper as a medium / art form fairly effectively, and with aplomb. It's individual articles are satire, but as a whole, the Onion IS a parody -- they could have merely satirized news within a framework that itself was not a parody, but presented its satirical articles straightforwardly...but they did and do not. My vote: Let the parody designation lie. -- Jfarber 12:51, 12 March 2006 (EST)

I agree with Andrés D. that the Onion is satire and not parody. I'd argue that the Onion is not merely a parody of one type of media; to name a few, it parodies podunk newspapers with its 'Area Man'... type articles, USA Today with its Infographics, and TV news networks with its election coverage. I can see the argument for the whole thing as a parody, but I think satire is more accurate. Look at the first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on satire:

Satire is a literary technique of writing or art which exposes the follies of its subject (for example, individuals, organizations, or states) to ridicule, often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. In Celtic societies, it was thought a bard's satire could have physical effects, similar to a curse. The humor of such a satire tends to be subtle, using irony and deadpan humour liberally. Most satire has specific, readily identifiable targets; however there is also a less focused, formless genre known as Menippean satire. Example: The film, The Great Dictator (1940) by Charlie Chaplin is a satire on Adolf Hitler and his Nazi army.

-Eeblet 00:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Madison/papers are free

Didn't know where to add this: The Onion is avaible for free to anyone in the Madison, Wisconsin area. From the Onion: "One copy of each edition of The Onion is available free to Madison area residents and visitors each week. Anyone removing papers in bulk will be prosecuted." Just a little trivia. -- Al™ 08:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that paper copies are always free. They distribute in a handful of cities. Dylan 18:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But is has a price on it? -- Al™ 14:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Can confirm free papers in San Francisco -- a treat, as I'd never before been in an Onion distribution city. JFarber 20:47, 23 March 2006 (EST)

I've always gotten/seen them for free in Chicago as well. Panastasia 01:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Free copies in Denver/Boulder as well. BabuBhatt 01:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Free copies in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area also. As far as I am aware, all print copies distributed in cities are free. --Natalie 00:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for NYC. (Ads are also city-specific)—Wasabe3543 08:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

the papers are free in austin too, at waterloo records, specifically

August 31, 2005 overhaul

As the article states, August 31 marked a number of changes in format for The Onion. However, our article still presents it as "Here is what The Onion does" (actually how it used to be), and then, "Here's how The Onion was changed." If these changes are permanent (and they presumambly are), shouldn't we rewrite that, at least to reflect how the newspaper is NOW, and maybe afterwards a description of how it used to be? Dylan 18:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

awards section?

why is there nothing about awards or nominations in the "awards and nominations" section? it seems like it should be called "Sept. 11 Coverage."

Area man

Since Area man redirects here, maybe this expression should be included with a comment. --130.225.201.102 13:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Onion Article Taken Seriously...Again...

http://sufficientscruples.com/blog/2006/07/06/anti-choice-tool-confirms-stereotype-one-in-a-continuing-series/

• I had originally added this to the section in the main article but it was removed and placed here instead. I'm not putting it back because I'm guessing there was a good reason. Is it inappropriate because it was a blog...? Nowadays, such things -are- "widely read". --67.171.78.155 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just in the middle of editing the section -- my text is longer and, I think, less POVish. Let me know what you think of it.

--Eeblet 00:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The section is for published or broadcasted instances of the media taking the Onion seriously. If we listed every blog where this happened, it would be a long list of very little interest to anyone. --W.marsh 20:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, there's no mention in the article that items in this section have to have appeared in a professional medium. So on that count, either the Peter Shinn section goes in or the section is modified to 'instances in which the onion was taken seriously by professional media', or somesuch. Second, the second instance listed didn't appear in professional media, it appeared on Fred Phelps' website. Third, this wasn't just your everyday ordinary person misunderstanding the Onion: it was the mother of all misunderstandings, and even when he was corrected, repeatedly, Peter Shinn posted two replies feebly defending himself and proving that he still wasn't fully convinced that the Onion wasn't a real newspaper. Hundreds of people posted replies to his blog posts (none of which are easily accessible anymore, unfortunately). It was a veritable internet phenomenon, if it's not perfect for the 'Onion Taken Seriously' section here, I don't know what is. Finally, sorry that I missed this discussion, I didn't read the discussion page carefully enough (the name Shinn didn't appear here, so this part escaped my notice).--airplanepilot

The Fred Phelps thing can go as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, has anyone covered this blog thing other than the blog itself? All the links go to that blog. That's rather self referential and could be original research. Like I say, I'm sure this happens on lots of blogs and forums and so on... I'm sure it's really interesting to the people involved, but outside of that, I don't think many people will really care and it just makes the article boring to document every instance of it. --W.marsh 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I say we keep the Fred Phelps thing and the Peter Shinn thing. They're both hilarious, and notable. I'll find some links from DailyKos and other large blogs (which I think proves the incident's noteriety), and add them to the section. As for the section being boring, did you follow any of the links? The whole incident was hilarious! Again, I think it's worth keeping. I'm clearly not the only one who thinks so, too.

The Peter Shinn thing was the subject of a Salon.com story, for what it's worth. -- Coneslayer 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's something. My concern was just that it was typical blog stuff.. everyone on the website thinks it's massive (and how could you disagree with them!?), no one else has ever even heard of it or particularly cares. But some relatively mainstream coverage seems to change that. --W.marsh 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that the "Onion taken seriously" section refers only to "outside parties mistakenly citing Onion stories as real news", rather than "major news outlets" *plus* the Salon article: I'd like to restore the Peter Shinn link. The blogosphere went crazy about this story, which seems culturally/historically relevant to an online news outlet, so I think it's encycopedically justified (plus hilarious) to include it.

