text:
Talk:Coronation Street/Archive 1

Coronation of Edward VII in 1911?
The Coronation of Edward VII in 1911? After he'd just died? I think not! Deb 23:52 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Opps. should read 1902. JTD 00:14 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Much of the early history is left out
Much of the early history is left out. Ena and Elsie, the backbone of the story for many years, is hardly even mentioned. Julie Goodyear is most definitely not there, and what would Corrie be without Bet? TheCustomOfLife 03:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Soap?
The article says that Granada claims this is the longest running soap opera. When I worked there, admittedly a long time ago, the companyn always said that the Street was NOT a soap opera.
 * The producers are splitting hairs. Soap opera is a (slang, I guess) common term for on-going television serial with a story that could potentially go forever. And this is exactly what Coronation Street is. Drama serial might be a less slangy term for the same thing. I doesn't matter what the producers claim, the show fits the formula of what is commonly referred to as soap opera. Asa01 01:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Images
I now added screencaptures from my own collection to the article. Please tell me what you think either here or on my talk page; both are preferable. Mike H 17:27, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think they illustrate the article just great, but the aspect ratio seems to be out. Mintguy (T)

 * I know. I am not sure how to fix that. The aspect ratio for the material was widescreen. Mike H 04:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * Widescreen is 16:9, these images are 720*480, which is 3:2. 16:9 == 48:21 and 3:2 == 48:32. So if you maintain the width and correct the height you should make the new height  480/32*21 = 315. (65% of the original) This is assuming that you did a full capture from the 16:9 source. Mintguy (T)

 * I am so not aware of what I did. I believe I used the "capture how it looks" option and not the correct dimensions. It was a couple of weeks ago...I think I did it this way so I wouldn't have to see black bars. Mike H 21:07, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * Fixed. Lupin 16:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Lupin: When you "fixed the firefox bug" you made the images align horizontally where previously they were done vertically. I've changed the sectioning and positioning of the pictures entirely now and I hope they still look OK in firefox. violet/riga (t) 16:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Wait a minute, though...how come all these images are widescreen when the soap didn't go widescreen until (I think) 2002? BillyH 01:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It was a clip show in widescreen. Mike H 01:52, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Transsexual
Just adding as a reference, before anyone changes that section...the way it is now (and, I'm assuming, Lupin made it so) is correct: Hayley was the first transsexual on a British soap. The first transsexual on American soaps was Azure C. on The City in 1996. Mike H 00:02, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ken Barlow
Shouldn't Ken be included in the list of long-running characters? After all, he is the longest ever. User:Chewyman

 * This is something that can be easily rectified by being bold. Mike H 20:05, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Tea lady
What's a tea lady? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:33, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Someone who serves tea. Unless I'm horribly mistaken. Mike H 04:47, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ratings
I can't seem to find much talk of ratings. I believe Eastenders and Coronation Street are the most viewed programmes in an average week, attracting 15 to 20 million viewers. I don't have any figures except for those from memory, but it would be good to see some included, as 20 million viewers in a country of 60 million does a good job of illustrating Coronation Street's significance. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What?
For many years, CBC affiliate CBKST in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan was recognized by the Guinness Book of Records for buying the rights to air more than 2,000 episodes of the series.

I don't understand this sentence. It isn't phrased correctly or something. Mike H 18:52, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * It refers to the "Most TV Episodes Sold" record which can be found in the 2002 edition of Guinness World Records. The numbers in the statement are wrong however, which I will change.--Lucky13pjn 02:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Page too large
This page is 40 kb long. That's waaay over the 30 kb page size advocated by wikipedia. Please condense the matter. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 19:56, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * The only section to be taken out really would be the "Most controversial storylines" part. Storylines from Coronation Street is a possibility, but I think it's OK if it stays as it is (it's a featured article and doesn't need messing with).
 * I agree with Nichalp, it's gotten too long. Had it been this long when we voted on whether it should have been a FAC, there's a fair chance it would have been rejected on that basis. Nor do I agree that only one bit can be taken to a subpage - there are many more complicated subjects that can keep articles below 32kb. jguk 22:07, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * There is only one bit that I can see that could be taken out - the others are too short to make a real difference and too short to warrant articles. violet/riga (t) 22:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It was this long during voting, actually. There was a complaint that not enough history was written, so I wrote as much as there is now. It passed through. So, no, it would not have been rejected because it wasn't rejected. Mike H 01:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Aren't you pushy. Is there any special reason why you're ordering other people to condense the matter? Why aren't you helping? Mike H 01:26, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is directed at Nichalp or me. But I'm not ordering, just advising. I've already helped by trimming down Adolf Hitler (which has already grown a bit larger and will need repruning soon) and September 11, 2001 attacks. It takes time to prune without removing info from Wikipedia, and there's only so much time anyone's going to put in to it. jguk 06:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * To clarify: this was not directed at you. :-) Mike H 11:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

October 2005
This page is getting very messy and far from the high standard it previously was. It is becoming a dumping ground for trivia (usually based on recent characters): it looks like an entire website squeezed into one page. I really think we could lose some sections: either by creating seperate articles, or losing them altogether. The 'Disasters on the Street' scetion is one long section I'd like out of the main article, somehow. The JPS 17:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The villains section can also go. There should really be daughter articles based on history of the show, not unlike what's on As the World Turns. Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * For reference, this is what the article looked like on Oct 7 2004 - the day it was a Feature Article. The JPS 19:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've moved the Criminals section to Talk:Coronation Street/Wrongdoers and criminals, rather than completely delete it. We might be able to salvage some of it. Yes, I see what you mean about the structure of As the World Turns. At least that way we can automatically move the infatuation with contemporary storylines and characters into the relevant daughter article, to keep the main article clean. The JPS 19:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

January 2006
The page is now 87Kb in size (nearly 3 times as long as it should be.)

Here are some of my suggestions for reducing it:

 * 1) In Characters and characterisations, move and reorganise all the text to List of characters from Coronation Street except for a short paragraph to say not much more than that there have been hundreds of characters and only Ken's been there since the beginning. Tony Slattery should also be added to notable guest stars, I expect.
 * 2) Humour: move to separate article at Humour in Coronation Street. Indeed some of this can just be moved to Fred's article.
 * 3) Major events on the Street: move to separate article at Coronation Street timeline (or similar.)
 * 4) Scheduling: move to separate article at Coronation Street scheduling (or similar.)

Any thoughts? If people are happy then I will do some of the work myself, although as I'm quite busy I can't promise to do all of it! Essexmutant 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No responses in 2 weeks... may I presume that no one has any objections to me trimming the page down, as described above? Essexmutant 15:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Go ahead. This article needs to look better. Try to use the October 2004 version as a model. Mike H. That's hot 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Update - humour article now created (see link above). Essexmutant 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd update - timeline article now created (see link above). Essexmutant 13:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Alf Roberts
I remember reading somewhere that the character of Alf Roberts was remodeled in later years to be reminiscient of the father of Margaret Thatcher, who was also a grocer named Alf Roberts. Can someone research this and tell me if it's true? Mike H 23:17, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

er no. Alf Roberts was her father, only a different one altogether, resident in Grantham. Sjc 15:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Controversies with actors
Should we add a section dealing with controversies with the actors. From cocaine (bye bye Dev) to alcoholism (Norman Watts) to allegations of paedophilia (Len Fairclough), they've had them all. What do others reckon? jguk 23:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think there is place for it, but perhaps not in the article in its current state. Perhaps they would best be in the individual actors' articles.  violet/riga (t) 23:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've never heard these accusations before. I don't live in England so I don't read the tabloid papers there. Anyway, I don't see why not, but be sure to mention that Doris Speed, who played dear Annie Walker, lied about her age for years, and then when it was published, she publicly fainted, necessitating her departure from the programme. Another actress who lied about her age was Barbara Knox. Mike H 00:04, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hayley as a long-established character
The Street has had many long-established characters, and I don't think Hayley is one of them. When I think of long-established, I think at least before 1990, so that's why I thought the McDonalds would be a nice ending point for that criterion. Mike H 17:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Emmerdale
I reverted the previous IP's edits; Corrie's ratings rival is no longer EastEnders...for the last year or so, it has been Emmerdale on ITV1. Until EastEnders reaches their old ratings highs, it should probably stay this way. Mike H 19:26, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 16:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * A lot of these references come from the episodes themselves. Would you like us to cite episode numbers and such? Mike H 17:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Never mind; I've cited the television specials and books that have helped me in the process. Mike H 15:22, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Corrie's rivalvry with the BBC
Hi,

I thought instead of editing it I would perhaps suggest what is wrong with this section.

