Talk:List of Saturday Night Live incidents

January 2015

Updated Actor names as well since this has been forked from main page and now lacks some context. Assuming this page exists in a vacuum, 'Kristen Wiig' makes more sense than 'Wiig' for the initial reference.

Interestingly while reading through this edit, i was trying to figure out some of the phrasing in the Andrew Dice Clay section and did a google search. That turned up this page (http://www.mtv.com/artists/velvet-jones/biography/) which is just a totally lifted copy of the text from this page and is a totally unrelated topic.Td65924 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Saturday Night Live incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150502112722/http://www.citizinemag.com:80/features/interviews/41-lee-ving-interview.html to http://www.citizinemag.com/features/interviews/41-lee-ving-interview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"n-word?"

The article unabashedly spells out every single swear word used on the show, but when it gets to describing Dave Chappelle's appearance, it glaringly uses "n-word" instead. Seems pretty contradictory. Why not "s-word" and "f-word?" 69.34.51.59 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Because only people can have their feelings hurt, not words and cultural norms and values.JohndanR (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be fixed. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Parenthetical O'Connor Addition Really Necessary?

Reading this article, one particular addition sticks out like a sore thumb, namely "As of 2016, despite the now well documented thousands of abuse cases proving O'Connor's accusation (although there is no data that indicates that priests commit abuse more often than the general population[17])" Is the parenthetical addition really necessary? It doesn't add anything to the article, or modify the situation in any way except to weakly attempt to mitigate or diffuse any wrongdoing on the part of the church, like this clerical abuse is somehow all right because other people do it too. I cannot help but wonder why anyone would find this a helpful addition to the article. 218.228.247.90 (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Passage in question seems to be gone. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Charles Grodin under Banned performers

I notice that the entry for Charles Grodin under the 'Banned performers' section does not have any sources. When I looked up the episode, I found some reviews which indicated that Charles seemingly ruining sketches and forgetting the show was live were both intentional. I haven't seen this episode though, so I can't be certain that this was the case, but I did not find any sources stating that he was banned. Unless a reliable source indicating that Charles Grodin was actually banned is found (or maybe something showing that he was actually unprepared and that it was not part of a joke), I advocate for removing this entry entirely from the list. I would do it myself, but I figure leaving some comment about it first would be a better course of action. 2607:FEA8:2ADF:90B0:25C8:3DCB:A011:1CEE (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Anyone who watches five minutes of that show - or who has ever seen Charles Grodin on a talk show - understands that the whole thing was planned. MikeR613 (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done, I agree with your take and have removed the section in question, as Grodin apparently was never actually banned. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Domestic violence idiom

The article currently contains the excerpt:

purposely breaks a customer's windshield in order to hit on the customer

and the changelog indicates this is an idiom. This is confirmed by dictionary.com as being isolated to North America. Visitors from the other 99% of countries in the world will not be aware of its misleading choice of words (and that goes for robot translation too). Dictionary.com recommended the definition of "wife beater" which is apparently an idiom specific to North America describing apparel, despite its deplorable choice of words. Wikipedia articles should not be written using such idioms which promote domestic violence:

Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone.
Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader;

(more at WP:TONE). The use of "hit on" is not formal tone; it is not clear, nor understandable. In fact, its meaning has nothing to do with what it says, and what it says promotes violence. It is inappropriate content for an encyclopaedia (and indeed for any prosocial communication in present-day civilisation). Please find some other way of expressing this idiom in an accessible, respectful and academic format. 203.206.27.46 (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Passage in question apparently was already changed to say "flirt". Although I'd argue that the "hit on" phrasing promoting violence is quite the leap to make. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Try Guys

There is apparently a controversey brewing over the whole Try Guys sketch on the October 8th episode, and I'm wondering if it's notible enough for a section or bullet point here or not. OrlandoApollosFan69 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This was added to the article, but I'm removing the mention, as it's unclear that this was an actual notable controversy. Most outlets seem to have praised the sketch in question. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

---

List of Saturday Night Live incidents → Saturday Night Live controversies and incidents – Been improving this one lately (I initially split off/created the page in 2015) and feel that this new title would be better these days. Not really a list article anymore although it does contain lists. I have expanded several sections with much prose and content/sourcing to be more encyclopaedic, and several sections were good already. I will continue improving but feel the new name would be better. Somewhat similar titles to the new proposal include BBC controversies and Controversial Reddit communities. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 16:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. We tend to avoid "Controversy" sections in articles because they make it hard to maintain NPOV. For the same reason, I think it's a bad idea here. Lewisguile (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 16:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason as above. Incidents is more neutral and does not negatively interpret the events, maintaining neutrality. Directly labeling something as controversial would at the very least be borderline POV-oriented. While there are some "controversy" sections, I would regard the bar for even having those is fairly high (namely demonstrating that our sources feel the same way generally), and there are some items in the article that aren't directly labeled as "controversy". ASUKITE 16:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Renaming the article seems unnecessary. Waqar💬 18:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sinéad content removal

I am removing a paragraph about an Australian album referencing the Sinéad incident as I see the paragraph as pretty irrelevant for this article. The 30 Rock mention is probably relevant due to that show's ties to SNL.

I am noting this removal here in case this is controversial at all and will link to this in the edit summary. The content was added in January 2020 and here is the diff for its addition. It may be potentially relevant for the dedicated Sinéad O'Connor SNL page that was created (Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live) but I'll leave that for others to do if they feel necessary. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)