We obviously shouldn't include all of these links, but I'm listing them to show the variety of blog reporting on it:

From newsblog: [8], reason.com: [9], inoculatedmind.com: [10], democraticunderground.com: [11], digg (of the Salon article): [12], and a conservative blogger thrown in for fun: [13].

Here is the last version of the Peter Shinn writeup:

• Peter Shinn of Monthly March For Life [14], a pro-life blog, wrote a response in 2006 to an Onion article published in 1999, I'm Totally Psyched About This Abortion! [15] The Onion article (written by a fictional "Caroline Weber") satirizes the notion that any woman would enjoy the painful abortion process. After Peter Shinn received a deluge of comments pointing out that The Onion is satire and "Caroline Weber" is fictitious, he wrote several responses in defense of his original post, [16] and [17]. He has since hidden the thousands of comments made on his blog,[18] but they can still be found via direct link on some weblogs.[19] Additionally, an unafilliated mirror of the blog has been set up to allow new comments to be posted [20].

I think it needs some work, but to avoid the removal and addition of this section, I'd like to get it perfected on the talk page first. Thoughts?

Thanks, Eeblet 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

deletion

In the section about Onion articles being taken seriously, the Beijing News bullet point includes the explanation: "they were apparently unaware of The Onion's satirical nature)". I'm going to delete this, as it seems redundant due to the explanation at the head of the section. --Natalie 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

article about wikipedia on the onion

File:Wikipedia in The Onion 2006.jpg

On the front page, even.

There is currently a very funny article on the Onion entitled "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 years of American independence." Might it be possible, for once, for Wikipedians not to include any reference to themselves in an another medium, in the article about that medium? That's all I ask. 206.223.233.241 03:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good one. If we can somehow reference it, I think that'd be useful. We must be doing something right if we've attracted the Onion! --Plumbago 08:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a joke about how Wikipedia cannot be trusted for purely factual information. You're proud of this? 208.44.236.60 22:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We are proud to have reached the level of significance where the Onion acknowledges our existence. The Onion lambasts everything, if they wrote an article praising wikipedia i'd be pissed off at them for not being funny. The article shows some prime examples of vandalism I, and probably many others have encountered. Most vandalism is reverted quickly, and the incident described would be very unlikely, but therein lays the humor 208.44.236.60. You may be interested in checking out the page on satire. ReverendG 05:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is how I had added an entry on that article to the Serious part of the page: "Another article of The Onion called Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence [21] (published July 26, 2006, about 500 years too early) demonstrates the visionary power of the editors of this otherwise satirical self-reflective magazine." It was promptly removed. I think it should have been improved rather than removed.

I say keep it, it's funny. And keep an eye out on pages like American Revolution and The United States for onion-related vandalism. Dina 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to include references to Wikipedia/Wikipedians if that content is encyclopedic. One of today's best known english-language humor publications running a lead article on Wikipedia definently warrants a mention, probably just a sentence or two though... don't know if it really belongs in the lead. --W.marsh 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it though? I've read the article, and it reads just like every other Onion article. Just because its about Wikipedia doesn't make it any more encyclopedic than any other Onion article. To favor an article just because its about Wikipedia, in my opinion, is a form of POV. I'm in favor of removing the reference here. However, to W.marsh's point, I agree that it very notable from the point of view of Wikipedia that the Onion mentioned it. In other words, if such a mention were to be made it should be in the article Wikipedia in popular culture, but not here. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Partnership with CNN.com

CNN has started running an Onion article every week: [22]. Surely worth including in the article? - Kookykman|(t)e 22:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Importance of "References to The Onion in other media section"

This section appears to list two things: listing media that make reference to the Onion (trivial) and listing other satirical newspapers published by college students (also trivial). I don't think any of these are worth mentioning here. I recommend this section be removed unless somebody can cite the significance of its contents. Mabersold 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Two things to add. 1) I just put a link to a site parodying the onion, which is circulating on email lists, under this "References to The Onion in other media" section. (qnion.com). It was taken off by someone after 10 minutes or so, and then another 5 minutes later this post came up suggesting to do away with this section entirely. So . . . .funny coincidence. 2) This section was interesting enough to me that I looked at several of the links-- and I remembered it (months later) when I came across the parody site. Pulpy 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I took the liberty of removing the section. There's one note that could be considered notable, but I'll leave it up to somebody else to find a good place to reinsert it. It is:

• An article from The Onion appeared on the 2005 Advanced Placement English Language and Composition test, in which students were asked to write an essay analyzing its use of satire.

At any rate, please do not attempt to recreate the section on "References to The Onion in other media". The section basically only had blurbs consisting of "The Onion was mentioned in this TV show" (no elaboration) or "The students at this university made their own Onion newspaper" (nobody cares). Neither is notable. - Mabersold 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

History Error?

I think that there may be an error on the History section. It says that the Onion was only distributed in Madison and Milwaukee until 1996 when it went on line. I distinctly remember reading the print version of the Onion in the early 1990s in Champaign-Urbana, IL on the University of Illinois campus. Might it be appropriate to ammend this to say that The Onion was only distributed to a limited number of cities and towns, notably those with major universities, until 1996...???

