Talk:Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deleted racism/stereotype section: clear original research[edit]

I deleted the stereotypes section again (someone else originally did) as that seems obvious original research. Please see WP:NOR which states

  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
  • Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.
  • Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.

I realize the section was written in good faith. However it was written (stylistically and content-wise) like an editorial, while citing a "community input"/message-board type opinion piece as a source which cannot be used per WP:RS. If the opinion/analysis was published by a WP:RS-conforming source, then it's a keep. However as-is it was obvious synthesized original thought borrowing from a non-reliable source, and must be deleted per WP:NOR. Cheers. Tendancer 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Barring a miraculous appearance of reliable sources for that section, I'll delete it wholesale (again) in the next few days. For now, I'm commenting it out. - Mdsummermsw 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No sources. Deleted. - Mdsummermsw 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot length[edit]

"Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words" Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot

Currently, the plot section is over 2,400 words. I'll be cutting it down considerably over the next few days.

Mdsummermsw 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But what does it have to do with the "needs sources" template you've added? 99.99% of the plot descriptions in Wikipedia have no sources. I don't say 100% just so you won't pull out an exception out of nowhere. And do you know why is it like this? Simply because Wikipedia is the source for plot descriptions.
Right now there's no other site in the entire world (well, at least in English) with detailed plot descriptions. None. Nada. Well, I know one spoiler site (and suprisingly there aren't a lot of those sites either) that occasionly gives whole plot descriptions, but its total list of movies takes just one page.
Yes, Wikipedia became not just the primary but about the only source with detailed plot descriptions of movies. If your plan is to eventually delete every single plot in Wikipedia - even the short ones (since they have no sources), then the entire world would lose its only source for detailed plot descriptions, simply because one person out there likes deleting stuff. Again, you may got the rules right on how long can a plot be, but if you demand sources, you'd end up deleting just about every plot description in Wikipedia. Just something to consider. -Kumarules 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The plot length has NOTHING to do with the needs sources tag. It does have to do with the plot length tag you ignored.
"Right now there's no site..." So what? There's no site that is this one thing that wikipedia is NOT. Life is like that.
Interesting that you suddenly appear out of nowhere and your first three edits are hitting me here and on my talk page, referring to what I've done elsewhere. By "interesting", of course, I mean suspicious.
Mdsummermsw 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it must require a whole conspiracy to take a quick glance in your history. Anyway, what about the requirement for sources for plots? Is there such an official policy? -Kumarules 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes. Brilliant work, that. It's so rare these days to see a brand new editor decide that their first edits should be on various talk pages.
Seeing as you seemed to have sprung as a fully-formed wikipedian, with strong policy opinions and an understanding of how to search user histories, contact users and discuss edits on talk pages, I naturally figured you would have an in-born knowledge of original research policy, particularly the aspects dealing with sections relying on a primary source. My mistake.
Mdsummermsw 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
How would you know if I edited anonymously or not? Anyway, this is a talk page to improve the article, not a forum to your opinions. So I suggest you cool down and get back to the point - I didn't ask what a reliable source was but where does it say even a plot needs one. It sure does not say it in these links and 99.9% plots are indeed original research as there's no such thing as reliable sources for detailed plots. -Kumarules 14:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"where does it say even a plot needs one" "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
"99.9% plots are indeed original research" "Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way."
"there's no such thing as reliable sources for detailed plots" "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." and "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words."
Mdsummermsw 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have always said you were right about the length. But even brief plots (not that 700 words is too brief) are original research in 99.9% of the cases here. Kumarules 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole section is jam-packed with unsourced speculation (a.k.a. original research), made all the worse by sloppy wording and slang.
Considering the amount of ink put to page (real and virtual) about this movie, I consider it rather telling that the twelve sources that are cited are for:
- Critics' opinions (1)
- Box office (1)
- Synthesis/original research about White Castle locations (4)
- Info on planned sequal (6)
Mdsummermsw 13:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Now at roughly 500 words, sourced and, IMO, mostly NPOV. - Mdsummermsw 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, the jail part is wrong. Only the chinese guy enconters the black one. The indian guy wasn't send to jail. Please correct the part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Doogie on Meth or X?[edit]

After a long while, we now have a third party source for the plot. While you would think that a few basics would be easily established, a number of items in the plot have bounced back and forth between differing opinions. This source can be checked without firing up your DVD player or poking around in the cobwebby corners of your brain.

With this in mind, I have repeatedly reverted the claim that Doogie was on X, in favor of the claim it was crystal. Please keep in mind WP:3RR and WP:V if you feel the need to change this again.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it. It's about verifiability, not truth. I've now added a ref to cover Doogie on X. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


The whole freaking Location section is a load of WP:OR. I'm going to get rid of the cruft and keep what we can verify to a reliable source speaking about this movie. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Shouldn't the Battleshits be on the article? It's one of the most famous scenes in H&KgtWC. Togepi 987 (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the "Plot" section. If you have something neutral and verifiable about it to add, go ahead. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot revisited[edit]

I am again reverting the return to the old, long, unencyclopedic, slang-filled, "Dude, like, you 'member when that guy got totally wasted and did that stuff with the thing to the other guy? That was sooooo funny" plot outline. As previously discussed, it was loaded with POV and OR, was far longer than guidelines suggest and generally sucked. The newer version -- while not as chatty and full of all your favorite moments -- is encyclopedic, sourced and within guidelines in every way. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This article got butchered.[edit]

I can't see any rationale of the deletion of the box-office section and the characters section. Can someone explain? --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of cameo section?[edit]

How is this section notable and/or not original research? DP76764 (Talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is how much it would cost to order the same thing that Harold and Kumar ordered[edit]

Qty      Description              Price
30       Cheeseburger               27.60
4        Sack French Fries           9.16
2        Large Cherry Coke           4.18
30       Cheeseburger               27.60
4        Sack French Fries           9.16
2        Large Cherry Coke           4.18
                         Sub- Total 81.88
                              + Tax  5.74
                              Total 87.62  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBD339 (talkcontribs) 11:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)