It was in the mid to late 80's when EastEnders and Brookside came along that saw the major criticism being aimed at Coronation Street, not so much 1990's. Mainly for the reasons that you have given, both EastEnders and Brookside were seen as modern, fresh soaps that made Coronation Street look out of touch. It was also in the 80's when EastEnders first overtook Coronation Street in the ratings war. In the 90's that you speak of EastEnders did have perhaps some of the most memorable storylines on TV but things were pretty much even between both Coronation Street and EastEnders. If I remember correctly Coronation Street had modernised itself by the set extension such as new houses on the otherside. Whatever way as I see both of the soaps had there fair share of good storylines, EastEndes tended to attract higher audience figures at the peak of a storyline compared to Coronation Street.

By the late 90's EastEnders had taken a bit of a dull with the unpopular itallian Di Marco family, who were later axed. It wasn't until the appointment of the highly experienced producer Matthew Robinsion and then John Yorke's arrival that EastEnders dominated the ratings again. So to say "by the early 21st century" is incorrect. EastEnders was enjoying one of its most successful periods with peaks of over 20 million viewers, this was around 2000 - 2002 and saw EastEnders beat Coronation Street in the ratings for the first time.

During this 2000 - 2002 Coronation Street possibly faced its worst bad patch under the producer Jane McNaught, with storylines such as Toyah's rape, Alison and Kevin, Freshco's freezer death, Janice and Dennis and the 40th annivesary episode in which residents 'saved the cobbles'. At this time it was even hinted that Coronation Street would be axed.

Kieron Roberts took over as the producer and in late 2002 Coronation Street managed to turn the corner, particularly with the help of the long running Richard Hillman saga.

The title of the article is on the rivalvry with the BBC, yet an entire paragraph is dedicated to that of EastEnders, there is actually more information than there is of why Coronation Street became popular in 2002 - 2005 onwards or the type of storylines in the 80's. You even mention that a tabloid suggested EastEnders was within 48 hours of being dropped altogether (which, however is wrong, it was suggested they did not have enough scripts to keep the show going that it would need to be pulled for a short while) yet what does this have to do with Coronation Street? Coronation Street is not to blame for the downfall of EastEnders, it may be its rival but they do not go against each other competing - the downfall is due to those responsible for EastEnders. It is the type of talk which fuels such an on-going war between them driven by the public tabloids.

You then go to mention that Emmerdale is now the rival (again incorrect, look at the latest figures - you will see EastEnders is right behind Coronation Street) but what does this has to do with the rivalry of the BBC? You then talk about EastEnders and Emmerdale going head to head (which actually wasn't unthinkable a decade ago, Emmerdale had often been in the hourly slot attracting similar viewers to that of EastEnders) but again nothing to do with Corrie's rivalvy with the BBC.

There is little talk of an ACTUAL rivalvry with the BBC but rather just 'ITV Soaps rivalvry with the BBC', which is also rather one sided. Why not do some research about how the BBC put Doctor Who against Coronation Street - using it as an excuse to kill the programme off? Or when flagship show - Top Of the Pops - was moved against Corrie? Or what BBC1 has in its schedule against Coronation Street?

I really cannot see how the section itself is justified, the BBC itself is a public organisation - it doesn't set out to rival Corrie, when you mention the BBC - you speak for it as a whole, its radio stations and all of its television channels.

I will await your response but I think the section really needs re-working or just made part of another section.

--EastEnders the great 18:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category for Coronation Street actors?

 * Does anyone else think a good idea would be rather to have a list of all cast members in the Coronation Street cast page (linked in this page), that a 'Category:Coronation Street actors' could be made similar to the one for EastEnders, so that pages for the actors could have that category included? Also I've recently created pages for Corrie cast members Maggie Jones, Sue Cleaver, Debra Stephenson, Margi Clarke, Sue Jenkins, Jane Danson and Patricia Cutts if anyone wants to have a look and add anything extra they know. Well done to everyone here for making this one of the featured articles. -- Candice 00:47, 25th August 2005 (UTC)
 * I made the category Trampikey 09:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Martin adopting Nick
Did Martin really adopt Nick? I remember that there was some stipulation Ivy put on Gail...something involving Nick not being allowed in her will if he changed his last name from Tilsley. Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Martin did adopt Nick, but he changed his name back to Tilsley in order to benefit from Ivy's will. Trampikey 09:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Disasters on the Street
In 1971, Valerie Barlow was electrocuted in her home.

Was she electrocuted by a faulty hair dryer plugged into an overloaded socket?

 * Faulty hairdryer. I don't think it was overloaded. The hairdryer was just faulty. IIRC, Valerie knew the hairdryer had problems and tried to use it anyway. Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Please provide more detail on the disasters.

For example: "On February 12, 1993, Lisa Duckworth was hit and killed by a car." Do we know who the driver was?

"Ernie Bishop was shot in a failed wages robbery on January 11, 1978." Where did this take place? Again, we need to provide more details, if possible.

 * Ernie Bishop was working for Mike Baldwin, and was shot in an office at Baldwin's factory. Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Tracey Barlow
I just wanted to point out Tracey Barlow was first seen in 1978 and has been seen ever since with only a seven yaer break (1997 to 2003, I think). So why isnt she on the long established charecters list? Febuary 16, 2006

Screen captures
I managed to do some screen captures of material just released on Region 1 DVD, and I've added them to the article (Rovers set in 1970, Elsie's marriage to Alan). Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I Want To Break Free?
Should the Queen music video I Want To Break Free be mentioned, it does have a link in it to here... Billvoltage

Mr. Wong Redirect??
Does anybody know why the article "Mr_Wong" redirects here? Ckamaeleon ((T)) 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Because "Mr Wong" isn't notable enough to merit his own article? Mike H. That's hot 00:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is he a character in Coronation Street? (I really don't know...I'm not familiar with the series). Seems like a name like that would merit a disambig page @ the very least. I wondered if perhaps it wasn't just random weirdness/vandalism..but now I see that you set up the redir. Anyway, I was looking for another article (on the controversial Mr. Wong flash cartoons) when I was redirected here and I didn't see any mention of a Mr. Wong in the Coronation St. Article (though I didn't really read carefully). If you're going to redirect directly to this article it seems like you should mention him in the target article. Thanks for responding so quickly, though. Ckamaeleon ((T)) 04:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * You can create your own redirect by clicking on the little Mr Wong link you see at the top when you're redirected to the Coronation Street article. From there, you will see the raw redirect and you can edit a new page from there. Ask me again if you need any more help. Ta! Mike H. That's hot 04:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I know how to do a redir... I just wanted to ask before doing it. As I understand, you're suggesting that I just change the redirect...or shall I create disambig page? Ckamaeleon ((T)) 05:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I would do that, or just create a new article about the flash videos. Mr Wong as a Coronation Street character fails notability to get an article completely on its own. Mike H. That's hot 06:22, 16 March 2006

(UTC)

Stupid nicknames
I have never in my life heard anybody refer to Coronation Street as either 'Coro St', 'Corra', 'CS' or 'Corruption Street'. This section is absolute nonsense.

