Talk:Big Brother 9 (U.S.)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 November 2007. The result of the discussion was delete. |
 |
The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Big Brother 9 (U.S.) has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 |
This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Big Brother 9 (U.S.). It is not for discussion about the program itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Big Brother 9 (U.S.) is a "good" or "bad" program; or finding out what "this and that" are; or what will happen after "something".
Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "Wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages. |
 |
|
| General MoS table for reference | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] "Fact or Fiction" Controversy
Alucard, your revisions to my edit (adding the section regarding the controversy, which I moved from the highlights page at your request) are just different. They are not particularly more encyclopedic. Moreover, you have some significant grammatical errors. I am going to revise your language. I am going to add back the sub-title because it was a game-changing controversy (unlike the others). GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Guðsþegn, when you added the information about the controversial HoH competition bits were simply not needed as they didn't pertain to the competition and irrevelant to the subject at hand. Example:
- Your revision;
- On Day 70, after the eviction of Natalie, there was a controversial Head of Household competition.
- There is no need to mention Natalie's eviction as her eviction had no impact on the competition, the voting history and the highlights article already make note of her eviction on Day 70 so it wasn't needed. Also there are many fans that find the last statement ufair but believe that no matter who was in the lead the statement would be "fact", however there are many fans that think the question was both unfair and was deceptive on the part of the producers.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- The reason Natalie was mentioned was to give context to the point in the game that the controversy happened, not to implicate her in anything. On the second matter, I have yet to hear or read of anyone that thinks that such a statement could be considered fact given the context (except perhaps yourself). GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Another part, in my opinion, that wasn't needed "was considered "fact" by Big Brother producers". The bit with "Big Brother producers" isn't really needed as it is common knowledge that in every Big Brother or any game show/reality TV competition it is the producers who come up with tasks, questions, competitions, etc. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- And this one controversy should not have its own sub-title. How do we know it was game changing? There is no proof that the producers rigged the game in favor of certain HouseGuests. It is simply a trick question, that's all. Julie pointed out the two obvious relationships this year, she didn't specify if they were players, humans, pets or anything. It was simply "a third relationship". So does this one controversy at this time need its own sub-section, no. Now if this controversy continues to grow and it is found that the producers were caught playing favorites then is when it should be branched out. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I never said, or implied (and neither does having a sub-title), that the producers rigged the game to favor certain houseguests. However, we do not have to wait to find out whether it was a game-changing event. The game has already been changed by this question. The HoH was stolen from Sharon, and she was put on the block. That changes the game (no matter what the outcome). GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The HoH was not "stolen" from Sharon. Yea it is an ufair question but she answered wrong and Ryan answered right. Ryan answered right on the tiebreaker question so therefor he earned HoH. By staying that it was stolen from Sharon then we could easily say the very same about other HoH competitions. By saying that it was stolen you are indirectly implying that the production team rigged the competition so Ryan would win. Also by saying in the article the HoH was stolen from Sharon that is a point of view and all Wikipedia articles are against a certain point of view. Each article must maintain a neutral point of view. Also and I will say this again that at this time the controversial HoH does not need a sub-title. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- House Calls is the only source I know to use. From my understanding we can't use fan sites or message boards. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then this appears to be really WP:UNDUE. There's no controversy to speak of, other than Evil Dick getting upset? It was a game where the contestants were guessing the answers to questions. It's not like the producers lied about a math problem, they just asked a question with an ambiguous answer. In my opinion, it doesn't deserve it's own section at all, and only a brief mention under "Controversy" if anything. Redrocket (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I have been saying. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- House Calls is the only source I know to use. From my understanding we can't use fan sites or message boards. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Perhaps an imperfect analogy might help you understand the problem ... Say you have a semi-finals track race put on by a school. In this event, the track coach says beforehand to the janitor to get a bat and knee-cap whoever crosses the finish line first, so that they cannot compete in the finals. Say Joe Littleknees passes the finish line first (doing everything correctly) except that he gets his knees bashed in as he crosses the finish line (meaning that the guy in second place gets an effective win). Even if the coach knew the janitor was a drunk that might not succeed at his task, and he didn't know who would be ahead in the race; could it not be said that the effective win and the guaranteed spot in the finals had been stolen from Joe by the organizers of the race? Answer ... YES, obviously. This is what happened to Sharon. GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ...and yes, it's a VERY big deal. GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to be a big deal to you, yes, but do you have any other reliable sources expressing outrage, or that this move was controversial? Otherwise, your assertation that the HoH was stolen from Sharon is opinion and original research. Redrocket (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- ...and yes, it's a VERY big deal. GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Here's an imperfect analogy regarding the question ... Say I live on a street that has houses with nothing but single people in them. My landlord comes along saying I can continue living in my house if I answer his question correctly. He asks if anyone on the street is married. I say "no". He says "Gotcha, the guy down the street said he is "married" to his work. Move out now." Would I not have just been royally screwed by my landlord? GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
(OD)I appreciate the analogies, but they're not relevant to this discussion. Are there reliable secondary sources that refer to this controversy? Otherwise, it's OR as above. Callers to the show aren't enough. An example here is James' past in gay porn. It might have been discussed, but until there was a reliable secondary source that verified it, it didn't belong here. Redrocket (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- The House Calls program of April 17 referenced in the article is a reliable secondary source regarding the existence of controversy regarding the April 16 episode of the Big Brother 9 program. GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I asked above, are there others? The other controversial events this season (Adam and Matt's inappropriate comments) are all referenced by secondary sources, none of them refer to message boards or call-in shows. Again, this doesn't seem to be much of a controversy without outside references, and certainly not deserving of its own section. Redrocket (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Whether or not an event happened outside the house (ala, James gay porn) would not be verified by someone on House Calls talking about it. BUT, whether or not there is controversy concerning an event on the Big Brother show IS verified by discussion of said controversial events on the House Calls program. Where else (besides message boards and blogs) would one expect to find out whether some game-changing controversy happened on Big Brother? This isn't newsworthy to the general public, but it is to the particular (Big Brother) public; and House Calls is a secondary source for controversy on Big Brother. GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 04:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Guðsþegn, have you even tried to look for other reliable sources beside House Calls? I am sure if you search sites like TVGuide.com, EW.com and other third party sites like that you can find just about what you need with a current edition of Big Brother USA. And currently this HoH controversy has not garnered the media attention Adam's comments have made. I am not saying that we should ignore a controversial Head of Household game, I am saying by giving it a sub-heading we as editors are giving that controversy more attention versus Adam's comments. We need outside, third party sources too not just first/second party. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Sharon's Cell in the Voting History
Looking kind of bloated... any way we could ameliorate this problem? T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I fooled around with it in the sandbox, as soon as we put "Nominated" in that column, it'll stretch itself out. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] House Calls
I don't watch the show, but I had heard that Evel Dick was a Co-Host of House Calls with Gretchen Massey? If he is, I think that the template at the bottom of the article should be updated accordingly. - zachinthebox (Talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- He one of four regular co-hosts this season. Danielle hosts Mondays, Kaysar - Tuesdays, Evel Dick - Wednesdays/Thursdays, Bunky - Fridays. Since her co-host change each season we don't include them. If we include ED we have to include everyone else I mentioned. Bunky & Kaysar are the only two co-hosts to host for two seasons. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Slump?
Is there a way too mention that this season has slumped in terms of ratings? Viewers have also had alot of negative things to say as well. 70.52.135.42 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
What about a mention of how it was the youngest and least diverse season yet? 70.52.135.42 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Voting History -- Suggested changes
Here are some versions of the Voting History table that have been used recently. Which one should we use, the default, the slim one, the new one?
See my sandbox for the three options and how they look.
♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
