Talk:Serial (podcast)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MaddyDesASU.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome, and a note about copyright violations

Hello User:167.115.115.2 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page Serial (podcast), do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on copyright and Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

I've also left a note on your IP's talk page. Please do not hesitate to ask questions. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Hae Min Lee

Should there be a separate page for the Murder of Hae Min Lee and not just the podcast? Remember (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be useful. RealDealBillMcNeal added the paragraph summarizing the case, and there seems to be enough material published at the time in the Baltimore Sun to expand and support a separate article. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Baltimore Sun articles I've used as sources in the main article are the only six reports of the murder made at the time. Everything else out there is because of this podcast. There's probably not enough information independent of the podcast to create the article solely on those sources, so I wouldn't deem it a necessary creation. But, if the article is created, I personally wouldn't object so long as it was greatly sourced and written outside of it's existence within the Serial sphere. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I support creating a new article for the murder. I think the recent media coverage, even when ignoring the Serial podcast, makes it not only notable in 1999 but notable now too. Lugevas (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The article has been created at Murder of Hae Min Lee Lugevas (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Slate blog and Reddit post

Klute, that Slate blogs have been rubber-stamped by Slate does not sound like an editorial policy that includes fact verification. It also ignores that Waldman's statement, "Serial drew criticism for painting what some felt was an inappropriately glowing portrait of Adnan Syed while undercutting his detractors" links to a Reddit post that is not a reliable source, as anyone can post comments on the Reddit site. Please follow Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. Regards, Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Eugene,

I'm sorry, but I really do not agree with your removal of my link. I think that a blog that is officially published and endorsed by an outlet like Slate is not the same as some random blog. This article was published directly on the Slate site. I do not agree that it does not qualify as a source. What do we do now?

Klute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klute (talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(moved from Grand'mere Eugene's talk page)

Dear Klute,

While I still have reservations about the Slate blog as a reliable source, I take your point. I found a relevant Wikipedia policy : "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). I have added a tagline for Slate's Katy Waldman to the text. The reasons for this policy have to do with the legal liability for Wikipedia when opinions are presented related to living people — the reliable sources policy urges, "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine."

I also think the Atlantic discussion you cited deserves some article space, and have added text there.

A few more pointers for you: first, discuss issues related to disagreements about article content on the article's talk page to keep the process open to all interested editors. Second, please use citation templates to insert references rather than inserting bare URLs to help prevent the loss of citations with link rot.

Third, if you are the person who originally posted the revision with the Slate citation from an IP address, please be aware your last revision would be a third revert, considered edit warring, which could result in a block on your account/IP address.

Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=372577482. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Negative Reaction Sources

Can we get better sources of criticism than Buzzfeed and The Awl? Maybe we can trim those sources and leave up the Atlantic's until something better comes along. Jbmcb (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the BuzzFeed and The Awl criticisms could be trimmed a bit. Jbmcb, would you be willing to give it a go? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So... What exactly is it?

The opening sentence to this article is incredibly vague: "Serial is a podcast exploring a nonfiction story over multiple episodes." How exactly does one "explore" a story? The article needs to explain clearly what the format of this show is. Is it a documentary? Is it a docudrama? Does it have a script? Is there dialogue? Is there a presenter? Are there interviews? What makes it a serial? --86.157.145.21 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is vague, and somewhat confusing. "Serial is a podcast exploring a nonfiction story over multiple episodes." initially gives the impression that Serial is a type of podcast. While that is cleared up in the next few sentences, I think it could be rephrased more clearly, e.g. "Serial is a true crime podcast produced by Sarah Koenig. It was first released in October 2014 as a spinoff of the radio program This American Life." Or something similar. I'm also confused by the line that states the Peabody Award is "the first of its kind." What does that even mean? The first for a podcast? Did they make a new category? If that's the case it should state that, but otherwise I think it should just say that it won a Peabody.

Lucasfredericks (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for these observations. I've revised the lead and added info on the Peabody award to the "Reception" section in an effort to make the language a bit clearer. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"biweekly"?

I just looked at the definition of this word, and it states "appearing or taking place every two weeks or twice a week". To avoid ambivalence, can I suggest you use "fortnightly"?46.7.85.68 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "fortnightly" is not a term commonly used in the states. We are "two nations separated by a common language", but I do agree that "biweekly" could be misinterpreted. I've made a couple of edits using "every other week" to clarify the publishing timeframe. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Reception discussion