DJKS 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this has already been done, but I just wanted to voice my agreement that you could definitely get the onion in C-U before 1996. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely picked up The Onion at the University of Illinois in fall 1992. Just sayin' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.129.252 (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Kelly

I moved text for Kelly into a separate article (Kelly (cartoonist)). The description was getting too long when other Onion characters and sections only had a few lines, or their own respective articles.

I've noticed the original long text has been reinstated; I will change that back again to a shorter description - please make further changes to Kelly (cartoonist). Kransky 11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've placed {{mergeto}} on Kelly (cartoonist). I do not think that the cartoon or cartoonist is notable enough to warrant its/his own page. — Linnwood 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge - I concur wholeheartedly!--Orange Mike 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that that cartoon is a parody of right wing cartoons, I think it is a right wing cartoon, and I think the discription should be changedJeek X 05:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there are a lot of right-wing cartoonists out there, and not even the most incompetent of them is this heavy-handedly stupid. "Kelly" is obviously a parody of such things, as would be expected in a parody newspaper. --Orange Mike 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagee...have you read Mallard Fillmore ever? Thunderbunny 05:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, yes; but annoying though it is, it's really not that heavy-handedly stupid. --Orange Mike 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for one more edit: Where it reads "Roughly half of the cartoons feature the Statue of Liberty, usually shedding a single tear," I would amend as: "Roughly half of the cartoons feature the Statue of Liberty, usually shedding a single tear, out of either despondency or gratitude." I'll leave that choice to you more-experienced and involved editors, but I do think that layer of humor ought to be noted in the main article, even with the supplement. Great job, otherwise. o0drogue0o 08:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

Citations

An editor has taken it upon himself to go through a whole bunch of comedy postings in Wiki and request citations. But the big question is, the request is so vague, it almost is ridiculous to understand what anyone can provide to satisfy this editor's desire to cite practically everythng.

My view in this—and other—articles is the question of citation is not as urgent as perhaps the issue of wording or rewording of some items to better Wikify the piece.

True, verifiablity is the cornerstone of the Wiki. But at the same time, not every item can be cited even if every resource were provided. And many of the articles in question are so innocuous, it just doesn't make sense to understand why some bits of information are being looked at cockeyed.SpyMagician 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. As much as I try to assume good faith, I have ran in to too many of these editors who operate under the supposition that if a citation in a mainstream news source can not be found, it does not exist. Verifiability is the cornerstone of Wikipedia being taken seriously, but not everything gets written about in the newspaper. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, it would be nice for an article about a subject like the Onion, which has had a ton of coverage and a number of books, to have decent citations, don't you think? --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is your issue with the levels of the citations provided here? I don't understand what you are getting at and as I have said in another aticle regarding a past Onion staffer, this posting in and of itself is actually a good example of the issue I've had with your edits. Despite references being made and additional links being provided, you are still insisting on a level of citation that is simply practically impossible to provide. I have said it before, but I will continue to post the concept of assuming good faith on the part of Wiki contributors and not be so quick to judge or act tempermental when someone does not aggree with your strict view of Wiki guidelines. Ultimately the Wiki is a collaborative environment, and the way you are going about these requests bellie the concept of cooperation and seem to be a tad "power hungry" more than anything else. SpyMagician 09:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Future Fun Jumper (TIC) has taken the "brave" move of hiding other discussion about him by creating and "archive" of his talk page and moving it away from the main talk page. Thus making his "talk" page clean as new and hiding the comments others have made about his "style" from others. Utterly pathetic that someone who is so hellbent on citations has decided to make himself less verifiable. What kind of coward runs around demanding deletions and citations but then runs and hides discussion made about himself? SpyMagician 09:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is a conflict of interest for SpyMagician because he is the former webmaster for the Onion. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 05:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Future Fun Jumper has been blocked indefinitely as a Sockpuppet (Internet) of User:Chris Griswold. Vertigo893 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

original research

The "Influences" section is entirely original research and conjecture. I don't know how this section can be improved, other than not to exist. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it seems to be original research, but it could be saved/improved if someone could cite references, i.e. article(s) where Onion staffers confirm these influences. Vandelay 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but it just seems to be conjecture. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, retitle the section "news parodies that came before The Onion". Wahkeenah 12:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's just the subject for a whole other article/category, then. List of news parodies/Category: news parodies. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't let me stop you from writing it. :) Wahkeenah 02:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of it already is written. I'm taking the section from here to start it. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 05:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Kudos. Wahkeenah 05:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

King of Queens Abortion Article

A few weeks ago The Onion ran an article about writing an abortion into the King of Queens. Today the article was republished but for a different sitcom. Anyone know the story behind this? Somehow some people took the article seriously?--Twintone 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Broadsheet or Tabloid?

The info box says that the Onion is printed on broadsheet. It's been ages since I actually held a copy, but I am quite sure that the Onion is printed on tabloid-sized paper. If someone could verify that and then change it, that would be awesome. Zweifel 21:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Section should be removed from "Onion taken seriously" section

146.63.197.105 19:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I don't think this section belongs in the onion taken seriously segment:

"The Monthly Call to Life blog, a pro-life site, denounced the article "I'm Totally Psyched About This Abortion!" for the author's supposed enthusiasm for getting an abortion. The post (which contains a graphic image at the top of the page) has remained for several months without an acknowledgement that the article cited is actually satire"

Because the pro-life blog wasn't taking the article seriously, they were just offended by its content and denounced it. The previous examples in the section are all articles where the articles were literally taken seriously and believed to be actualy events. I think either this part of that section should be removed or there should be another section made with groups/organizations who called for removal of offensive articles.

