Talk:Big Brother 9 (American season)/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ratings

Since this Big Brother is airing during an official television season instead of the summer I thought the article should have a ratings section/page similar to other shows that air during an official television season. An example is at my sandbox. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 21:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone going to say anything? ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 07:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been avoiding this page. I'm quite surprised to lean that other shows have a ratings chart like the one in your sandbox. It seems kind of bulky to me. But, I'm always for consistency, so I guess it would be okay to switch formats. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand, I went ahead and made the change. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Content until Broadcast

I think for the time being that the only information acceptable from live feeds should be nominations and veto due to the wiki-controversy above. These can be confirmed by Big Brother After Dark later on in the day. However I have removed information pertaining to certain events that happened on the live feeds due to no verifiable source that can be included on Wikipedia. Information that was removed pertained to the following events:

Amanda fainted in the House.

Unless there are sources to back any information pertaining to these events should not be in the article. (Despite YouTube videos from the Live Feeds being available they are not allowed.) If anyone else removes content pertaining to a situation on the live feeds please post it here so we as editors can keep track. Thanks. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 04:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In order for me not to violate the three-revert rule I have placed {{Citation needed}} after the bit in question. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 04:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if Allison and Amanda leaving the House to go to the hospital would count as an exit? Atlantics88 (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No they returned to the House. Medical leave doesn't count unless they were removed from the game. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 09:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Both Allison and Amanda currently have the same citation to After Dark, saying that it occurred :56 minutes in. I haven't seen last night's show yet, so maybe I'm just missing something, but did they both leave at the same time for medical attention? It seems like someone has the wrong citation here. I'm not going to make a change to the article, since I'm unsure which one really happened at 0:56. Could someone check this? If not, I'll check it later on tonight when I'm able to watch last night's AD.Tommy/DippyDawg1932 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The left at the same time (prior to AD) but that is when they returned and everyone started discussing what had happened. I included the AD references due to the fact that every time I removed the information anon users posted it back then were claiming YouTube videos as sources. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks! :) Tommy/DippyDawg1932 05:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that while I've been a very outspoken person against the Youtube/unverified sourcing, I have not removed a SINGLE edit this year, with the exception of the very first eviction which prompted the initial debate. RMThompson (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced and speculated statement

If anyone sees this statement in the article anywhere please remove it: On February 28, 2008, CBS announced their immediate plans to cancel the winter edition of the show by ending its television broadcast on March 5, 2008. On the same day as the last television broadcast, Julie Chen will announce that the show is beginning a "new chapter" by continuing its run on the internet only, effective immediately. This statement is un-sourced and speculation. I have searched high and low on all reliable sites (CBS Corporation, Multichannel, Variety, etc.) and can't find a shred of evidence anywhere. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's completely false, a thread from Survivor Sucks was started from speculation of Julie Chen's statement on Wednesday and someone from there came to the BB9 wikipedia article and saw that the ratings stopped on March 5 and decided to vandalize it. Atlantics88 (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Twist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We're not going to use this talk page as a forum about what is, or might happen on the show. The talk page is for discussion directly relating to improvement of the article. Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the Feb 27 broadcast, I heard Julie say that the season will enter a new chapter. What do you guys think that means? 75.89.238.164 (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No clue but remember that the talk page is for improving the article and not a place to discuss the show itself. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 02:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it means that the couples will split up and play solo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.1 (talk) 11:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Last Week & Finale on the Voting History

I just wanted to post that I altered BB1-BB8's voting history tables. I made the last week expand over the last two columns with the day the eviction took place & finale under the last week. Here is what BB8's top part looks like:

	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9		Week 10	Week 11
	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9		Week 10	Day 76	Finale
Head of Household	Kail	Jen	Dick	Dustin	Daniele	Jessica	Daniele	Jessica	Zach	Dick	Zach	Dick	(none)

