Talk:The Onion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Journalism Portal This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	Comedy Portal This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archive through July 2006

[edit] Prose Quality

I was always amazed at the quality of the prose in The Onion. I could never find a syntax, semantic, or spelling error. And the style was breezy and entertaining. Since moving to NYC I have noticed a deterioration in quality. Is the passion gone?

The layout redesign has made it harder to read fast as well.

[edit] deletion

In the section about Onion articles being taken seriously, the Beijing News bullet point includes the explanation: "they were apparently unaware of The Onion's satirical nature)". I'm going to delete this, as it seems redundant due to the explanation at the head of the section. --Natalie 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article about wikipedia on the onion

There is currently a very funny article on the Onion entitled "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 years of American independence." Might it be possible, for once, for Wikipedians not to include any reference to themselves in an another medium, in the article about that medium? That's all I ask. 206.223.233.241 03:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good one. If we can somehow reference it, I think that'd be useful. We must be doing something right if we've attracted the Onion! --Plumbago 08:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a joke about how Wikipedia cannot be trusted for purely factual information. You're proud of this? 208.44.236.60 22:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We are proud to have reached the level of significance where the Onion acknowledges our existence. The Onion lambasts everything, if they wrote an article praising wikipedia i'd be pissed off at them for not being funny. The article shows some prime examples of vandalism I, and probably many others have encountered. Most vandalism is reverted quickly, and the incident described would be very unlikely, but therein lays the humor 208.44.236.60. You may be interested in checking out the page on satire. ReverendG 05:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is how I had added an entry on that article to the Serious part of the page: "Another article of The Onion called Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence [1] (published July 26, 2006, about 500 years too early) demonstrates the visionary power of the editors of this otherwise satirical self-reflective magazine." It was promptly removed. I think it should have been improved rather than removed.

I say keep it, it's funny. And keep an eye out on pages like American Revolution and The United States for onion-related vandalism. Dina 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to include references to Wikipedia/Wikipedians if that content is encyclopedic. One of today's best known english-language humor publications running a lead article on Wikipedia definently warrants a mention, probably just a sentence or two though... don't know if it really belongs in the lead. --W.marsh 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it though? I've read the article, and it reads just like every other Onion article. Just because its about Wikipedia doesn't make it any more encyclopedic than any other Onion article. To favor an article just because its about Wikipedia, in my opinion, is a form of POV. I'm in favor of removing the reference here. However, to W.marsh's point, I agree that it very notable from the point of view of Wikipedia that the Onion mentioned it. In other words, if such a mention were to be made it should be in the article Wikipedia in popular culture, but not here. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partnership with CNN.com

CNN has started running an Onion article every week: [2]. Surely worth including in the article? - Kookykman|(t)e 22:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of "References to The Onion in other media section"

This section appears to list two things: listing media that make reference to the Onion (trivial) and listing other satirical newspapers published by college students (also trivial). I don't think any of these are worth mentioning here. I recommend this section be removed unless somebody can cite the significance of its contents. Mabersold 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Two things to add. 1) I just put a link to a site parodying the onion, which is circulating on email lists, under this "References to The Onion in other media" section. (qnion.com). It was taken off by someone after 10 minutes or so, and then another 5 minutes later this post came up suggesting to do away with this section entirely. So . . . .funny coincidence. 2) This section was interesting enough to me that I looked at several of the links-- and I remembered it (months later) when I came across the parody site. Pulpy 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I took the liberty of removing the section. There's one note that could be considered notable, but I'll leave it up to somebody else to find a good place to reinsert it. It is:

• An article from The Onion appeared on the 2005 Advanced Placement English Language and Composition test, in which students were asked to write an essay analyzing its use of satire.

At any rate, please do not attempt to recreate the section on "References to The Onion in other media". The section basically only had blurbs consisting of "The Onion was mentioned in this TV show" (no elaboration) or "The students at this university made their own Onion newspaper" (nobody cares). Neither is notable. - Mabersold 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History Error?

I think that there may be an error on the History section. It says that the Onion was only distributed in Madison and Milwaukee until 1996 when it went on line. I distinctly remember reading the print version of the Onion in the early 1990s in Champaign-Urbana, IL on the University of Illinois campus. Might it be appropriate to ammend this to say that The Onion was only distributed to a limited number of cities and towns, notably those with major universities, until 1996...???