In Australasia (New Zealand) especially, "Coro St" is widely used as a nickname for the programme. John Thompson 23:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I've heard "Corra" used on message boards, but that's just a rough variant on "Corrie" and is probably redundant. I do need to see a citation for "Corruption Street." Mike H. That's hot 04:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I've heard "Coro St" as well - I will add this back to the article (see second comment). LBM 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I'm sorry but this lately added section of the article is completely ridiculous. The first three paragraphs have a string of grammatical errors such as to be barely comprehensible and the fourth paragraph is total forum hearsay.

Portion of a sentence
"and, according to the people who make it" — what does that mean? Could we get a copy-editor in here? This is from the very first sentence, which should be perfect. —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The line seems very odd. I have removed it for now. LBM 17:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Salverland
Why cant my imaginary nation of Salverland be on this page.
 * Wikipedia is a collection of facts, rather than imagination. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats true. This ius an encyclopedia about fact not imagination. matt wilson 02:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

some guy is deleting my work.putting his own. It is rather annoying, and he seems to be ignoring me. I do not want to be accused of vandalism but can some warn him about deleting other peoples work without asking--Mechanismtongs 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Coronation Street VHS and DVD releases
I've plit th esection about video and DVD releases into a separate article (Coronation Street VHS and DVD releases) and have expanded it. Does anyone have the Network DVDs? If you do, the episodes need completing. The JPS talk to me  15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Big Edit
I feel that the Coronation Street page on Wikipedia needs a massive overhaul as it now seems to have become a dumping ground for irrelevant information.

I am in no way a Wikipedia Expert and I sincerely hope that my edits haven't upset others. My main changes and additions are as follows;

I have split the existing discussion of Coronation Street's physical history and its sets into two sections -
 * "Weatherfield life - the changing face of Coronation Street"
 * "Coronation Street - the sets"

The information contained in these sections remains very much the same, with slight elaborations and expansions in parts. I have removed a lot of areas where points were repeated. I believe that the sections allow the article to flow more coherently from one to another, also with better distinction between "fact" and "fiction".

I have cut down the "Long Established Characters" section to include only Character Name, Actor Name and Date of first appearance. The section was quite frankly filled with too much information. The Wikipedia pages for each character are more than substantial.

I uploaded some photographs of the sets which have now been listed for deletion. Any help with correct copyright tagging would be massively appreciated as I think that they make the page. Ben 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Concise and Comprehensive history of Coronation Street
Further to my initial edits, I would like views on further development of the page.

I would propose 5 sections to briefly cover each decade, hopefully being kept to around 250 words for size-purposes.

I would keep the "1960s kitchen-sink drama" section relatively unchanged, with removal of certain pieces of information which could be deemed to be irrelevant to the "bigger picture".

I would also consider revision of character lists, guest appearances and trivia sections. This page is undoubtedly a hugely popular port-of-call for the Internet community to find information about Coronation Street, but I don't think that at the moment this article does the reader, Wikipedia or Coronation Street any justice.

Ben 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or follow the structure of As the World Turns because of size and management. The JPS talk to me  18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits
Reverted all edits prior to anything I had done. Waste of my time. Ben 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? You were beginning to make some good contributions. The JPS talk to me  00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability
I'm all for verifiability. But it seems a little ridiculous to ask for verification of whether the Prince of Wales is a fan of the programme when it is an easily documented fact that he has appeared on it in a walk-on role. Must we really find a press quotation citing his enjoyment of the show? HRH can do pretty much as he wishes; it is unlikely that he would take the time to appear on a television programme which he despised. Rlquall 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's an obvious source - Google leads to for example, then there's no reason not to include it. Essexmutant 16:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In the businesses section:
Shouldn't Kevin's garage be included as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.134.41 (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:Coronation Street/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Reality television

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juliestein016.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vuongc3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Break out Reality competition shows?
This section seems rather lengthy, and although it needs citations, there are plenty of books and articles on the shows in this format. It could stand as its own article. bd2412 T 02:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sub-genre: Youth Audience
I'd like to add a sub-genre section titled "Youth audience," which would examine the appeal of reality television for young people and point to a few programs across the world that have marketed to this specific demographic. Take a look at my Sandbox page. I'd love suggestions as I continue working on this! Jesswalther (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bias in Criticism Section
2000 WAS CHANGED TO 200458757 AT 6:34 There appears to be bias in favor of reality tv in the criticism section. For example, it's only portrayed positively in the "as a substitute for scripted drama section", ignoring the frequent criticism of it lacking any artistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.6.22.12 (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Feel free to find such criticism, from notable sources, and add it in - I think it would improve the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What about it's genesis as a scheme to defraud the unions? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53032-2004Aug9.html

Biofuel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed split
This article is over 100k, and is difficult to navigate through because of its size. Dividing the criticism of reality television (because there's certainly plenty of that) would not only supply a well-sized article, but would bring this article down to a much more comfortable length. Thoughts? (We may later determine that further splitting will become necessary, like separating history into a new page). WikiRedactor (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely agree with this. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 * That sounds like a good idea. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. This article is definitely too long, and encompasses multiple subjects. bd2412  T 14:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Constructed or structured reality TV
From The Guardian on 1 June 2011:

''The inexorable rise of constructed reality television was boosted last week when ITV2's The Only Way is Essex took home Bafta's YouTube Audience Award, beating the likes of Downton Abbey, Miranda and Sherlock to the prize. As the canny director at the ceremony cut to a close-up of Martin Freeman, the actor's expression spoke volumes about the television establishment's reaction to a bunch of spray-tanned amateurs waltzing off with a trophy more usually afforded to skilled craftspeople. He wasn't angry with the voting public, just disappointed.''

The term "structured-reality television series" is used in the article "Made In Chelsea".

Should constructed or structured reality TV be added as a section under subgenres or have a separate article?

Rainjar (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing those out. I added information about those two series to the article (as well as about the series that inspired them, Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County), but I didn't add anything about the phrase "constructed reality". I'm not sure what should be done with that term: at the moment it seems to be used by the BAFTA awards but very few others. The main difference between these shows and other reality shows seems to be that the producers of these shows have admitted to doing what the producers of most other reality shows also do, to one extent or another, but won't admit to. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose Merging Criticism of reality television with reality television to create an article with a stronger NPOV and avoid giving undue weight to any topics. the Criticism article has 9 Sections I suggest a merger as follows:

This merger would not be difficult, the result will be a better artile with a stronger NPOV. Any feedback, suggestion, or assistance with the moves would be appreciated :) Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Section 1 - Reality as a Misnomer - We have a section "Reality as a misnomer" in this article already, we can easily merge the two together.
 * Section 2 - There is a section "Political and cultural impact" saying that this section is "Negative" makes it a judgement call. what is a good impact what is a bad impact? what if it inspires people to wear short shorts more is that positive or negative? having one section for all impacts is best then we can let the reader make the decision if the impacts are good or bad.
 * Section 3 - Union Critique of Reality TV - this can create a new section "Labor Relations" if it grows enough we can spin it out into an article "Labor in Television" or something.
 * Section 4 - Product Placement - this can go in "Analysis"
 * Section 5 - Undeserved Celebrity - This can go in the "analysis" section since the concept of "instant celebrity" is covered there.
 * Section 6 - Spectacle of Humiliation - this can go in the "analysis" section it would fit there very nicely.
 * Section 7 - Participation of Children - This can create its own section. If the content grows so much we can look at a spin off article "Children in Reality TV" Since a lot of shows target, or have kids in them this is a rich subject that's not in the main article.
 * Section 8 - See Also - The See also section can be merged with the See also section here pretty easily. if there are too many we can look at delisting the excess.
 * Section 9 - References -Can be merged with the reference section clearly.