I did that because people could think the finale occurred during another week when it actually was part of the final week. This is similar to how the Big Brother Australia articles are set up. The only seasons that had the live finale occur on a seperate week was Big Brother 2 (U.S.) and Big Brother 4 (U.S.). Big Brother 2 had twelve HouseGuests over a span of 82 Days, without Justin being expelled the show was set up for an eviction every week with Week 11 having the finalists. Big Brother 4 was again 82 Days and had 13 HouseGuests but with Scott being expelled the show was set up again for an eviction every week. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 03:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Big Brother After Dark article & House Calls section on the main Big Brother US article

I was thinking that having an article for Big Brother: After Dark was unnecessary. Most if not all of the information can be posted on the main article so I was thinking of merging the After Dark article with the main Big Brother article. Now with House Calls I was thinking we could spin that show off into its own article. Reason being there is enough information for it being a seperate article. The article could discuss the original format of the show during Big Brother 5 (two permanent co-hosts, the weekly evictee interviewed no matter if they are in sequester or not) and discuss the recent changes that occurred during Big Brother: All-Stars & Big Brother 8 (Gretchen is the sole permanent host, weekly guest hosts, no interviewing evictees in sequester) and the recent change during Big Brother 9 (set change, new graphics, not interviewing evicted HouseGuests). What do you guys think? ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 11:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually think they should both have their own article. I didn't think HouseCalls was as "big" as After Dark, so it wouldn't make sense to me to eliminate the AD article, and create a HC article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

James and the giant film

Just wanted to start a discussion about James, and the gay porn film he participated in. It appears in the article with the proper reference here [1]. However, ahighly uncivil anon IP editor has reverted this edit five times today, and refuses to discuss his edits in removing this properly referenced material. Rather than delve immediately into an edit war, I thought I'd bring it here. Any thoughts? I see nothing wrong with including the official reference to the info, it's consistent with what's been done in the past. Redrocket (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Week 3 redundancy

The voting history for Week 3 seems redundant. Since all couples had voted to evict Allison and Ryan, we could eliminate the couples column and mention it in the twist notes whilst having Adam and Sheila's votes in purple boxes to denote that they were nominated (this can be mentioned below). In fact, they could be yellow to denote exemption (once again, noted in twists). Geoking66_talk 01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How about deleting the color boxes for everyone not evicted as couples. When someone re-enters, we can do the same by removing their color boxes, along with their evicted partner? 98.21.96.219 (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually with Week 3 I think it is necessary since up until eviction night everything was couples. By having everything as couples then all of a sudden just have the votes when the HouseGuests split up would seem confusing for those not following the show and why Allison & Ryan were the two nominees for eviction. It could be called "Round 1" and "Round 2" like in other countries but I think both columns are necessary since the "soul mates" twist was a big part of the game and the majority of the week was played as couples. And in regards to the color box I think they should stay to identify the couples for Weeks 1-3. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Highlights article

I split the Highlights section into a seperate article (Big Brother 9 (U.S.) highlights) because the article was getting to become long and was 52 kb in size. By keeping the Highlights section the article size would increase each week. I also reformatted the table back to the style used for Big Brother (UK), Big Brother Australia, Big Brother 3 (U.S.) and Big Brother 8 (U.S.) highlights.

On the Highlights page I have the old style commented out on the talk page in the event we decide to switch it back. I reformatted the table to look like Big Brother 8 (U.S.) highlights since it was on its own page. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil Garcia & the NIU Shooting

Some have tried to link the NIU shooting with the reason Neil Garcia left the show. I found a ref^[1] that will end the speculation. It provides the names of one of the victims, Catalina Garcia, and Neil is not her brother. I should add that it doesn't mean he isn't related. It should be pointed out that it appears Neil left the Big Brother house BEFORE the NIU shooting. Neil left the house on or before 13 Feb 08 (YouTube Video)^[2] and the shooting was 14 Feb 08^[3].

