Jump to content

Talk:Saturday Night Live season 34: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 35: Line 35:
:If it's not in the "mainstream" media, then how did you hear about it? If you got it from tabloids or gossip column/websites, it could very well not be true. But it must have a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] to be mentioned in the article. [[User:Ward3001|Ward3001]] ([[User talk:Ward3001|talk]]) 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:If it's not in the "mainstream" media, then how did you hear about it? If you got it from tabloids or gossip column/websites, it could very well not be true. But it must have a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] to be mentioned in the article. [[User:Ward3001|Ward3001]] ([[User talk:Ward3001|talk]]) 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


::First off, I said I hadn't seen it in a "mainstream" news source which just means I may not have tried hard enough to find one (I honestly don't care that much, just thought this whole thing was interesting). Second, I didn't hear about it, I saw the original airing, then watched it again when it was on the NBC site, then noticed that it was pulled without explanation (and also noticed that every time someone left a comment about it, the comments were deleted but that's a whole 'nother can of tuna), and then watched it when it was reposted and compared it to the clips other people put up and saw that I was right, they censored themselves. And third, just because I don't readily have a "mainstream" source doesn't mean it didn't happen. I get the lawyer mentality Wiki fosters and the reasoning behind it, but it's annoying when you can know something first hand but not have the irrefutable academic journal documentation to satisfy everyone that it's not just a figment of the imagination. [[Special:Contributions/144.92.84.206|144.92.84.206]] ([[User talk:144.92.84.206|talk]]) 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::First off, I said I hadn't seen it in a "mainstream" news source which just means I may not have tried hard enough to find one (I honestly don't care that much, just thought this whole thing was interesting). Second, I didn't hear about it, I saw the original airing, then watched it again when it was on the NBC site, then noticed that it was pulled without explanation (and also noticed that every time someone left a comment about it, the comments were deleted but that's a whole 'nother can of tuna), and then watched it when it was reposted and compared it to the clips other people put up and saw that I was right, they censored themselves. And third, just because I don't readily have a "mainstream" source doesn't mean it didn't happen. I get the lawyer mentality Wiki fosters and the reasoning behind it, but it's annoying when you can know something first hand but not have the irrefutable academic journal documentation to satisfy everyone that it's not just a figment of the imagination. OH and here's the LA Times take on this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/10/nbc-yanks-then.html[[Special:Contributions/144.92.84.206|144.92.84.206]] ([[User talk:144.92.84.206|talk]]) 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:53, 9 October 2008

Will Season 34 could be Darrell Hammond's 14th season on SNL did he decides to come back? Punctuation helps. Darrell will probably come back, because of John McCain. But, nothing is set in stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.126.59 (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Poehler

I think what Amy Poehler is going to do is she's absolutely gone, but she'll do what Jan Hooks did in seasons 17, 18, and 19. She'll make special guest appearances to do the political sketches. --72.73.90.224 (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode airdates

What is the source to that that there will be 8 back-to-back episodes of SNL during this fall? They rarely do more than 3 episodes in a row, although they might do more now, when it's an election year. 80.221.30.68 (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC) It was heavily talked about after it was released by NBCUMV in July. It was sourced, but was taken down. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.98.60 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thats enough

who ever keeps on deleting the cast needs to stop it. --72.73.91.90 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever keeps adding a cast list without citing sources (or waiting for the season to begin) needs to stop it, per Wikipedia rules: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:CITE. Ward3001 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cast

Hey, Ward...Do you have a source saying that anyone in the cast will NOT return? Unless you can find some piece of credible evidence saying that someone who WAS there last season won't be there this year, then the cast should remain the same as it was before you erased it. We know about the situation with Amy leaving sometime soon, and we know about the new castmember, Bobby Moynihan, but other than that, what changes will there be? If someone else was leaving the show, we would know about it. So, at least for now, the cast needs to be put back to where it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snlfan (talkcontribs) 19:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless you can find some piece of credible evidence saying that someone who WAS there last season won't be there this year, then the cast should remain the same as it was before you erased it": Snlfan, you are unequivocally wrong. This is quite fundamental policy on Wikipedia. The burden of proof for adding to an article is on the person who adds it. And the article for Season 34 is not the same as the article for Season 33, so everything, including the cast, is being added, not retained from previous edits. Read WP:V. I've seen people try to use this argument in the past ("I can add anything I want if no one can provide evidence that it shouldn't be there") and it never works. It is a demand to prove a negative, which is logically impossible. With that kind of logic, I could add a statement to George W. Bush that he likes to have sex with children and then demand that it stay in the article unless someone can prove that it is not true.
One more point. This is an encylcopedia, not a newspaper. We can wait three days until the season begins, or until someone provides a source. Ward3001 (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough!!! Something has got to be done about this guy who is a self proclaimed Snlfan, because I've had enough of reverting his edits. - Jasonbres (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Editors like him who are oblivious to policies even after they are pointed out, who self-appoint themselves as owners of articles, and who brazenely think they can do as they please are not only quite annoying, they are a detriment to Wikipedia in general. He has violated WP:V and WP:3RR multiple times. If the addition of unsourced information occurs again, I'm reporting at WP:AIV, WP:AN3, and WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I was blocked from editing, I found a very varifiable source that states that the cast is returning. It is a photo of the cast dated September 10, 2008 on NBCUMV.com. So I'm sure that everyone is happy now. - Jasonbres (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for finally adding the cast. I never thought I'd see the day where the truth actually came out--and only a couple days after I told you the same thing. Good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snlfan (talkcontribs) 23:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job researching this, Jasonbres. Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent C-SPAN bailout sketch censored

Should there be mention of the rapidly becoming infamous bailout sketch self censorship? I don't know what would be considered valid for sources as no "mainstream" news media have mentioned it yet, but NBC/SNL took down the clip and then reposted after editing out a line of dialogue and the identifier of the couple at the heart of the issue. There is no official explanation (as yet) but word around the campfire is that it's a legal issue related to what was said/on screen given the people in that part of the sketch are real people tied to the current financial meltdown. Whether on the SNL main article or here, it's at least interesting to note that this might be the first time they have self-censored an internet clip AFTER they had already posted it in it's entirety once before. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not in the "mainstream" media, then how did you hear about it? If you got it from tabloids or gossip column/websites, it could very well not be true. But it must have a reliable source to be mentioned in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I said I hadn't seen it in a "mainstream" news source which just means I may not have tried hard enough to find one (I honestly don't care that much, just thought this whole thing was interesting). Second, I didn't hear about it, I saw the original airing, then watched it again when it was on the NBC site, then noticed that it was pulled without explanation (and also noticed that every time someone left a comment about it, the comments were deleted but that's a whole 'nother can of tuna), and then watched it when it was reposted and compared it to the clips other people put up and saw that I was right, they censored themselves. And third, just because I don't readily have a "mainstream" source doesn't mean it didn't happen. I get the lawyer mentality Wiki fosters and the reasoning behind it, but it's annoying when you can know something first hand but not have the irrefutable academic journal documentation to satisfy everyone that it's not just a figment of the imagination. OH and here's the LA Times take on this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/10/nbc-yanks-then.html144.92.84.206 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]