 * You may not be aware of it, but the "Criticism" article was spun off in September 2013 to try to keep the size of this article more manageable - see two sections above this one. Since then, both articles have increased in size; the main and "Criticism" article are now at 115KB and 35KB, respectively, and if they were merged the article would be at roughly 150KB. I think that's too much, and spinning off the criticism seems like a good solution. I think it's turned out fine; both articles seem fairly evenhanded (I'm curious if you think the bias here is pro-reality television or anti-). Do you have another idea for how to keep the article manageable? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Korny, first thank you for the background on the article I appreciate it :) I agree that we can't let articles get forever long. but I do think the article "Reality TV" is lacking perspective and sources since we have effectively banned criticism from it. I would like to pose a juxtaposition between two articles. Criticism of reality television and Film criticism when I look at Film criticism I can see that the topic is the criticism, it talks in general terms about the different types of criticism ( the article isn't perfect but it illustrates the point ) when I look at "Criticism of reality tv" I see a list of very specific reality tv criticisms that are information lacking here in this article. that's why merging "Film Criticism" and "Film" would make no sense, both articles can stand on their own. "Reality television" is missing a true NPOV by excluding the content in "criticism of reality tv" I think the two together would make a great article. now that being said, you are right that it would be too long. we will have to create a subtopic or two. I propose a few ideas we could create an article "Children in Reality TV" which could have the history of kids in reality tv, criticisms about it, controversies over labor, etc. another possible article is "Reality television labor" where different information on this topic can exist. another great article could be "Reality Television Controversies" this is a great article because whenever we right a "contra" versy it is nearly impossible to NOT write both sides. here's a typical narrative for a controversy. Party A did this, Party B felt this. both sides show up, its very easy to write controversy NPOV ( oddly enough ) We can manage the length and NPOV but we have to make NPOV our polestar and guide us. Bryce Carmony (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * The "Film criticism" example is not relevant here because that's a different meaning of "criticism". I agree that spinning off criticism is not ideal, but I haven't seen a better idea - and the two suggestions you give, of splitting off "children" and "labor", wouldn't work because they're only about a paragraph each. If you want to rename "Criticism of reality television" to "Reality television controversies", go ahead - though I don't see that it would make a difference to the content. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference of meaning is the example Korny :) That "Film Criticism" is a good article. and we agree that "Criticism spin offs" are not ideal. Here's why I think a "Reality televeision contraversies" article would be better than "Criticism of reality television", here's how we write a criticism:

 * Ward drobe handling = Some shows, such as Survivor, do not allow the participants to wear clothing of their own choosing while on camera, to promote the participants' wearing of "camera-friendly colors" and to prevent the participants from wearing the same style and/or color of clothing. Additionally, some prohibited clothing with corporate logos.[6] ( How is this a "criticism" no one is giving the criticism, we as wikipedia are just writing 'hey look at this, definitly this is worth criticizing' )

this is how we would write a controversy article:

 * Some shows, such as Survivor, do not allow the participants to wear clothing of their own choosing while on camera, to promote the participants' wearing of "camera-friendly colors" and to prevent the participants from wearing the same style and/or color of clothing. Additionally, some prohibited clothing with corporate logos.[6] ( Clearly we see this is controversial. ) we could throw in a link or two to the "rules" cites of different reality tv shows to reference the chose-your-own-clothing ban. and then we can source any criticism as the opposing view. It is nearly impossible to write a controversy without having both sides. for example here's me trying to do so (Germany invaded poland, they fought, they lost the war ) it's difficult to do that, Controveries naturally create a both sides narrative.

There are over 520 articles with "Controversy" in the title. and only 150 with "Criticism of" in the title. I think deep in the wisdom of the masses we see that "Contorversy" is a better article that "Criticism of" ( which IMO is unencyclapedic since I've never seen "Criticism of x" in anything but Wikipedia. ) I know this was a long response I am not the best at getting my point across, but I think it makes sense Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I didn't fully understand this, but if you want to rename the "Criticism" article, and/or rewrite any of it, go ahead. And if you want to discuss any of those changes ahead of time, I would think that article's talk page is the place to do it. Then after that, I guess you can rename the other 150 articles. :) Korny O'Near (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't do the best job of explaining it Korny, lol it is a little more than just renaming. I dropped the merger proposal and appreciate you participating in the discussion, we're lucky to have you here at Wikipedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reality show with scripted portions
See Talk:Bering_Sea_Gold. Someone argued that "Reality TV shows are a genre unto themselves, and the "scripted" portions of them have become an understood to exist element." An interesting thought. In my opinion anything with scripted elements doesn't deserve the name "reality show". Otherwise the "reality" in "reality show" would become a misnomer. Anyway, either the article on Bering_Sea_Gold needs to be altered to not call it a reality show or this article needs to be rewritten to blur the line between scripted and reality shows and allow for scripted portions. But then where does one draw the line? As The World Turns as a reality show with scripted portions? PizzaMan (♨♨) 09:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 * This article already covers in depth the ways in which the term "reality television" is a misnomer, including the pre-scripting of some shows. It's certainly interesting, but I don't think it affects usage of the term "reality television". "Reality TV" is a term that refers to a specific range of shows, and is not simply a synonym for "television that depicts real life" - otherwise, talk shows, for instance, would be referred to as reality TV. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes there is indeed a decent paragraph devoted to this. However, such background information is usually not present in the articles about individual reality shows. My question is should we still call them reality shows if it is likely or even proven that there are scripted portions? Talk shows are obviously recorded in a studio with prepared themes, so that's not a good example imho. However if shows with scripted portions are still called reality shows, i honestly see the line getting blurred with soap series. In my country there are such (fully) scripted fake reality shows, complete with interviews with the involved people as if the stuff between the interviews isn't scripted, which the makers reluctantly admit it is. Besides, i think viewers are entitled to know if a show is real or (partly) scripted and that should be represented in the word used to name the type of show. It's a very important and relevant distinction to some (most?) viewers. How could we make the distinction? Perhaps by introducing a term like pseudo-reality shows for the shows with scripted portions? PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I do think the talk show example is a good one: "reality court shows", for example, are considered reality TV even though they also are filmed in a studio and follow preset themes and structures. Reality TV is not just a term for "reality on television". Obviously, if there were a fully scripted, completely contrived show billed as a reality TV show, that would indeed be a gray area, but I'm not aware of such a thing. I don't know of any show, for instance, where someone is presented as having a name or occupation totally different from their real one. Are you saying there are such shows? If so, can you give an example? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I know of several examples in The Netherlands alone. For example Brugklas, a series about kids in the first year of high school. It's meticulously created to suggest that it's reality/documentary, with for example interviews with kids and teachers. But it's really all scripted and acted. There are also two shows of people visiting the psychologist that suggest to be documentary/real but are actually scripted/acted. You propose drawing the line at a show being 100% scripted and acted. Even the actors in totally unrealistic science fiction movies draw upon their real life emotions for acting, and some of the best scenes in movies were improvised to deviate from the script. So you could argue that no movie or show is 100% fake. My point is: viewers should know if a show is 100% documentary or if there are portions that are acted or scripted. And i'm not talking about a (semi-scripted) interview. I'm talking about manipulating the events that take place. For example, in the show Bering Sea Gold, one gold digger sends his employee away, hides a major part of his found gold and then gives the employee his share of the minor part. All on camera, commenting about it while he's doing it. That's obviously not real. I *don't* see the distinction between this and a soap series about gold diggers. I *do* see the distinction between this and a program which portrays the life of real gold diggers as it is, in a documentary style. Observing without (the intention of) changing what you observe. I think we should only call something a reality show if it's a documentary series with no scripted portions and no acting at all. Or at least we should consider shows part of a different genre depending on whether there is acting/scripting. And those genres should have names that are not deceptive. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, scripting is not a great metric for determining the genre, since, as you point out, some fictional movies include a great deal of improvised dialogue. But I think the criteria I suggested at the end, of whether people are presented as having names and/or occupations totally different from their own, might be a reasonable one. By that standard, Brugklas completely fails as a reality TV show - if I understand it correctly, it has professional child actors portraying characters with other names. Some people do indeed call it a reality show, though I don't know why; it very clearly seems to be a (non-comedic) mockumentary instead. As for reality shows with fakery, like Bering Sea Gold (and there are many others), as far as I know, the people on the show are not actors, and they are in fact gold diggers (or whatever it is). That might not be an ideal boundary to set, but it works for me. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional Sources
Here is a list of five additional sources I think would be beneficial to this article:

1. Reiss, Steven. Wiltz, James. “Why America Loves Reality TV,” Psychologytoday.com, Sussex Publishers, September 01, 2001. Web. Feb 17 2016. https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200109/why-america-loves-reality-tv This is an article in the Magazine "Psychology Today" titles "Why America Loves Reality TV" I think this would improve the article because there is a section called "other influences in pop culture," and "appeal" but nothing specific on why Reality TV is so successful and popular, especially in The US

2. “Most Popular Reality TV Shows,” TV.com, CBS Interactive Inc, Web. Feb 17 2016. http://www.tv.com/shows/category/reality/ This is a list of The most popular Reality TV shows. It's a short and simple source but is relevant to adding information to this article because part of this article focuses on "sub-genres." I think we could expand on this information with examples of the most successful sub-genres"

3. “Reality TV- A Bried History”, “Oregonstate.edu,” Oregon State University, Web. Feb 17, 2016. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/soc499/cordray/media/Realitytv.html Here is a scholarly article from The University of Oregon titles "Reality TV- A Brief History." I chose this source because a large chunk of this article is "History" and this source can serve as building material that has already been written. The source also discusses old Reality TV shows as well as their owners, broadcasters and the CEOs of said companies.

4. "Reality Television: Creating a World Where no one is Real,” Wordpress.com, Web. Feb 17 2016. https://anhoward.wordpress.com/the-effect-reality-tv-is-having-on-us-shocking-statistics/ This list titled "Reality Television: Creating a World Where no one is Real" seems bias and opinionated, but is actually a list of compiled facts and statistics pertaining to reality TV. Unbiased facts such as these will make a great additional section to this article.

5. Hazlett, Courtney, “Reality Check for reality TV fans: You’re more neurotic.” Today.com, Nov 9, 2012. Web. Feb 17 2016. http://www.today.com/news/reality-check-reality-tv-fans-youre-more-neurotic-1C7320186 This source, found from TODAY.com discusses personality attributes associated with the liking of reality TV. This article will coincide with my first source, noting the "appeal" and "pop culture influences" on Reality TV.

Juliestein016 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks for compiling this list. I don't think all of these references are usable - #3 seems to be just a paper written by a student, while #4 is a non-notable blog post. Also, #2 is just a list of reality shows, which doesn't seem that useful - there are plenty of those already, including some on Wikipedia itself. That leaves #1 and #5, both of which are interesting, and would add analysis that's not currently in the article. Of the two, I happen to think #5, the Today Show one, is more insightful and better-written. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

proposed lead section edit
In the article “Reality Television,” I would like to write the following content as an addition to the second paragraph:

 * In the mid 2000’s the popularity of competition based reality television series shifted towards a more documentary style, although documentaries are not technically considered a subgenre of reality television. Today, American Idol, The Amazing Race and Face Off, rank as the top three most popular reality television series, documentary style is not lagging far behind. Keeping up with the Kardashians and 19 Kids and counting follow behind and hold the sixth and seventh most popular spots.

I would like to add this information because I want to add a section “Youth Audiences” to the article, and this can be a perfect transition.

Additionally, I want to expand on the article’s section “appeal.” Therefor I will add the following into the end of the existing lead section:

 * In a survey of 19,000 people, the people who actually watched reality TV compared to those who did not were reported to be “more extroverted,” “more neurotic,” and to have lower self-esteem. 70% of reality television watchers are reported to be extroverted compared to only 59% of non-watchers, and 24% of those viewers considered themselves “neurotic” compared to only 14% of non-viewers. Two of the most common misconceptions about reality television viewers are that they watch to be able to talk to friends and coworkers about the shows and that they are less intelligent than other television views. The main appealing aspect of reality television is its competitive nature, which doesn’t quite explain the popularity of shows like Keeping up with the Kardashians, but can attest for shows like Survivor and The Bachelor(ette). The desire for prestige and importance of status are attitudes that can easily separate regular views from others.

Juliestein016 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm not a fan of the first change: first, because the intro is already quite long, second, because I don't know what the source is for describing a shift toward documentary-style shows, and third, because I believe that list on TV.com is ordered by popularity on the site, not popularity in terms of ratings. The second change seems pretty good - it would be especially good to get that first sentence into the article. The rest of the paragraph needs some copy-editing, in any case. And it should probably go into the "Appeal" section, not the intro. Although maybe that's what you meant.
 * On the other hand, feel free to add anything you want into the page - it's a wiki. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation
This article is really written well. I really like organization of your article. The history part was really impressed me. Unlike other articles in Wikipedia world, it was organized by chronologically. Chronological classification helps me to understand whole history. Moreover, I can figure out feature of each period easily. And, you have great lead section. When I read your lead section, I can understand what the reality television is. And then, you have a lot of hyperlinks for difficult words, unfamiliar one and word needs explain. I really like this part too. When I find difficult words or unfamiliar one, I can find it through click. I think that you can add more visual information such as pictures. There are so many paragraphs in your article. Everything is important part for your article. However, most people don’t like read too much paragraphs. People may feel boredom from too much paragraphs. If you add some visual data or images, people can relieve boredom. And then, I checked editing history on your article page. There are many editors on your article. That means that you can get a lot of feedback from Wikipedia community. In my case, my topic is unfamiliar one. There are no editors for me. Just Wikipedia official editors help me for my article. I want to apply active editing for my article. Moreover, article was written from a neutral point of view. References are reliable. Active editing is perfect. Please add your article’s link on your journal assignment. In fact, I can’t find your article from journal #8 which is mentioned by professor. I just was searching Google to find your article. PILJOONG KANG (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reality television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.nytimesknownow.com/index.php/mike-hale/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921055226/http://m.ibtimes.co.uk/kim-kardashian-annulment-marriage-fake-scenes-court-russell-jay-kris-humphries-millions-divorce-446047.html to http://m.ibtimes.co.uk/kim-kardashian-annulment-marriage-fake-scenes-court-russell-jay-kris-humphries-millions-divorce-446047.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511190015/http://www.hollyscoop.com/kim-kardashian/kardashian-family-the-backlash-of-being-overexposed.html to http://www.hollyscoop.com/kim-kardashian/kardashian-family-the-backlash-of-being-overexposed.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