Looking at the current section on the reception of the first season, I think it is a bit heavy on content and may need to be trimmed down due to the second season's reception lacking as of now. I'm aiming to add a 'Season 2' reception section, but would like to tackle 'Season 1' first. Right now the season one subsection has almost 30 references to numerous critiques, which seems a little excessive. What's the best way to proceed in determining which critiques are most helpful in representing its overall reception to trim it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beifong3 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both observations, that the first season's critical reception may be heavy on content and we need a section for the second season. But rather than remove very much of the section on the first season's reception, I think we may need to split out the two seasons' episode summary tables as separate articles, like The Good Wife, with a brief summary of the entire season and a separate article on each season with the table of individual episode summaries. See Summary style. I have questions, though, about whether it's important/possible to preserve the edit history if the tables are spun off to separate articles? I'm hoping for advice from more experienced editors and admins. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm following --it makes sense to have two separate articles that could go in-depth for the different seasons, not sure how naming them would go -- Serial (podcast, season 1)/Serial (podcast, season 2) or Serial (season 1)/Serial (season 2), other? -- And would this current article still remain to broadly cover Serial, how it was started and generally received? Or just move all the information from this current article and split into two new ones? Beifong3 (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If we follow the pattern on other media pages like The Good Wife, I think we would need to modify the existing page by moving the Episodes sections of both seasons and the Season 1 Reception section to 2 new pages, probably Serial (podcast, season 1)/Serial (podcast, season 2). On the original page, then we would need to write 2 higher level (broader and shorter) summaries to replace the current sections, Episodes and Reception. So the original article would include statements under the Episodes and Reception headings redirecting to the new articles, followed by overviews of the entire season episodes and a briefer summary of the reception. The second season article would need the new section with more detailed description of relevant reviews. I did discover, too, the instructions for preserving the history by including links in the edit summaries tying the old with the new. And-- do we need other editors to weigh in, working toward consensus? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I can start gathering relevant reviews for a new Season 2 reception section that I will start compiling in a user sandbox. Then move on to this article to help organize the information before it is broken up into different articles to help start. But yes, I feel that these situations are heavily weighed in on to reach a consensus beforehand, but looking into how it should happen procedurally, apparently splitting an article can can be done without a vote if one wants to "be bold" --Wikipedia:Splitting#procedure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beifong3 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Break with Michelle Wolf on Netflix Parody

Oblique reference maybe not worth mentioning?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ0W92w5WCU&feature=youtu.be&t=3m8s ("The Husband Did It")

"Honor killing"?

In the Season 1 episode 10 description the prosecution case is characterised as an "honor killing". An honor killing is actually carried out by a member of the victim's family, which implicates Hae Min Lee's family in her murder, please see the Wikipedia entry. Likely an honest mistake, but it is misleading and unfortunately bolsters some ignorant/prejudiced misunderstandings. Also it is never actually suggested by Serial. Perhaps instead of this: "The prosecution argued that Syed's community would help him flee to Pakistan if bail were granted, using stereotypes to make the case that Syed murdered Lee as an honor killing." It could instead say: "The prosecution argued that Syed's community would likely help him flee to Pakistan if bail were granted, (they were later forced to admit the pattern they described did not actually exist) and during trial made suggestions that Syed murdered Lee as religiously motivated killing by a lover with "honor besmirched"." Personally I think this change is factual and so should not be controversial, but with this case that can be hard to predict, so for now I'm leaving this here rather than start an edit war. Also my clunky re-write can probably be improved on :) StopSayingRight (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, StopSayingRight, I agree that the description is currently misleading, as the prosecutors did not overtly make the case for an honor killing, but Koenig did link the word "besmirched" with stereotypical beliefs about Pakistan: "...It’s a word from the old country where honor killings come from." I'll edit the ref to honor killings, using part of the wording you suggest above. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Series Overview: Season 1 (2014)

I think we could add a little more information in the Season 1 (2014) section. The article states, "Her corpse was discovered on February 9 in Leakin Park... Lee's ex-boyfriend, Adnan Masud Sayed, was arrested on February 28 at 6 am." Although it is a brief overview, it leaves the reader wondering what led authorities to suspect Syed in the first place. The anonymous caller giving a tip that the police should look at Syed should be mentioned at the least to connect the instance from when Hae is found to when Adnan is arrested. MaddyDesASU (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, a brief sentence to that effect would help. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

HBO Documentary: The Case Against Adnan Syed

It would be good to mention the news of a new documentary coming out in March of 2019 based off of the Serialpodcast Season 1. The documentary will be in four parts and looks like it will provide more updated information about the case. MaddyDesASU (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Go for it! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Season 3 Summaries

I noticed that the summaries for Season 1 and Season 2 episodes are pretty detailed but the summaries for Season 3 seem to be a bit short and include only the information provided in the short description that comes out as the podcast is released. I think this needs to be more detailed like the previous two seasons. MaddyDesASU (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely! But then, I wrote most of the summaries for Seasons 1 and 2. I haven't listened yet to Season 3, so please feel free to make more detailed summaries.

A second issue is whether the detailed summaries for each season need to be moved to separate pages, as was briefly discussed above. That wouldn't be too difficult, but I'd like to see more of a consensus before acting on it. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I added some brief summaries for Season 3 with more details about the episodes. I am sure they could use more information eventually to be up to par with Season 1 and 2 but then again, the episodes are all individual stories unlike the season prior.

I do not think moving the summaries to a separate page would be a bad idea but with only three seasons, I don't know that there would be much content. Thanks for your feedback! MaddyDesASU (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Need more eyes at Murder of Hae Min Lee

Need more watchers at the page linked in the title, please.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Why?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There was an edit war. It's over, at least for now.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Awards

Is anyone opposed to me creating an awards table in the reception section like 2 Dope Queens, Timber Wars, or WTF with Marc Maron? As it stands the few awards that are mentioned are scattered throughout the page. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Good idea! Be BOLD... and thanks! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Finally got around to this. There were quite a few awards that weren't even mentioned in the artivle yet. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Serial Productions

According to Sarah Koenig's latest short update on the podcast feed, Serial the podcast is hers, but members of her team also work under the group Serial Productions, which includes related podcasts like

• S-Town
• The Coldest Case in Laramie
• Nice White Parents
• The Trojan Horse Affair
• The Kids of Rutherford County
• The Retrievals
• We Were Three

I am wondering what the appropriate way to list Serial Productions on Wikipedia is.

1) Does it need its own page?

2) Should it be a section of Serial?

3) Or should the "related podcasts" section of this page just be re-written to include two groups: (A) Podcasts about the case from season 1 (Undisclosed and so on) and (B) Serial Productions podcasts (as listed above). Mccartneyac (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)