No, according to the blogger in question

Needless to say, a few people wanted to let me know that I was a dolt for thinking that her article was real. As a matter of fact, call me a dolt, because in the beginning I really did think it was real. Why? because I meet women like her in the field all the time.

http://marchtogether.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html --Orange Mike 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article to indicate that while the blog's author originally thought the article was real he has now been disillusioned - but is standing behind the attack on it nonetheless. That this is the case seems clear to me from the article linked by Orangemike above, and subsequent articles on the site. -- Olaf Davis 09:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Onion and Wikipedia

I just picked up a copy of The Lantern for Wednesday, September 19, 2007, which had The Onion 43.00 as an insert. Anyway, the lead front page article is titled "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence: Founding Fathers, Patriots, Mr. T. Honoroed." The article continues onto page 6. Should we mention this article somewhere? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the article, just like every other time The Onion has parodied us. --Orange Mike 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This section does not belong in an encyclopedia. We're supposed to avoid, if possible, references to the word 'wikipedia' in articles, except for articles directly related to the project, like Wikipedia. There are a number of good reasons to do this, like the fact that forking the project under another name is something that's allowed and encouraged under the GFDL, and such references would make no sense under another name. The most important, IMO, is that of professional tone and style. There are lots of articles where a tenuous link between WP and the topic at hand can be drawn, and that fact is great if you're a supporter of the project (and I'm sure anyone reading this is), but it's usually hard to argue that the link would be written up in a generic encyclopedia, or ANOTHER encyclopedia. For example: If the onion had an article or two on Encyclopedia Britannica, would it be worthy of a mention, let alone its own section in The Onion? Of course not. The Onion lampoons many aspects of popular culture, and doing so to WP is no more notable than any other instance, except editors here are more inclined to write it up. As WP's stature grows, we are going to have more and more of these kind of issues. Fortunately, there's a official policy governing this kind of thing, which lists my reasons and more. See:Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. If I hadn't made my stance clear, I'm going to remove this section.  :) Oh, and if you ever run across a situation in which self reference is justified, like in the article Peer review, where it's possible a user is looking for the Wikipedia process, you should utilize the template Template:Selfref, to flag the section for modification during forks. --Hemisemidemiquaver 14:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A new section (with the same name) has recently been added to the article [23]. Its been removed again for the exact same reason that Hemidemisemiquaver pointed out. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fictional chronology

"Zweibel"—Is the misspelling of "Zwiebel", the German word for "onion", really intended? —Editorius (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In recent Onion Radio News releases, beginning December 15, 2008, the concluding ad for Our Dumb World has stated: "For over 350 years The Onion has given you the day's news..." Mlorfeld (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Why even bother with a fictional profile? 93.172.8.128 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The fallacious section is outside the scope of this article.

The Onion is a prophet

It's kind of sad that The Onion managed to successfully predict what would happen during the Bush administration. Should we mention this in the article?

They also predicted the five-blade razor.

Actually all that that particular article demonstrates is the Onion's particular style of humor that for the most part only deranged people on the left will find entertaining. Perhaps it's worth mentioning for that reason. On the other hand, maybe I'm not looking deeply enough for the sarcasm and humor, since saying things like "tax cuts that will cause a recession" (because we all know how bad letting people actually keep their money is for the economy) and talking about the "peace and prosperity" America enjoyed during the Clinton years (including pointless and counterproductive military involvements in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo; our Wag-the-Dog bombings of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Sudan while Osama bin Laden was allowed to roam free; terrorist attacks against our embassies in Africa, military barracks in Saudi Arabia, the Murrow Building in Oklahoma City, and the U.S.S. Cole; and acts of terrorism carried out by our government against its own people at Waco, among other places), surely the Onion must be joking. --Antodav2007 (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignore that one. Thanks for linking to that article. It's eerie how well it describes Bush's reign before the fact. I only knew about the razor prophecy. — Chameleon 03:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

American voices

American Voices only has 3 people responding to the issue, but this page says it includes 6. I'm going to change it to 3, but does anyone know whether the format has changed? Beardc (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The format changed awhile ago when they switched to daily updates, the American Voices used to be updates two to three times a week, now it chnages daily. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Corporate HQ

The article on wikipedia says that New York City is where the Onion's headquarters are, but the Onion's website (under Contact Us) states that the corporate headquarters is in Chicago. Which is it? 71.201.132.221 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good observation and nteresting question. The were based in Madison, WI, moved core staff to NYC and sold to an NYC entity. Chances are they are legally incorporated in Chicago since they had offices in the pre-NYC days there and their print operations chief seems to be based there. There might also be legal issues for having "paperwork" be still based there instead of re-incorporating in NYC. --SpyMagician (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm an Onion employee; while the people involved in the comedy side of things are in NYC, our corporate headquarters (where I work) is in Chicago. The information on our contact page is correct. I'd change the article myself, but AFAIK Wikipedia frowns upon article subjects modifying their own articles. — Korpios (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the article sideboxes now state that the headquarters of both "Onion, Inc." (the company) and "The Onion" (the paper/publication/website, one of the products of Onion, Inc.) are in Chicago. This isn't quite right. The overall company HQ is in Chicago (again, where I'm based), but everyone involved in writing/editing The Onion (the product), at least, is in New York City. I'm not sure what "headquarters" is supposed to signify, but I get the feeling that "New York, NY" is what you want for the first sidebox ("The Onion") and "Chicago, IL" is what you want in the second ("Onion, Inc."). — Korpios (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Onion's Youtube Channel

Snouldn't we add an external link of The Onion's Youtube channel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeV18 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary, as there is already a site which has everything; only those are transplanted onto Youtube.com :) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Area Man

When searching Wikipedia for "Area Man", it redirects to "The Onion" article, but there is nothing in the article to explain "Area Man".