New reference?
Is this source reliable? It gives some examples of "reality" shows that went the extra mile in manipulating things.  PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  05:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Confession room
Why the hell does Confession Room redirect here?? GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Unreality
This genre should be called Unreality television as all these shows are fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5C03:400:7583:4F6C:38BB:7904 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Criticism of reality television into Reality television
WP:CRITS says: "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. (...) Generally, new subarticles should not be devoted to criticism, controversies, or other specific points-of-view – instead sub-articles should focus on topical themes." fgnievinski (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. From the same essay you quoted:"In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." There are plenty of material and sources discussing the subject, and it is way too much for including it all in main article. Some of the critisim section in Reality television, probably could be trimmed and moved to the criticism article imo.
 * Also for note: Article was split after small discussion here on talk page. A merge request that was also discussed also here on talk page. Both these discussion had only a few participants. WikiVirusC (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

eReality
What channel no on DSTV is eReality? 41.57.156.169 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Robyn
Robyn’s eyebrows 😂 173.191.242.206 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102
— Assignment last updated by Mads7683 (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"Unreality show" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unreality_show&redirect=no Unreality show] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 2
— Assignment last updated by Everlark13 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Reality television


text:
Mystikal

Michael Lawrence Tyler (born September 22, 1970), better known by his stage name Mystikal, is an American rapper and actor from New Orleans, Louisiana. He is noted for brash, obstreperous vocal delivery, characterized by a Southern rasp. He signed with local record label Big Boy Records to release his self-titled debut studio album (1994), which was re-released by Jive Records the following year as his major label debut, Mind of Mystikal (1995). He then parted ways with the former label in favor of its local competitor, Master P's No Limit Records, through which he released his second and third albums, Unpredictable (1997) and Ghetto Fabulous (1998), as well as Goodfellas (1999) as a member of its flagship group, 504 Boyz. Following his departure from No Limit, he remained with Jive to release his 2000 singles "Shake Ya Ass" (featuring Pharrell Williams) and "Danger (Been So Long)" (featuring Nivea), which peaked at numbers 13 and 14 on the Billboard Hot 100, respectively. Both preceded the release of his fourth album, Let's Get Ready (2000), which debuted atop the Billboard 200.

Early life and education
Tyler grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana's 12th Ward. His father, who ran a small neighborhood store, died when Tyler was seven. He attended Cohen High School and afterward joined the United States Army as a combat engineer. As an aspiring rapper, he opened for Run-DMC and Doug E. Fresh at an outdoor concert at the Treme Center. Leroy "Precise" Edwards, the house producer for Big Boy Records, was in the audience, and granted him a contract.

1994–1996: Early career and stint with Big Boy Records
Mystikal's debut album, Mystikal, was released on New Orleans-based independent record label Big Boy in 1994. The album was one of Big Boy's most successful albums and gained major success for Mystikal. In 1995, he found himself involved in conflict with fellow New Orleans rappers signed to rival Cash Money, including U.N.L.V. and The B.G.'z. They dissed him on tracks like "Drag 'Em in Tha River" by U.N.L.V. and "Fuck Big Boy" by The B.G.'z. He struck back with "Beware" and "Here I Go" which were on his second album, Mind of Mystikal. Mystikal's sister, Michelle Tyler, sang the chorus on "Not That Nigga" and her fate became a major influence on Mystikal's music after her death in September 1994. The songs "Dedicated to Michelle Tyler", "Murder" (both on Mind of Mystikal), "Murder 2", "Shine" (both on Unpredictable) and "Murder III" (on Let's Get Ready) refer to her death. Mystikal and Lil Wayne would eventually squash their feud and become collaborators.

1995–2000: Mind of Mystikal and stint with No Limit
Mystikal signed to Jive and released Mind of Mystikal in 1995. He signed to Master P's No Limit in 1996 and released Unpredictable in November 1997. He appeared on many of the No Limit albums released from 1997 through a chunk of 2000. He also collaborated with Mariah Carey on her Rainbow album on the track 'Did I Do That'. In late 1998, he released Ghetto Fabulous. That was his last album with the label, and he and No Limit parted ways in 2000.

2000–2004: Let's Get Ready, Tarantula and prison
In 1999, he had begun recording his fourth album before leaving No Limit. Let's Get Ready was released in 2000 and contained "Danger (Been So Long)", which featured rising pop star Nivea, and was the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs number-one single in June 2001. Let's Get Ready debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, making it Mystikal's only chart-topping album to date. The album also featured the popular, Neptunes-produced hit "Shake Ya Ass". The song attained cult-like popularity and can be heard in the background of numerous movies.

Mystikal's most recent solo release was the 2001 album Tarantula, which contained the hit single, "Bouncin' Back (Bumpin' Me Against The Wall)". Though it presented Mystikal's typical and funky flow style, which had the distinction of drawing comparison to legendary R&B soul screamers Little Richard and James Brown, the song also saw a blending of jazz and swing elements with hip-hop. The well received album was nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Rap Album in 2003, and Mystikal was nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Male Rap Solo Performance that same year. Mystikal was also featured prominently in the single, "Move Bitch" by Ludacris as well as "I Don't Give a Fuck" by Lil Jon & The East Side Boyz along with Krayzie Bone, both in 2002. In 2003 he starred in the film 13 Dead Men. In 2003, Mystikal was indicted on charges of sexual battery and extortion. On January 15, 2004, he was sentenced to six years in prison after pleading guilty to forcing his hairstylist to perform sex acts. He served the full six years of his sentence and was released on January 14, 2010.

2010–present
Mystikal headlined a concert at the Mahalia Jackson Theater of the Performing Arts on Mardi Gras, February 16, 2010. Mystikal's first song after being released from prison was an underground track with former No Limit labelmate Fiend entitled "I Don't Like You". A few weeks later, Atlanta-based, New Orleans-born R&B artist Lloyd released "Set Me Free" featuring Mystikal. The music video for "Set Me Free" was released on May 18, 2010, and was shot in New Orleans, primarily from the Calliope Projects. In an interview in May 2010, he stated that he was still obligated to Jive Records for one more album and would be taking the necessary time to ensure the album would be his best to date. He made a promo song called "Papercuts" featuring Fiend and Lil Wayne. In 2011, he performed at the Gathering of the Juggalos. Mystikal and Busta Rhymes were signed to Cash Money Records by Birdman on November 16 the same year. His first single for the label, "Original", was released shortly thereafter and featured new label-mates Birdman and Lil Wayne.

In 2014, Mystikal guest performed on the single "Feel Right" for Mark Ronson's album Uptown Special. The song and video were released in 2015.

Also in 2015, Mystikal appeared on Stevie Stone's Single Rain Dance with Tech N9ne from the 2015 release Malta Bend.

In January 2016, he performed in shows in Bahrain and Bulgaria with Danny! In February 2016, Mystikal toured the United States.

In April 2016, Mystikal was featured on "Just a Lil' Thick (She Juicy)" by Trinidad James along with Lil Dicky.

In 2017, he was featured on "FYM" by Joyner Lucas, from his commercial mixtape 508-507-2209.

Personal life
On his 24th birthday, Mystikal found his sister Michelle Tyler dead in her bedroom, having been stabbed and strangled. Her boyfriend at the time, Damion Neville, was charged with murder but later was acquitted due to a lack of evidence and a recanted confession.

Sexual battery conviction and other legal issues
On June 26, 2003, Mystikal pleaded guilty to sexual battery and extortion. On January 15, 2004, Mystikal was sentenced to six years in state prison after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting his hairstylist. The rapper and two bodyguards forced the woman to perform oral sex, and accused her of stealing $80,000 in checks. As part of a plea bargain, all three pleaded guilty. Mystikal initially claimed that the incident was consensual, but a videotape of the incident was later found at his home shortly after the charges were made. Negotiations during the trial held the videotape from being entered as evidence and Mystikal agreed to the plea bargain offered by the prosecution, avoiding the mandatory life sentence for sexual battery in Louisiana and expecting to receive probation. However, the case took a twist when the judge viewed the videotape at the sentencing, took into account Mystikal's two prior arrests (for drug and gun possession), and had him remanded into custody to begin serving a six-year sentence immediately. Mystikal's bodyguards, Leland Ellis and Vercy Carter, also pleaded guilty to sexual battery.

In August 2005, while incarcerated on the state sexual battery and extortion charges, Mystikal was charged federally with two misdemeanor counts of failing to file tax returns for 1998 and 1999. On January 12, 2006, he was convicted in federal court of the tax offenses, but was allowed to serve the one-year federal sentence concurrent with his six-year state sentence. Mystikal was incarcerated at Louisiana's Elayn Hunt Correctional Center. On January 19, 2006, Mystikal was denied parole at a parole board hearing. On January 11, 2007, Mystikal was released from custody on the federal misdemeanor tax convictions (as his one-year sentence had expired), but he remained in custody on the six-year sentence for the Louisiana state felony convictions. The news of his release caused confusion among fans who heard the news and mistakenly thought he had been released on parole. He was released January 14, 2010. After his release, Mystikal was registered as a sex offender.