DJKS 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this has already been done, but I just wanted to voice my agreement that you could definitely get the onion in C-U before 1996. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly

I moved text for Kelly into a separate article (Kelly (cartoonist)). The description was getting too long when other Onion characters and sections only had a few lines, or their own respective articles.

I've noticed the original long text has been reinstated; I will change that back again to a shorter description - please make further changes to Kelly (cartoonist). Kransky 11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've placed {{mergeto}} on Kelly (cartoonist). I do not think that the cartoon or cartoonist is notable enough to warrant its/his own page. — Linnwood 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge - I concur wholeheartedly!--Orange Mike 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that that cartoon is a parody of right wing cartoons, I think it is a right wing cartoon, and I think the discription should be changedJeek X 05:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there are a lot of right-wing cartoonists out there, and not even the most incompetent of them is this heavy-handedly stupid. "Kelly" is obviously a parody of such things, as would be expected in a parody newspaper. --Orange Mike 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagee...have you read Mallard Fillmore ever? Thunderbunny 05:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, yes; but annoying though it is, it's really not that heavy-handedly stupid. --Orange Mike 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

An editor has taken it upon himself to go through a whole bunch of comedy postings in Wiki and request citations. But the big question is, the request is so vague, it almost is ridiculous to understand what anyone can provide to satisfy this editor's desire to cite practically everythng.

My view in this—and other—articles is the question of citation is not as urgent as perhaps the issue of wording or rewording of some items to better Wikify the piece.

True, verifiablity is the cornerstone of the Wiki. But at the same time, not every item can be cited even if every resource were provided. And many of the articles in question are so innocuous, it just doesn't make sense to understand why some bits of information are being looked at cockeyed.SpyMagician 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. As much as I try to assume good faith, I have ran in to too many of these editors who operate under the supposition that if a citation in a mainstream news source can not be found, it does not exist. Verifiability is the cornerstone of Wikipedia being taken seriously, but not everything gets written about in the newspaper. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, it would be nice for an article about a subject like the Onion, which has had a ton of coverage and a number of books, to have decent citations, don't you think? --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is your issue with the levels of the citations provided here? I don't understand what you are getting at and as I have said in another aticle regarding a past Onion staffer, this posting in and of itself is actually a good example of the issue I've had with your edits. Despite references being made and additional links being provided, you are still insisting on a level of citation that is simply practically impossible to provide. I have said it before, but I will continue to post the concept of assuming good faith on the part of Wiki contributors and not be so quick to judge or act tempermental when someone does not aggree with your strict view of Wiki guidelines. Ultimately the Wiki is a collaborative environment, and the way you are going about these requests bellie the concept of cooperation and seem to be a tad "power hungry" more than anything else. SpyMagician 09:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Future Fun Jumper (TIC) has taken the "brave" move of hiding other discussion about him by creating and "archive" of his talk page and moving it away from the main talk page. Thus making his "talk" page clean as new and hiding the comments others have made about his "style" from others. Utterly pathetic that someone who is so hellbent on citations has decided to make himself less verifiable. What kind of coward runs around demanding deletions and citations but then runs and hides discussion made about himself? SpyMagician 09:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is a conflict of interest for SpyMagician because he is the former webmaster for the Onion. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 05:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] original research

The "Influences" section is entirely original research and conjecture. I don't know how this section can be improved, other than not to exist. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it seems to be original research, but it could be saved/improved if someone could cite references, i.e. article(s) where Onion staffers confirm these influences. Vandelay 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but it just seems to be conjecture. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, retitle the section "news parodies that came before The Onion". Wahkeenah 12:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's just the subject for a whole other article/category, then. List of news parodies/Category: news parodies. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't let me stop you from writing it. :) Wahkeenah 02:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of it already is written. I'm taking the section from here to start it. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 05:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Kudos. Wahkeenah 05:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King of Queens Abortion Article

A few weeks ago The Onion ran an article about writing an abortion into the King of Queens. Today the article was republished but for a different sitcom. Anyone know the story behind this? Somehow some people took the article seriously?--Twintone 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broadsheet or Tabloid?

