Talk:The Onion

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 [1] (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: [2]. 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 [3]. 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)

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)