On February 22, 2012, Mystikal was arrested again following a dispute with his domestic partner and was later given a misdemeanor charge of domestic abuse battery. He was detained for nine days and then released on bail. On April 16, he was given a three-month jail sentence for violating the terms of his probation he was given following his release from prison in January 2010. He was given credit for the nine days already served, reducing his confinement to 81 days. He began serving his sentence on May 14 at the East Baton Rouge Parish Jail. During his incarceration, he appeared in court to be heard on the domestic battery charges as well as for a hearing to determine child support payments for his two youngest children. Mystikal was released from jail in August 2012.

On August 21, 2017, Mystikal turned himself into the Caddo Parish Sheriff's Department after a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was subsequently charged with rape. He was held at the Caddo Correctional Center on a $3 million bond until February 14, 2019, when he was able to post bond.

Discography

 * Studio albums
 * Mystikal (1994)
 * Mind of Mystikal (1995)
 * Unpredictable (1997)
 * Ghetto Fabulous (1998)
 * Let's Get Ready (2000)
 * Tarantula (2001)

title: Mystikal


text:
Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany

Geoffrey II (Jafrez; Galfridus, ; 23 September 1158 – 19 August 1186) was Duke of Brittany and 3rd Earl of Richmond between 1181 and 1186, through his marriage to Constance, Duchess of Brittany. Geoffrey was the fourth of five sons of Henry II of England and Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine.

Life
In the 1160s, Henry II began to alter his policy of indirect rule in Brittany and to exert more direct control. Henry had been at war with Conan IV, Duke of Brittany. Local Breton nobles rebelled against Conan, so Conan sought Henry II's help. In 1164, Henry intervened to seize lands along the border of Brittany and Normandy and, in 1166, he invaded Brittany to punish the local barons. Henry then forced Conan to abdicate as duke and to give Brittany to his five-year-old daughter, Constance, who was handed over and betrothed to Henry's son Geoffrey. This arrangement was quite unusual in terms of medieval law, as Conan might have had sons who could have legitimately inherited the duchy. Geoffrey and Constance eventually married, in July 1181.

Growing tensions between Henry and Louis VII of France finally spilled over into open war in 1167, triggered by a trivial argument over how money destined for the Crusader states of the Levant should be collected. Louis allied himself with the Welsh, Scots and Bretons and attacked Normandy. Henry responded by attacking Chaumont-sur-Epte, where Louis kept his main military arsenal, burning the town to the ground and forcing Louis to abandon his allies and make a private truce. Henry was then free to move against the rebel barons in Brittany, where feelings about his seizure of the duchy were still running high.

Geoffrey was fifteen years old when he joined the first revolt against his father. He later reconciled to Henry in 1174 when he participated in the truce at Gisors. Geoffrey prominently figured in the second revolt of 1183, fighting against Richard, on behalf of Henry the Young King.

Geoffrey was a good friend of Louis VII's son Philip, and the two men were frequently in alliance against King Henry. Geoffrey spent much time at Philip's court in Paris, and Philip made him his seneschal. There is evidence to suggest that Geoffrey was planning another rebellion with Philip's help during his final period in Paris in the summer of 1186. As a participant in so many rebellions against his father, Geoffrey acquired a reputation for treachery. Gerald of Wales wrote the following of him: "He has more aloes than honey in him; his tongue is smoother than oil; his sweet and persuasive eloquence has enabled him to dissolve the firmest alliances and by his powers of language able to corrupt two kingdoms; of tireless endeavour, a hypocrite in everything, a deceiver and a dissembler."

Geoffrey also was known to attack monasteries and churches in order to raise funds for his campaigns. This lack of reverence for religion earned him the displeasure of the Church and, as a consequence, of the majority of chroniclers who wrote about his life.

Family
Geoffrey and Constance had three children, one born after Geoffrey's death:
 * Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany (1184–1241)
 * Maud/Matilda of Brittany (1185–before May 1189)
 * Arthur I, Duke of Brittany (1187–1203?)

Death
Geoffrey died on 19 August 1186, at the age of 27, in Paris. There is also evidence that supports a death date of 21 August 1186. There are two alternative accounts of his death. The more common first version holds that he was trampled to death in a jousting tournament. At his funeral, a grief-stricken Philip is said to have tried to jump into the coffin. Roger of Hoveden's chronicle is the source of this version; the detail of Philip's hysterical grief is from Gerald of Wales.

In the second version, in the chronicle of the French royal clerk Rigord, Geoffrey died of sudden acute chest pain, which reportedly struck immediately after his speech to Philip, boasting his intention to lay Normandy to waste. Possibly, this version was an invention of its chronicler, sudden illness being God's judgment of an ungrateful son plotting rebellion against his father, and for his irreligiosity. Alternatively, the tournament story may be an invention of Philip in trying to prevent Henry II discovering a plot; by inventing a social reason, a tournament, for Geoffrey's being in Paris, Philip could have obscured their meeting's true purpose.

Marie of Champagne, with whom Geoffrey was on good terms, was present at the requiem for her half-brother and established a mass chantry for the repose of his soul.

Geoffrey was buried in the choir of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral, but his tombstone was destroyed in the 18th century before the French Revolution. His body was exhumed in 1797 and measured at 5 ft 6.5 in (1.69 m).

Succession
After Geoffrey's death, Henry II arranged for Constance, Geoffrey's widow, to marry Ranulf de Blondeville, 6th Earl of Chester. Ranulf would become Duke of Brittany, jure uxoris, for a short time before this marriage was annulled.

In literature
Geoffrey II of Brittany is a major character in the play The Lion in Winter (1966) by James Goldman where his portrayal is reminiscent of that made by Gerald of Wales, and in the novel Devil's Brood (2008) by Sharon Kay Penman. He is also mentioned in the tragedies The Troublesome Reign of King John (anonymous, c.1589), King John (1593–1596) by William Shakespeare and King John by Richard Valpy, the poem Le petit Arthur de Bretagne à la tour de Rouen (1822) by Marceline Desbordes-Valmore, the drama Arthur de Bretagne (1885) by Louis Tiercelin and the novels Lionheart (2011) and A King's Ransom (2014) by Sharon Kay Penman, as well as in the second volume of the trilogy Le Château des Poulfenc (2009) by Brigitte Coppin.

In theatre and television
Geoffrey has been portrayed by John Castle in the movie The Lion in Winter (1968) and by John Light in the 2003 made-for-TV remake. He has also been portrayed by Austin Somervell (as a boy) and Martin Neil (as an adult) in the BBC TV drama series The Devil's Crown (1978).

title: Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany


text:
Roxanne Shante

Lolita Shante Gooden (born March 8, 1970), better known by her stage name Roxanne Shante, is an American rapper. She first gained attention through the Roxanne Wars and was part of the Juice Crew. The 2017 film Roxanne Roxanne is a dramatization of Shante's life.

Early life and career
Shante was born March 8, 1970 in Queens, New York. In 1984, she met Mr. Magic and Marley Marl outside the Queensbridge housing project. They discussed U.T.F.O., since the rap trio had failed to make an appearance at a concert. U.T.F.O. had recently released a single called "Hanging Out," which did not gain much critical acclaim; however, the B-side "Roxanne, Roxanne", about a woman who would not respond to their advances, became a hit. Shante, who was a member of the Juice Crew, was contracted to write a track in rebuttal to U.T.F.O.'s rap, posing as the Roxanne in the U.T.F.O. song. Marley Marl produced the song "Roxanne's Revenge" using the original beats from an instrumental version of "Roxanne, Roxanne". The track became an instant hit and made Shante, only 14 years old at the time, one of the first female MCs to become very popular. Following this, the "Roxanne Wars" started, and Shante continued to rap and started touring with her producer, Marley Marl.