The info box says that the Onion is printed on broadsheet. It's been ages since I actually held a copy, but I am quite sure that the Onion is printed on tabloid-sized paper. If someone could verify that and then change it, that would be awesome. Zweifel 21:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section should be removed from "Onion taken seriously" section

146.63.197.105 19:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I don't think this section belongs in the onion taken seriously segment:

"The Monthly Call to Life blog, a pro-life site, denounced the article "I'm Totally Psyched About This Abortion!" for the author's supposed enthusiasm for getting an abortion. The post (which contains a graphic image at the top of the page) has remained for several months without an acknowledgement that the article cited is actually satire"

Because the pro-life blog wasn't taking the article seriously, they were just offended by its content and denounced it. The previous examples in the section are all articles where the articles were literally taken seriously and believed to be actualy events. I think either this part of that section should be removed or there should be another section made with groups/organizations who called for removal of offensive articles.

No, according to the blogger in question

Needless to say, a few people wanted to let me know that I was a dolt for thinking that her article was real. As a matter of fact, call me a dolt, because in the beginning I really did think it was real. Why? because I meet women like her in the field all the time.

http://marchtogether.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html --Orange Mike 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article to indicate that while the blog's author originally thought the article was real he has now been disillusioned - but is standing behind the attack on it nonetheless. That this is the case seems clear to me from the article linked by Orangemike above, and subsequent articles on the site. -- Olaf Davis 09:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Onion and Wikipedia

I just picked up a copy of The Lantern for Wednesday, September 19, 2007, which had The Onion 43.00 as an insert. Anyway, the lead front page article is titled "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence: Founding Fathers, Patriots, Mr. T. Honoroed." The article continues onto page 6. Should we mention this article somewhere? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the article, just like every other time The Onion has parodied us. --Orange Mike 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This section does not belong in an encyclopedia. We're supposed to avoid, if possible, references to the word 'wikipedia' in articles, except for articles directly related to the project, like Wikipedia. There are a number of good reasons to do this, like the fact that forking the project under another name is something that's allowed and encouraged under the GFDL, and such references would make no sense under another name. The most important, IMO, is that of professional tone and style. There are lots of articles where a tenuous link between WP and the topic at hand can be drawn, and that fact is great if you're a supporter of the project (and I'm sure anyone reading this is), but it's usually hard to argue that the link would be written up in a generic encyclopedia, or ANOTHER encyclopedia. For example: If the onion had an article or two on Encyclopedia Britannica, would it be worthy of a mention, let alone its own section in The Onion? Of course not. The Onion lampoons many aspects of popular culture, and doing so to WP is no more notable than any other instance, except editors here are more inclined to write it up. As WP's stature grows, we are going to have more and more of these kind of issues. Fortunately, there's a official policy governing this kind of thing, which lists my reasons and more. See:Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. If I hadn't made my stance clear, I'm going to remove this section.  :) Oh, and if you ever run across a situation in which self reference is justified, like in the article Peer review, where it's possible a user is looking for the Wikipedia process, you should utilize the template Template:Selfref, to flag the section for modification during forks. --Hemisemidemiquaver 14:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A new section (with the same name) has recently been added to the article [3]. Its been removed again for the exact same reason that Hemidemisemiquaver pointed out. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional chronology

"Zweibel"—Is the misspelling of "Zwiebel", the German word for "onion", really intended? —Editorius (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Onion is a prophet

It's kind of sad that The Onion managed to successfully predict what would happen during the Bush administration. Should we mention this in the article?

They also predicted the five-blade razor.

Actually all that that particular article demonstrates is the Onion's particular style of humor that for the most part only deranged people on the left will find entertaining. Perhaps it's worth mentioning for that reason. On the other hand, maybe I'm not looking deeply enough for the sarcasm and humor, since saying things like "tax cuts that will cause a recession" (because we all know how bad letting people actually keep their money is for the economy) and talking about the "peace and prosperity" America enjoyed during the Clinton years (including pointless and counterproductive military involvements in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo; our Wag-the-Dog bombings of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Sudan while Osama bin Laden was allowed to roam free; terrorist attacks against our embassies in Africa, military barracks in Saudi Arabia, the Murrow Building in Oklahoma City, and the U.S.S. Cole; and acts of terrorism carried out by our government against its own people at Waco, among other places), surely the Onion must be joking. --Antodav2007 (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)