Can someone please add some text to explain "Area Man"? The Onion website does not explain the concept but often refers to "him". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.113.36 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's standard journalism-speak (used in headlines only) for "person who lives in our market area, but we don't want to specify where because then only folks from his town/neighborhood are likely to read the actual article." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness to copy editors, it's also usually shorter than "Chillicothe Man" or "Oconomowoc Man" or "Little-Gribblings-in-the-Wode Man" and thus easier to squeeze in as a headline. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

very relevant.

this is very relevant. someone should put it in. i found it by accident, some of the links to other articles go to "the future" http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.106.98 (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Taken Seriously

The following in the Taken Seriously section should be removed: "A January 2008 video produced by the Onion News Network, and consisting of a spoof of a morning show story on a child called Chad Carter who had bankrupted the Make a Wish Foundation by "wishing for unlimited wishes" was believed by some on the internet to be genuine."

It says that some people on the internet thought it was true, which is not enough base for it to be taken seriously, most previous entries of the Taken Seriously section, involve another news company, or notable people using The Onion articles as legit articles, but the fact is that people think that the onion stories are "real" all the time on the internet, just because, well, it is the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.227.110 (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits "on behalf of" my employer

I just noticed this talk page commit:

Connecting wiki editor Tom Tobin to edits made on this article on behalf of his current employer, Onion, Inc.

I don't know whether it would be properly considered "on behalf of"; I haven't been directed to watch the page, but I have made edits to correct blatantly incorrect and/or out-of-date facts. It looks like this is acceptable as per WP:AUTO#IFEXIST, but I should have noted it here. By all means, review my changes. - Korpios (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much, though I wrote a disclaimer template for this kind of thing if you'd really like to disavow readers of that impression (after being repeatedly accused of the same). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Onion "sale"

Fellow editors ... I think it's about time you stopped using Gawker's "Rumormonger" as a reliable source. ^_^ - Korpios (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering the very real staff cuts, very real hiring freezes, very real office closures and the very desperate need for ads, it's still questionable whether this faux Chinese buyout was all there ever was or a smokescreen for something larger. You folks did lose a CEO a month or two ago (who supposedly "stepped down") before all of the "cost cutting" measures were made and HQ was moved from NYC to Chicago as well. All of that for a joke? Not buying that. Wag the dog! --SpyMagician (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the economy sucks, and The Onion hasn't been immune, but I have no idea where you get some of your "facts" ... Corporate HQ has never been in NYC (it moved a single time, from Madison to Chicago), and the same CEO that was on board when I was hired in December 2007 (Steve Hannah) is still the CEO today. Seriously, cite a more reliable source than Gawker (and a section called Rumormonger, at that) if you're going to present something as fact on Wikipedia. Even the CNet article is merely repeating what Gawker said about the "sale" ... and even Gawker already realized that they've been had. (And remember, Fish Time Is Success Time!) :p - Korpios (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So Sean Mills was never CEO? And his leaving in 2009 doesn't mean anything? And the loss of other staffers in NYC when the consolidation in management happened making NYC strictly an editorial base was an illusion? And writers are not looking for more and more side gigs to pay the bills since they don't feel the place is stable? Also, what is the password to your corporate intranet? Is it 'E565656128889'. Please confirm. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

