Talk:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Full Frontal with Samantha Bee article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from Full Frontal with Samantha Bee appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8 February 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
Length of episode(s)
Should the Eddie Eagle article, covering an NRA mascot, mention the Full Frontal with Samantha Bee segment which covered her attempts to acquire one of the mascot suits? Please see the discussion at Talk:Eddie Eagle#Eddie Eagle in the news. Felsic2 (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Criticism from LA Weekly
The article includes praise. Why is criticism being deleted?  The LA Weekly is a liberal free paper of note. It seems like NPOV would be enhanced by a variety of views, whether we agree with them or not. Felsic2 (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Pings: @MagicatthemovieS:, @TonyIsTheWoman: @Muboshgu: Felsic2 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Felsic2: @TonyIsTheWoman: @Muboshgu: I honestly have no clue why criticism of this show should be considered blasphemy; don't "Critical reception" sections usually feature both praise and criticism of a TV show/movie/book etc.? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- I take some issue with that piece as being a polemic about liberal pop culture in general, having little to do with Bee's show specifically. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
The conclusion to be drawn from deleting the LA Weekly commentary is that the viewpoint is absolutely insignificant and/or that a publication with a circulation of 160,000 deserves no mention at all. I don't see how that decision is made. It's possible that the three websites quoted are more prominent than the printed weekly, but weight is proportional, not absolute. Here's the breakout:
- Rotten Tomatoes- positive - 57 words
- Metacritic- positive - 21 words
- The Wrap- positive - 56 words
- LA Weekly- negative - 0 words
- Critical response of the show has been critical acclaim / universal acclaim, with 100% positive reviews; 24 on Rotten Tomatoes and 16 on Metacritic. As stated in the 'Reception' section.
The LA Weekly piece isn't a review of the show (it's a collective article), nor does it remotely represent the sum of the critical response and the tone of it. --TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- And for those reasons you believe that it deserves zero weight? Felsic2 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
New noteworthy source for "Reception" section
How to list the Not the White House Correspondents' Dinner?
Specials...something that the television infobox doesn't handle very well. I've added this dinner to the List of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee episodes page as a Special, but I'm not sure how to denote this elsewhere. There doesn't seem to be any universal policy for TV specials that clearly belong to a TV series. For example, should it be in the episode count here? Or should it be N episodes + 1 special? Any take on whether or not to list it on the Series Overview of the episodes page? sarysa (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just checked both TBS and Bee's site and apparently it's is being listed as ep 46, thus we should count accordingly. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Episodes Template Not Functional
Hey there. I don't know how to edit the Episodes template, but it should link to sections on the wiki page 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Full_Frontal_with_Samantha_Bee_episodes'. As of now, its links are non-functional. If someone could get that, awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveodinkirk (talk • contribs) 10:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
For referenece, here is MOS:PMC
Original wording."Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text. When a vulgarity or obscenity is quoted, it should appear exactly as it does in the cited source...."
"In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be minced by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols...."
- According to WP:RS, we should include content in proportion to its coverage in WP:RS. The "feckless cunt" controversy has gotten overwhelmingly more coverage than the "Nazi hair" controversy. I would favor removing the "Nazi hair" paragraph, unless anyone has an objection. It's just distracting.--Nbauman (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't read anything in WP:RS that suggests one controversy should be deleted just because another controversy received more converge in WP:RS. If you do a Google of "full frontal" "nazi hair" the top results are publications such as Variety, CNN, Vanity Fair, the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc. I would say that amount of coverage, from several reliable sources, more than adequately justifies its inclusion in this article. Nor is this an aged topic, since it happened last year and there are more recent articles referencing back to this event. I can't address you (@Nbauman: ) finding it distracting without more details about why it is distracting to you. I can only say that I am not distracted by it. I think a show like Full Frontal should list every noteworthy controversy, as long as the information provided includes all the details - including how Samantha herself, the show, the network and any others directly involved responded the controversy. A show that seeks to rattle cages is in many ways marked by its controversies, in terms of their quantity, scope and responses.
- Which is why I'm in favor of expanding the paragraph, not removing it. The current paragraph makes implications beyond (or rather in short of) the facts. It's certainly accurate to say he didn't "accept" the apology the show offered, it's less factual and skirting POV to say he "refused." The paragraph implies an animosity in the incident that much of the press played on, but isn't represented in anything that the show or Coddington were reported to have said or did. His first tweet about the photo and comment was very tongue-in-cheek, complaining about him looking like a "balding potato" in the segment and joking that his haircut was the result of cancer while Richard Spencer's haircut was because he's a Nazi. The paragraph also fails to mention that his chief complaint with the segment had nothing to do with his cancer or chemo, but how inappropriate it is to make widely-cast assumptions about someone's political leanings based solely on a certain haircut. That USA Today article that's used as the reference for his "refusal" to accept the apology doesn't include his press statement or most of what he said about the apology. It claims he "slammed" the show, without providing any details to support the aggressive terminology. It doesn't even adequately cover his interview on Fox and Friends, which seems to be the bulk of what it's reporting on. And that reference, coupled with the word "refusal" unduly adds a POV to both Coddington's and the show's positions/responses to the incident. Adding some specific details could make it more accurate and inclusive of all the facts, without assumptions; something in the ballpark of...
In interviews, and a public statement released on Twitter, Coddington called the show's response a "half-apology," which failed to address or express remorse that the segment made "baseless accusations against people because of the way they look. In his public statement, he also expressly thanked the show for their donation to his GoFundMe campaign, along with all of the supporters of the campaign.
- And the mention of the public statement should be referenced with a source that directly links to the tweet. I'm sure there are more, but here's one I found in my research. http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/10/cancer-patient-targeted-samantha-bee-half-apologizing-offending-someone-not-apologizing/ But obviously I would not make this or any such changes until more consensus is reached on if the coverage of this incident is weighted enough to justify its inclusion in the article. CleverTitania (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)