Talk:Rapture's Delight

Reception

Isn't it kind of one-sided just to cite negative critics?

Well, the review clearly appears to be coming from a biased source, but just to make that more clear I wikilinked "media watchdog". I'm not even sure it technically constitutes a review given it's obvious non-objectivity, but I will say it establishes notability for the episode. You're certainly welcome to add positive reviews if and when you find them.

On a side note, please be sure to sign your posts with four tildes (~). Thanks. Doniago (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with the anonymous poster, the review comes from a pressure group and not from a review body and I have removed it and replaced it with its' TV.com rating. Trinkella (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and have restored the Parents Television Council review. I agree with the first poster — if other (positive or negative) reviews for this episode are available, by all means they should be posted. It is our job as editors to find them; several editors to the Seth McFarlane-produced shows are aware of these and can add them at their convenience. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)]]

Well I see that a neutrality-section tag has been placed with the "Reception" section. I agree that Wikipedia's aim is to provide balanced, NPOV articles, but it is also our job to try to find them. If all that is available are positive or negative reviews, either because that's all that exist or because of some lack of work by wiki-editors, then there's not much we can do. For my part, I will try to look through the Web when I have time and try to find other reviews when I have time, but these should have already been added (even before the PTC's review), as they typically are for many TV episodes right after airing. P.S. — Addressing Trinkella's comment from earlier, whether the reception comes a professional reviewer, a pressure group (as he terms the PTC) or anyone else who has his comments published in reliable media (e.g., a newspaper columnist whose work is distributed through vendors such as United Press Syndicate), the fact is, it is "reception" (i.e., feedback), be it positive or negative. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)]]

In the very best spirit of Wikipedia, you argue your case well and I acquiesce my position in favour of yours. Trinkella (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been scouring the internet for a substantial positive review of this episode, but I'm having a real hard time finding one. Maybe shorten the negative response in the article to make it seem less harsh and let users click the link if they are curious? The way that the article is now is just so biased, and it's making me sad because this was a really good episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.21.205 (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps reading some of the review sections of other American Dad, Family Guy and The Cleveland Show episode summary articles might give you some ideas as to reviewers who might have seen "Rapture's Delight." [[Briguy52748 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)]]

What about IMDb? They give it 8.4/10 and I'm positive I've seen IMDb used as a source on other wikipedia articles. Anyhow, according to wikipedia the main issue with the IMDb ranking system seems to be that message board mobs try to dilute the effect of a majority vote, causing the episodes "1" or "5" ratings to spike, which is clearly not the case if you look at the graph where there is a more or less smooth curve of positive to negative votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.197.228 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

IMDB ratings aren't reliable because there's no system in place to prevent vote stacking. The appearance of legitimacy should not be confused with actual legitimacy. Doniago (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I kind of thought so on this point, but I was not sure where our policy was on this so I could answer our IP friend's question. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)]]

What is the source, in Wikipedian terms, of IGN's "legitimacy"? Self-appointed legitimacy should not be confused with actual legitimacy, either.172.191.0.170 (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point! People here need to take note, wiki is not reliable or legitimate, and can't confer illegitimacy on other sites as such, but we can say that some other sites are much closer to being legit than wikipedia, something which someone here regularly gets confused with, yet professes to lecture others on confusion without the right to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.28 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Background

There's clearly a lot of references in this episode, and considering how far it delves into them it'd be nice to see a complete breakdown of it, I'd do it myself but I'm having trouble finding anything to back up my thoughts, does anyone have sources that refer to the creation of this episode and their intent? Sacslym (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

'(the central figure in Christianity)'. Qualification needed? I'm an avowed humanist and this sounds glib even to me...Djt98 (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

^Exactly, the very first reference would would be the one in the title, to the 1979 song by the Sugarhill Gang, "Rapper's Delight". 212.67.149.248 (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)