::sigh:: Sean Mills was President, not CEO. And like I said — if you want to add something to the article, try to make sure it comes from a reliable source. (And no, neither rumors nor your imagination are "reliable sources".) :p - Korpios (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So folks who worked there for years prior to Spring 2009 and who now no longer work there—suddenly leaving at the same time—post-Spring 2009 is a delusion? And the closing off offices, lack in job postings—as evidenced on the official site—are not reliable indicators? Does Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf work for you guys now? --SpyMagician (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why we have the WP:NOR rule. - Korpios (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering this is a talk page, that WP:NOR is moot. Will dutifully wait for the cancer to metastasize and then announce the tumor. Or on a positive note, you're not pregnant until the moment the baby is out of the womb. TTFN. --SpyMagician (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up the "sale" information in the article to reflect what actually happened. Anyone can feel free to double-check this for accuracy, since (as noted elsewhere) I'm an employee. - Korpios (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it your contention, as an employee, that the sales rumors were planted to set up the Chinese buyout joke, as claimed in the article? Has anyone from the company gone on the record about that? Clconway (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I contend nothing (and, indeed, do not edit Wikipedia) in my role as an employee (since that's not my place — I'm a web developer, not a PR guy). All I can do regarding articles that touch upon The Onion is attempt — unofficially, in the interest of improving Wikipedia — to correct statements that I know aren't in line with facts, and try to be transparent about my status as an employee. Unofficially, I'll say that Gawker's statement that they had been set up is in line with my understanding of events. - Korpios (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Clconway (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify while it does seem Korpios has a deep history as a Wiki editor prior to 2009, the vast majority of Korpios’s 2009 edits are to articles directly connected to his current employer, The Onion with little-to-no edits to other articles at all. It also appears that your direct connection to The Onion was only made transparent by you after another Wiki editor pointed this out. For a newbie to Wikipedia, both issues could be ignored. But taken in the light of this editor’s clear knowledge of Wikipedia policy, both facts in-and-of themselves cast a questionable eye on the intentions of such edits. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha. It turns out you're a former Onion employee. I asked around, and it sounds like your departure wasn't exactly on good terms. Now whose edits are questionable? I thought I'd be helpful enough to add the Notable Wikipedian template for you, too, since you're obviously in favor of transparency. - Korpios (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, my ID here is not a big secret. Will be PMing you elsewhere for details so you can understand a bit. But to my defense I do more than simply edit profiles I have connections to. As far as the terms of my departure goes, previous ownership lead by Peter Haise was on a power trip culling of perceived enemies in the post dot-com bubble and got rid of me for tenuous reasons at best. For example, did you know that somehow I—as the sole "web department"— was responsible for lack of sales when the Web 1.0 bubble burst? Or for that matter my opposition to charging for Onion content was a roadblock to the business growing? I think if you look back in the post-2001 web world of the publication (past the point I was there), you might see that brief crazy moment when they decided charging for content was the solution to all problems. Thankfully that ended; it was nuts and delusional much like many business decisions made in that pre-NYC/Chicago-ownership era. And it failed because the web wasn't ready for it; it might work now since the Internet world has changed. At least there was someone to catch the company at that time and save them and build them back into something more solid. But will admit the faux buyout is funny, but as an outside observer, you can't ignore the reality of the the closings of offices and other outside indicators. If anyone wants to question my edits, please do. Also, Korpios remember there are many sides to every story. One day you might learn more and hopefully the place is a saner place to work for. Best of luck to you! --SpyMagician (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm very grateful for the deescalation; I'm not really a combative person by nature. Seriously, I started editing Wikipedia again because I was bored, and I can't help that my current employer was a natural subject to add to my watchlist. Articles relating to nearly all my interests are on my watchlist, for that matter; it just happens that I've been able to contribute more to the Onion (and AV Club) articles because I actually have factual knowledge that isn't already reflected in those articles. I just looked at my contributions for this year; if you look only at article edits (not talk page edits), they're certainly tilted a bit towards Onion stuff but not outrageously so, and the Onion edits tend to be stuff like fixing the company HQ's address, noting that certain people are/aren't in certain roles, etc. The "sale" seems to be the only thing that's even somewhat contentious here, and my edit there was even backed up by the original source (Gawker). As for your past experiences, hell, I'll readily admit that they sound absolutely awful; all I know is that I've been lucky enough to work with a great bunch of people who seem sane and thoughtful, even in the midst of the recent economic downturn. If there's news out there that doesn't look favorably on The Onion, and it's relevant, by all means, put it in the article; for instance, it's very public knowledge that the SF and LA print editions were ended, and those offices were closed. Let's just avoid stuff that hasn't been substantiated beyond rumors; sometimes rumors can get things so painfully wrong that I want to scream (e.g., Gawker misreading an internal email as an intent to subvert editorial content to advertisers, when it was actually about being more flexible on the design/tech side of things). - Korpios (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone out there speak Turkish?

I believe that this website, http://www.aksam.com.tr/2010/01/13/haber/dunya/3337/beyaz_saray_cildirdi.html , should be included in the "Onion taken seriously" section, but my judgement is based solely on the sometimes faulty Google translate. That being said, if any Turkish speakers could visit the website and check, I think it would be a good inclusion (especially since the story is so funny). 24.143.59.31 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Spanish counterpart

The spanish counterpart of the Onion is not "El Jueves", but "El Mundo Today" (Google or http://www.elmundotoday.com/). Although it has no Wikipedia article, the style and idea is much more similar to The Onion than that of El Jueves. El Jueves does not employ the formal style of real newspapers as part of the humorous formula, whereas El Mundo Today does. El Jueves uses a much more blatant form of humor, definitely different to that of The Onion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.167.214 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Onion

Since The Onion is growing and spreading to new forms of media, and its articles need some place to be bossed around, I have formally requested a WikiProject for it. To be approved, it will need the support of a handful of other users. So, if you would like this, or would not like this, leave your comments and suggestions here. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Because I didn't get enough support, I've proposed a task force with the Comedy project. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy#The Onion task force. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Herbert F. Kornfeld

>> Prior to his death on April 30th, 2007

>> We believe the victim was assaulted after hours Friday

The Friday referenced there was April 27. Which one should be the correct date? Danirijeka (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Shift towards sports content.

In the last year or so the website has seriously shifted towards a sports focused format, (over 70 of the 90 articles currently on the front page are sports related). However reading the article one would get no idea that this is primarily a sports parody site now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.50.184 (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because it isn't. They do an annual sports-obsessed issue for the end-of-the-year weekend, every year. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

anti-harassment policy

After 24 years in operation they now have an anti-harassment policy. How can this be added to the wiki? http://twitter.com/#!/jhowellharris/status/161913605938356224/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.236.227 (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your question stems from WP:POV. That is, you say after 24 years they now have a policy, implying that they should have had a policy much earlier on. What is significant about having or not having a policy? Did some problem arise that prompted them to institute a policy? What do state laws say about harassment or the posting of policies or the requirement to have policies? Simply because you see the sign and take a picture does not answer any of these questions. More importantly, answering these questions requires WP:RS. I will post a welcome message on your IP user talk page that gives guidance on editing in Wikipedia. Then your question of "How" can this be added may be answered. Also, you can think about whether we want such info on the article page. E.g., is such information encyclopedic? --S. Rich (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Onion Suspends National Print Edition

In the November 1, 2012 national print edition of The Onion, a letter appeared on page three from President and CEO Steve Hannah that it was to be the last edition of the National print edition, due to growing response to The Onion's online model and franchise business. Every page had a box directing subscribers to page three for a "special notice about your Onion print subscription delivery."