CubBC (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed this once because I thought there was no connection beside Neil having the same last name. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

DVR Ratings

I was just wondering if this should be included in the article. In the past, I dont think DVR ratings were include but thought I suggest it.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/03/03/top-timeshifted-broadcast-shows-february-11-17/2820

This is for the week of February 11-17, CBS’s Wednesday Big Brother’s audience increased by 31.2% making it the leading broadcast show for % increase in viewing via DVR. In fact, the 3 Big Brothers all placed in the top 8 for % increase by DVR viewing. Rosario lopez (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the information to the ratings portion. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil and the finale/Jurors

I know this isn't article related, but I was thinking about a couple of things and I was wondering if anyone had any answers:

1. Will Neil be at the finale? I know that in the past, expelled houseguests were not at the finale shows, and they were removed from the opening credits and virtually erased/forgotten about. In other words, Big Brother treats them like they were never on the show. Neil is gone from the credits, but will he be invited back, or will we at least be given some type of update, e.g. if his "personal matter" has been resolved?

2. Five people have already been evicted from the house, along with one gone from the game and one returning later today. Does this mean that the four other sequestered houseguests will be sent home, next week's evictee will also go home, and any remaining houseguests who will be individually evicted will become jury members?

-- 99.237.9.80 (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Joshuah being bisexual

it says under Joshuah's bio that he is bisexual. He is gay. It says so on his big brother 9 profile, and he says it a few times on the show. I think this needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.1 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have changed it. Why use the ref and then enter incorrect information?

CubBC (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Myselfimmortal (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

HoH reults

THere's a user currently erasing the current results, which show James as the POV winner. Just for clarification, wikipedia is not censored. There are no spoiler warnings or the like. James was shown winning the POV on Big Brother After Dark, and every night during the show, a crawl airs multiple times that indicates this. It's reliably sourced, and common knowledge among anyone who watches BBAD.

The situation the editor refers to in the archives seems to have been a different matter. The fainting spells and medical attention did not happen during BBAD, and thus there were no sources available to back up claims without using YouTube, which is not an allowable source on wikipedia. Thus, wikipedia had to wait until such material could be reliably sourced to add it to the page. Redrocket (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Neil left

It says that Neil is the first person in American Big Brother to leave the house voluntarily. If he left due to a urgent personal matter, that wouldn't be voluntarily. I don't want to start an edit war, I just want to reach a consensus before changing. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 11:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that by "voluntarily" it means that it was his choice (he was probably told what the urgent matter was and given the option to leave or not) as opposed to being expelled by Big Brother for breaking the rules. - zachinthebox _(Talk) 11:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This kinda like when Johnathan left the Big Brother 8 UK House. His grandmother had died and he decided to leave to be with his family. Neil was most likely told the situation and decided to leave the House. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't bring in references to other shows. This is about BB9. 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Alucard 16 used this example to illustrate why he he left because (as it states in the article) this if the first time it's happened in BB US and the circumstances directly relating to Neil are still unknown/unconfirmed so the only reference available are from other seasons/versions of the show. - zachinthebox _(Talk)

Hi Pete! Long time isn't it. And just like User:Zackinthebox said I used Johnathan's exit from Big Brother (UK) as an example. The only thing we know officially from CBS is that Neil left for "urgent personal matters". He was not evicted nor was he removed by Big Brother like Justin (BB2) and Scott (BB4). They only showed Joshuah's DR entry where Josh stated that Neil left because of an "urgent personal matter". There are only three ways of leaving a Big Brother House you can be evicted, you can be expelled/ejected or you can voluntary leave the House. And its not like I brought in a reference from America's Next Top Model or something. It was another Big Brother that has had people voluntarily leave before. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be classified as voluntary, since he wasn't evicted by vote, or kicked off the show. DippyDawg1932 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Its recently been revealed by Amanda on a online chat conversation with Evel Dick that the reason Neil left was his couson, Caroline Garcia, was killed in the Northern Illinois University shooting. Should this be added? (BuggZee) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.148.234 (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no source to back this up and the reason "urgent personal matter" has a source so until there is a source besides the online chat then no. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Table Colors ---> Jury Members

I have changed the "Power Couple" color to #00FFFF because a consensus was reached last year to have Jury Members specified in the voting history table when evicted. This color (#CCCCFF) was the specified color for Jury Members last year. The "Jury Member" on Finale night is is replaced with a normal square and the person the HG votes for replaces "Jury Member". Example

