Talk:The Newsroom (American TV series)

A bit odd that the "reception" area says that response to the show is "mixed" but pretty much all the quotes are negative. A simple Google search generates plenty of quotes that could be used to balance this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.92.208 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I added some responses by the Cato Institute in response to the shows dipiction of Citizens United v FEC in the reception section. I think it is important to fairness to show debate and controversy this program has aroused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettKnoss (talk • contribs) 01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

merge proposal

Any issue with a highly selective merge of the article on the first episode. The references supplied there demonstrate the notability of the series, but do little to demonstrate the notability of this particular episode. While they are about the pilot episode, those references are essentially reacting to the series.--RadioFan (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sloan Sabbith

How can that she has an in-Universe Wikipedia page not be relevant to Wikipedia? It's a lot more plot-relevant than the Cato Institute mentions. -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think either of those things are relevant, but the idea that she, who is in the show a newsreader, would have a wikipedia page is not even remotely notable or interesting. Of course she would, as would many of the staff. Honestly, who the hell cares? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"...who the hell cares?" I think you're missing the point of having an encyclopedia if you're asking that particular question. To answer you, though, I care. -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, to put it in wikipedia speak, how is it notable? Is this an important thing about her character? Oh and I am quite sure I understand the point of having the encyclopedia thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And if you this were a fan site, that you care might be nice. As it is, it's trivial. --Drmargi (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is why so many decent, knowledgeable people give up on this project. They tire of being made sick by this obnoxious attitude of ownership of ignorance and exclusionism.

Personally, every time I come back after a gap to try again, I run into it on the very first day. Every single time. Jackass edit-warring and "I won't let you add to my article." -- Davidkevin (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have edited this article once I think. If you think that is a case of WP:OWN then report me to a noticeboard, I welcome it. You might want to read WP:AGF. If trying to keep trivia out of an article is ownership, ignorance or whatever, then yes I guess I am guilty. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sabbith's online presence is an important part of the story, so I think it's relevant, but more so in the episodes' summaries than as a character description. Further, I'm not sure Sampat is messing with her Wikipedia page as was suggested here; all I remember is him talking about making mischief in forums. I agree with Dbrodbeck that the mere fact that Sabbith has a Wikipedia page is trivial and non-notable. The forum business ought to be mentioned in List of The Newsroom episodes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh the stuff about the forums surely belongs in the episode article. It was a major plot point. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to the ownership issue, it's easy to fling that term around, especially when you're an editor trying to force an edit with which other editors don't agree. When you get reverted repeatedly, that ought to be a hint about the appropriateness of the content you're trying to add, not a campaign to own the article. --Drmargi (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Critical reception

It's been noted on this page already that this section correctly notes "mixed" reviews, but in content is skewed heavily towards referencing and quoting negative ones. This is the case with the first two paragraphs. The third paragraph has been written solely for use as a soapbox by user BrettKnoss, for the purpose of echoing the concerns of the Cato Institute, and amusingly fails to even explain the "controversial" views that are being responded to. Not only is this addition unbalanced in favor of the institute's own rhetoric, the views of the Cato Institute just aren't particularly notable here. The Cato Institute is not noted for its entertainment criticism. Plastering an article like this with quotes and rhetoric from a political think tank is just unnecessary and frankly inappropriate. It is the farthest thing from neutrality. As a point of reference, there is nothing on the Cato Institute wiki page about The Newsroom. This "controversy" is not a major event, it is the kind of thing that happens in all entertainment and very often in this show. The Cato Institute is not so much more important than every other group or individual that may disagree with something done or said in this show. This is not something that was added for fairness, it was added out of spite in order to tout a specific viewpoint in favor of another. Such things have no place here, or at the very least they should not. AceRoccola (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I moved that paragraph to the appropriate episode at List of The Newsroom episodes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good good. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking United States

Newsroom is a political drama. It deals with american politics.  Linking the Newsroom page to the United States page that defines american government and politics is valid per the WP:OVERLINK. --(JDD4J4J (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC))

I disagree, if this were the norm then we would do that in all TV show articles, and we do not. Linking to the US does not increase the reader's understanding of the subject matter. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is incorrect. There is no reason to link most television to the United States page. For example there would be no relevance to link Family Guy to the United States Page. However, in contrast Newsroom is a political drama, it deals with american politics constantly. American politics are defined on the United States page. Thus, in this case, unlike most television shows, the United States page should be linked. This is clearly defined in the WP:OVERLINK.