The letter's conclusion: "For your deep and abiding devotion to The Onion in places where our franchised print edition does not exist, we express our heartfelt thanks for your loyalty." The letter gave an E-mail address where subscribers could write to arrange credit. With that edition came a photocopy of US Postal Service Form 3526 (Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation) showing the circulation of the national edition as of November 1, 2012 as 1,530, signed by The Onion's director of finance. The demise of the national print edition did not appear on The Onion's Website. <ref>The Onion national print edition, November 1, 2012, page 3</ref>

As I seem to be no good at editing actual articles without fouling them all up, I will leave this here for incorporation as appropriate in the article. 76.0.12.230 (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I actually subscribed to the publication back in 1992 when I was living in NYC but knew about the publication in it’s pre-Internet days. Sad news. --SpyMagician (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

76.0.12.230 There two concerns: 1. Wikipedia editing take a little learning, and a good place to get the basics is at the Tutorial. 2. For an article involving The Onion, we really do need reliable sources because we don't know if someone is lampooning the article itself. --S. Rich (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that the "citation needed" flag was added to my first post above in the article. I did give a citation with the angle bracket ref /ref command (seen above and repeated here: Vol 48, Issue 44, November 1, 2012, page three). I cannot find a citation for it on the Onion Website. Should I send a photocopy?

The only other source I could cite would be the photocopy of the USPS form with its circulation numbers, and a personal observation it is no longer appearing in my mailbox (but I guess that would be "original research") 76.0.12.230 (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the print citation originally placed because it was a tad messy & I wasn't clear on the best way to handle a print-only citation. Re-added it now that I understand how to better handle such cases. Hopefully an online source of the news can be provided to get another point of verification? Thanks again for the info. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Fictional profile

Why is this included?

It is entirely inappropriate. 86.140.26.181 (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, didn't realise I was logged out - Heenan73 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think it's inappropriate? There's some redundancy with the "Regular features" section, but I don't see a problem with briefly documenting the newspaper's fictional characters. --McGeddon (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Quvenzhane controversy

"The apology was denounced by some former Onion writers who believe, "It wasn't a great joke, but big deal."[113]"

This is a terrible sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.162.227 (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Example headlines

Various editors seem to be changing the example headlines in the lede every few weeks, sometimes (at least as far as I can make out) going with something particularly topical or funny, but which isn't actually an example of what the paragraph is talking about. Can we perhaps just get a consensus on some good, timeless examples for "presenting mundane, everyday events as newsworthy", "surreal exaggerations or puns" and whatever "contrasting media portrayals against reality by treating the fictional version as the more real" means, and leave it at that? --McGeddon (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

These are still getting changed every couple of weeks, apparently by the same editor. I've dug through this page's history and pulled out what seem like two good examples of "mundane event as newsworthy" ("Area Man Too Poor To Afford Movers, Too Old To Get Help From His Friends") and "parodying media coverage" ("NSA Wiretap Reveals Subject May Be Paying Too Much For Long-Distance"). Opinions welcome. --McGeddon (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Christmas

I added the most recent modification not because there was a new funny headline, but because that is a distinct, and very pervasive, type of humor which The Onion has relied on through the years, and I thought it had been wrongly neglected in the sentence.

I added the Christmas Tree clause to this sentence:

"Its humor often depends on presenting mundane, everyday events as newsworthy ("Area Man Too Poor To Afford Movers, Too Old To Get Help From His Friends"); reflecting the weirdness of everyday events if they occurred in a world different from our own (such as a world without Christmas: "Terrifying Man Selling Dead Trees Out Of Middle School Parking Lot"); or parodying the media's portrayal of news ("NSA Wiretap Reveals Subject May Be Paying Too Much For Long-Distance")."

I could also have used as an example "I'm Like A Chocoholic, But For Booze," qualifying that the 'world different from our own' here is 'a world without awareness or stigma around alcoholism.' That article is from 13 years ago. But I just figured I would check the Onion homepage and see if there was a recent example.

Anyway, again, this is a distinct and pervasive type of Onion humor that should be mentioned in the article intro.

184.144.104.41 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems very close to "presenting mundane, everyday events as newsworthy" - the dead-tree guy is newsworthy because is bizarre. Someone deleted your edit without explanation, but I've merged it back in as "presenting mundane, everyday events as newsworthy or alarming". --McGeddon (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Walken in "The Onion taken seriously"

We can't say that MSN Movies was taking the Onion seriously when reporting the Walken/Star Wars story: it needs a secondary source of another news source pointing out that MSN Movies made that mistake. This would both establish the MSN mistake as significant, and confirm that they weren't just running it as a joke. --McGeddon (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Was the New York Times taken in by The Onion's Tiger Beat Obama cover?