	Week 1		Week 2	Week 3		Week 4	Week 5		Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Finale
	Day 1	Day 4	Week 2	Round 1	Round 2	Week 4	Day 35	Day 36	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Finale
Sharon	Not eligible	Jen Parker	Alex Amanda	Co-Head of Household		Nominated	James
Sheila	Not eligible	Jen Parker	Alex Amanda	Nominated	Allison	James	Mystery HouseGuest
Matt	Not eligible	Allison Ryan	Nominated	Allison Ryan	Allison	James	Mystery HouseGuest	Nominated	Evicted (Day 42)						Jury Member
Allison	Not eligible	Nominated	Alex Amanda	Nominated		Evicted (Day 28)

If anyone has any suggestions on this please comment. Thanks. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 21:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ack! Pick a nice muted color please! Thanks. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced that color with this color (#C3B091) T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. :) ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I updated the General MoS section to reflect the change. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And looking through past discussions from Big Brother 8 (U.S.) (1) we also reached a consensus that when the season is in progress to identify the evicted jury members in the infobox but once the season ended replace the color with evicted. Do we want to continue with this or just leave the "Jury Member" in the finale box until the finale? ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think we need to do that purple color thing in the infobox with the jury, evicted is evicted. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just checking. Works for me. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 19:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Big Brother US

I was just wondering why we have this season labelled as "9" when the only reference to the title "Big Brother 9" is in the URL for the official CBS.com website. If this is what we're basing the template numbers on, why is season 7 labelled as "All Stars" when the URL says "/bigbrother7/". I'm thinking that we change the "9" to something like "Till Death Do You Part" or as a shorter version, just "Till Death". - zachinthebox _(Talk) 23:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea then you start doing that then we will have to deal with other editors changing season 4 to "X Factor", season 5 to "Project DNA" and season 6 to "Summer of Secrets". I think that the season numbers should remain. The Big Brother US template should follow the pattern it has now. Only season that should be changed is season 7 to "All-Stars". Despite the logo not having the number 9 the show is still referenced in some articles and shows as "Big Brother 9". ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I was just curious. - zachinthebox _(Talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - keep it to numbers. Although it may be the official subtitle, they obviously didn't think things out too well, and now that there's no more couples, they don't seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong) even mentioning "'Til Death Do You Part" anymore....Similar to how Survivor really isn't Fans vs. Favorites anymore.... it's just a stupid subtitle, and the main thing we have to go on is the season number, I think.DippyDawg1932 06:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; keep the numbers. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I noticed tonight that they even took the words "til death do you part" off the logo for the show, in every instance.DippyDawg1932 06:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that they've changed that graphic ever since the couples split up. - zachinthebox _(Talk) 10:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, which is why I suggested we switch the logo in the infobox the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

I submitted a request to have the page semi-protected due to recently high levels of IP vandalism. My request was granted for a period of ten (10) days if the page continues to be vandalized we can submit another request. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pointing this at any one person, Alucard or otherwise, but it would be nice if people assumed a little more good faith with edits on this article. I just finished and published an interview with Parker to see that I was reverted almost immediately. I was reverted another time on another Big Brother article. Discussion may be best before blindly doing an undo, especially since many users may not be totally new (I've been here for four years and been an admin for nearly as long, and I'm not exactly just some random IP off the street). But other than that, thanks, everyone! This article really does look good. :) Mike H. Fierce! 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

picture

I don't think that the picture of parker is needed. You don't have any pictures of any other houseguests, so I think it should be removed. Seth71 (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to have it, and in fact I encourage more photos if possible. The permission to use that photo was grated to OTRS. The more photos in the article, the better; to a certain extent, of course. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as the pictures follow the fair use policy I have no problems with them. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 16:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just say that there should be a picture of every houseguest, not just one. That's what I was trying to get at. I thought it should only stay if every houseguest had a picture. Seth71 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If every HouseGuest had a picture the section would become too crowded. Plus there are two screencaptures in the article showing both the women and men. And it is rare (and I mean rare) that Wikipedia has a picture like the one for Parker and has legit permissions to use. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that. If everyone had a picture the article would look to crowded. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Joshuah