In 1985, Shante released a record together with rapper Sparky D, who had earlier released a diss track about her called "Sparky's Turn, Roxanne You're Through". The record called "Round One, Roxanne Shanté vs Sparky Dee" was released by Spin Records and included six tracks: the two original battle tracks ("Roxanne's Revenge" and "Sparky's Turn") as well as "Roxanne's Profile" by Shante, "Sparky's Profile" by Sparky D and a battle track, in which the two rappers freestyle and diss each other, in a censored and an uncensored version. Other hits included "Have a Nice Day" and "Go on Girl". In 1985, Shante battled Busy Bee Starski for the title of "best freestyle rapper" but lost due to improper judging. Judge Kurtis Blow later admitted to Shante that he did not vote for her because she was a girl. The ongoing battle with KRS-One hit its height when KRS-One claimed in his 1986 track "The Bridge Is Over" that Shante was nothing more than a sexual appendage to male rappers. Shante released Bad Sister in 1989, The Bitch Is Back in 1992, and a greatest hits anthology in 1995.

Hiatus
By the age of 25 Shante was largely retired from the recording industry. She continued to make occasional guest appearances and live performances, as well as mentor young female hip-hop artists. She made a cameo appearance on VH1's hip hop reality show Ms. Rap Supreme giving rap-battle strategies to the finalists of the show. She was in a series of Sprite commercials during the late 1990s. She returned to performing, and in 2008, her song "Roxanne's Revenge" was ranked number 42 on VH1's 100 Greatest Songs of Hip Hop. Shante re-recorded the song the following year. In an interview with EmEz in 2015, she said that she had just been proposed to and that she had previously been married. In the same interview, she said that KRS-One was one of her favorite rappers.

Biographical claims
It was reported by Blender in 2008, and more extensively in a New York Daily News account in 2009, that Shante earned a bachelor's degree from Marymount Manhattan College and a master's and Ph.D in psychology from Cornell University. The articles said that a quirk in her recording contract obligated Warner Music to fund her college education. These were not new claims by Shante; she spoke at length about them on the Beef II documentary which was released in 2004. However an investigation by lawyer and journalist Ben Sheffner for Slate magazine found no evidence of Shante's claims. She was never signed to a Warner Music label, but was under contract to the independent label Cold Chillin' Records, which in turn was distributed by Reprise/Warner Bros. Records from 1987 to 1992. Academic records indicate that she attended only three months at Marymount Manhattan College. Shante never earned a degree and she is unlicensed by New York State officials to practice psychology or similar disciplines. The Daily News then ran a five-paragraph correction. Shante apologized in November 2009.

Roxanne Roxanne film
A dramatized biopic about Shante's life, Roxanne Roxanne, was first shown at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival. It received critical acclaim and the lead actress Chanté Adams won best breakout performance for her portrayal of Shante. The film was co-produced by Forest Whitaker and Pharrell Williams; it was written and directed by Michael Larnell. It was bought by the film studio Neon for general release later in 2017.

Legacy
At the height of her career, Shante was referred to as the "Queen of Rap" by The New York Times and has been noted as a hip-hop pioneer. The Sunday Times credited her for popularizing diss tracks. Billboard editor Natalie Weiner wrote that Shante's "blazingly male-shaming diss track" and "hip-hop's first recorded beef" helped move hip-hop further toward the mainstream, calling her "rap's first female star." Consequence considered her "a mentor for generations of female MCs, and an early advocate in rap for female empowerment." In 1989, The Christian Science Monitor stated that the popularity of rappers like Roxanne Shante, Salt-N-Pepa, and MC Lyte created a path for the next generation of female hip hop artists.

Studio albums

 * Bad Sister (1989)
 * The Bitch Is Back (1992)

title: Roxanne Shante


text:
Kit Williams

Christopher "Kit" Williams (born 28 April 1946) is an English artist, illustrator and author best known for his 1979 book Masquerade, a pictorial storybook which contains clues to the location of a golden (18 carat) jewelled hare created by Williams and then buried "somewhere in Britain".

Williams published three other books and was commissioned to create three public clocks with elaborate mechanisms and moving parts, such as animals, for visual interest.

Born in Kent, England, Williams continues to paint figurative art at his studio in Gloucestershire.

Work
Kit Williams now primarily works as a figurative painter in which he uses traditional oil-painting techniques, fashioning first a wooden panel covered in linen and oil gesso. He then uses many layers of opaque and transparent Dutch oil paint to create luminous images.

Williams likes to maintain complete control of every aspect of his artwork including making the clothes worn by the models, creating sets and props, and often making mechanisms either within the frame or the painting that reveal moving elements of the artwork and encourage interaction by the viewer.

Using marquetry, he has always made his own frames which enables him to make pictures of any shape and allow elements of the picture to continue into the frame in often intricate detail.

Past work
As well as his best-known book, Masquerade, Williams wrote The Bee on the Comb, a puzzle book with a bee theme. The book was initially published without a visible title, and readers were challenged to work out the title from clues inside the book and send in their answer without using the written word. This competition ran for just a year and a day, and the winner was revealed on the live BBC TV chatshow Wogan.

In 1985 Kit Williams designed the Wishing Fish Clock, a centrepiece of the Regent Arcade shopping centre in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England. More than 45 feet tall, the clock features a duck that lays a never-ending stream of golden eggs and includes a family of mice that are continually trying to evade a snake sitting on top of the clock. Hanging from the base of the clock is a large wooden fish that blows bubbles every half-hour. Catching one of these bubbles entitles you to make a wish, hence the name of the clock. The clock has undergone essential restoration work and is back in full working order.

Other clocks designed by Williams can be found in Telford Shopping Centre and in the Midsummer Place section of Central Milton Keynes Shopping Centre.

Williams was also involved in the design of the Dragonfly Maze in Bourton-on-the-Water, Gloucestershire, England, which comprises a yew maze with a pavilion at the centre. The object is not only to reach the pavilion, but to gather clues as one navigates the maze. Correctly interpreting these clues when one reaches the pavilion allows access to the maze's final secret.

Masquerade and the Golden Hare
In August 2009 Kit Williams was reunited with the golden hare from Masquerade, which he had not seen for more than 30 years. He was quoted as saying:

 * "I had not remembered it being as delicate as it is ... Then when I picked it up the little bells jingled, and it sparkled in a way that I had forgotten as well."

This reunion was revealed in a 60-minute documentary about Williams's work, The Man Behind The Masquerade, shown on BBC Four on 2 December 2009. The programme began with Masquerade and ended with an exhibition of the best 18 pieces of his art from the previous 30 years at the Portal Gallery, which had first exhibited his work in the 1970s. The programme showed Williams being reunited with the golden hare for the first time when it was loaned by its anonymous present owner, who lives in East Asia.

The hare was on display at the V&A Museum, London, as part of its retrospective "British Design 1948–2012" from 31 March to 12 August 2012.

Select bibliography

 * Kit Williams, Masquerade, Jonathan Cape, 1979 ( ISBN 0-8052-3747-X )
 * Kit Williams, Masquerade: The Complete Book with the Answer Explained, Jonathan Cape, 1982 [paperback] ( ISBN 0-89480-369-7 )
 * Kit Williams, Book Without a Name (referred to by Williams as "the Bee Book"), Knopf, 1984 ( ISBN 0-394-53817-X )
 * Kit Williams, Out of One Eye: The Art of Kit Williams, Crown, 1986 ( ISBN 0-517-56431-9 )
 * Kit Williams, Engines of Ingenuity, Gingko Press, 2001 ( ISBN 1-58423-106-8 )

title: Kit Williams