It has been going around the internet that the venerable New York Times ran a picture of a fictional cover of Tiger Beat featuring Barak Obama during the 2008 election, yet this is not mentioned on the Onion taken seriously heading. Here is an example from Mediaite, which I don't know is WP:RS or not

http://www.mediaite.com/print/the-onion-fools-the-new-york-times-with-fake-obama-tiger-beat-cover/

Did this really happen?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Western Onion

Is it correct that the the original name was "Western Onion", a take-off on the name of the now-vanished telegram company Western Union, and that the name was changed to The Onion after a "cease and desist" letter from Western Union's lawyers? deisenbe (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Onion and Univision

A lot of recent edits have implied that The Onion is a subsidiary of Univision Communications. As this official press release from Univision indicates, they are “a minority investor in Onion Inc.”; a 40% investment does not make Univision a majority owner nor does it make Onion, Inc. a subsidiary:

Univision Makes Investment in The Onion

NEW YORK – JANUARY 19, 2016 –Univision Communications Inc. (UCI), the leading media company serving Hispanic America, and Onion Inc., a digital media company with comedy brands that include The Onion, the nation’s leading comedy and news satire brand, today announced that UCI’s digital-arm is a minority investor in Onion Inc. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

The Onion is a complementary extension of UCI’s Spanish- and English-language digital portfolio, broadening the Company’s multicultural, digital footprint and its reach with a highly coveted millennial audience. With more than 25 million engaged monthly uniques on Onion Inc.’s platform, UCI will expand its overall digital presence in multicultural, millennial focused content with this transaction.

While Onion Inc. will operate independently, maintaining the integrity of the brand and editorial voice, UCI will have oversight of Onion Inc. to leverage Univision Digital’s distribution, resources and media expertise to expand the exposure of the brand. In particular, Univision Digital will work with Onion Inc.’s brands to explore new content opportunities, including short- and long-form formats for each Onion brand across digital and linear mediums.

“Comedy is playing an expanding role in our culture as a vehicle for audiences to explore, debate, and understand the important ideas of our time,” said Isaac Lee, Chief News and Digital Officer of Univision and CEO of FUSION. “It has also proven to be an incredibly engaging format for millennial audiences, and is expected to play a key part in the 2016 presidential election process via our robust content offerings in Spanish and English. The Onion has been, and continues to be, a leading force of this phenomenon of intellectual, social, cultural and satirical commentary online. As we did with the acquisition of The Root in 2015, with Onion Inc. we are expanding our role as a go-to source for digitally-connected, diverse audiences. Including Onion Inc. as part of our portfolio is a great fit for and a significant step forward in our digital strategy as we continue to expand the ways we entertain and inform millennial and multicultural audiences.”

“Onion Inc. has remained successful by putting editorial first. We’re excited to partner with Univision, a company that understands and appreciates that foundation, and that can provide additional resources, expertise, and opportunity for our talented staff,” said Mike McAvoy, president and chief executive officer at Onion Inc.

— Rosemary Mercedes, Univision Press Release Archive

--SpyMagician (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Onion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126024618/http://www.ifc.com/blogs/ifc-now/2011/03/coming-soon-ifc-renews-the-oni.php to http://www.ifc.com/blogs/ifc-now/2011/03/coming-soon-ifc-renews-the-oni.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Onion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130331012245/http://labs.theonion.com/ to http://labs.theonion.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150625060042/http://www.citypages.com/news/peeling-the-onion-6715697 to http://www.citypages.com/news/peeling-the-onion-6715697
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218222333/http://www.theonion.com/content/columnists/well_ive_sold_the_paper_to to http://www.theonion.com/content/columnists/well_ive_sold_the_paper_to
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223082518/http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27828 to http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27828

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional Early History Details

Just adding this here for future reference. An IP user added edits such as the following shown here:

The original staff also included Matt Cook (writer), Jonathan Hart Eddy (graphic design wizard), and Christine Wenc (copy editor and illustrator). Cook, Eddy and Wenc all later moved to Seattle to work on Keck's new venture, The Stranger.

While this is not cited, it is definitely interesting early history that—if citations can be provided—should be added to the article. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like this article on The Stranger’s history might be a good citation for this info. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Patriothole

The intro mentions PatriotHole and this feels like undue weight to me. The article text does not mention Patriothole and only briefly mentions Clickhole. The Clickhole article mentions Patriothole.

I would recommend removing Patriothole from this article entirely, and moving all mentions of it to the Clickhole article. If no one objects or does it first I'll probably get around to doing it myself eventually. -- 109.78.200.101 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No one else did it, and no one made any objection, so I removed the unnecessary detail. The name change of the site was only temporary and Patriothole continues only as a subsection of Clickhole. It is not mentioned anywhere else in this article so it doesn't need to be highlighted in the summary. The Clickhole article is the right place for any information about Patriothole and it is covered in that article already. -- 109.76.134.87 (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"No Way To Prevent This"

I added three more articles for the sake of completeness, but at this point, maybe it would be better to dispense with the list and just inform the reader that it is published after most major shootings. WP Ludicer (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Considering the frequency of such events, the list is far too long and likely will only grow in the future. Better to limit it to a few examples or discuss the format in general. Opencooper (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It's depressing to have to agree with this, but yes, with the unfortunate frequency these are happening, I'd support limiting it as suggested. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 03:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and eliminated the list. As I explained in my edit summary, the most recently published article could be considered relevant if the next major mass shooting doesn't result in another article. As it is, none except the very first are more relevant than any other. WP Ludicer (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Another Controversy?

One thing that I saw missing is the 9/11 subway deal that they created that had quite a few people thinking that it was an actual deal from subway. here is the article that they created along with the fake discount they made to go along with it. I am not editing this article yet because I want to know whether or not that this is a large enough story to put onto the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnakeSixtysix (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

1st section (references)

I don't know source editing but I know visual editing. In the reference section, the 1st source leads to comedy home page. But there's a link here that archived it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160816171600/https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/07/six-insights-from-an-editor-at-the-onion.html

How do you add it to that reference? 2607:FEA8:551D:2E00:1F68:7EBB:2B56:6D9A (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us! I just added and archive URL to that reference. ---Giacomo1968 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)