Doesn't Josh identify as bisexual - why is he listed everywhere exclusively as being gay?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know maybe because a millions times he has pointed the fact he was gay?? I think it is James you are thinking about.--Sugarcubez (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Joshuah. Read his official bio, or watch his audtion tapes on Youtube. Here's some links (the CBS one is particularly bad "Joshuah is a gay man ... who currently considers himself bisexual" - biphobic much?).[2][3][4] A bi guy can call themselves gay (in the sense meaning non-straight) without it meaning that they're 100% homosexual.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed Joshuah's sexuality back to bisexual. Since the CBS.com profile says he "currently considers himself to be a bisexual". ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He clearly is not bisexual, people like to throw the bisexual word around too much with understanding what it means and what it is about, that is sad. He has said he is gay many times, if you were bisexual you would be proud and if you consider yourself *gay or lesbian* it is maybe only because you are in relationship with the same gender at the time, with Joshua was/is single. And when Joshua lost his game 'soulmate' Niel he had to pick between Sharon and Jacob, he said 'She would be my hag, since she is with a gay man' something to that affect. Saying he is bisexual when he blatantly says he is gay and as I pointed out has done anti-bisexual things, is just a slap in the face in the bisexual community, it is like saying James is gay because of what he did outside BB house.--Sugarcubez (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's such a thing as dual-identification. But besides that, Wikipedia is bound by policies when writing about living persons to use the terms they explicitly define themselves by. For example, Ted Haggard cannot be listed as LGBT as he "is straight now" (whatever) and Jodie Foster cannot be listed as a lesbian, because she's never used that word. However, James Dean is dead, so can be listed as bisexual as it's backed up by copious amounts of external sources. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Wiki is bound by polocies then wouldn't it make more sense to state what Joshua himself has claimed to be numerous of times verues what BB says on their website?--Sugarcubez (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember Verifiability -- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 01:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And you could use either one. His profile says he is a gay man but also says he classes himself as bi-sexual. If there is a way maybe his section could be written to include both. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tried of this, CBS.com says "Joshuah is a gay man currently living in Dallas, Texas." And it says "He's a bit of an exhibitionist, currently considers himself to be a bisexual and doesn't care what people think of him." so both are correct. Now before reverting/undoing this again please discuss some type of way to include both. This really is getting old. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 04:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protected

I have semi protected this page due to the persistent vandalism by unregistered users, that are hiding behind their I.P. Adresses.--Subman758 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not an admin, so you can't protect the page. If you'd like to make a request for page protection, you can do so at WP:RFR. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea your not one, and besides the protection period I requested is up. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay this is getting ridiculous I have requested for the page to be protected again. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 00:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My second request for semi-protection was accepted. The page is now semi-protected again. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 02:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy - Adam Jasinsky

The article states that the website says that he will no longer be working for the organization, but the website that is sourced does NOT say that, and the article should therefore be corrected. 64.180.163.111 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. The website (UNIAF) was recently updated as I added the website and to the references at the time and it did state that he would no longer be working for the company. I have added two supporting sources that were published in late February where the UNIAF states Adam would no longer be working for the company. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

James

Housemate James has also appeared in several gay-themed pornographic films. This may deserve mention in his bio? Fleshbot writeups can be seen at: [5] http://fleshbot.com/373455/dirty-boys-get-up-to-dirty-tricks and [6]http://fleshbot.com/357373/crazy-james-puts-the-big-in-big-brother/#dirtytricks. Note, the links do include graphic sexual images, so don't go to them if you would be offended. You can, however, seen James' most frequently blurred tatoo, which is apparently the Brawny papertowel logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.109.121 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We have in the article that James has appeared in several gay pornographic videos with a source to a CBS affiliate with the story. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting History

Will we ever be making the voting table regular 90% size? We could do it after the season is over. 75.89.233.203 (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently I say no due to how extensive and complex this season is. Making the table 90% would mean it would extend longer out. With the setup now it keeps the table at a relative good size. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

House Section

Past articles have a House section I think we neglected poor BB9 with all the debates this year. I think we could use a House section in the article like in Big Brother 8 (U.S.) and Big Brother 2005 (UK). ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it has been somewhat neglected from all the debates as it has turned a lot of people off. I was going to contact user Jj04 about the houseplan but I already saw that you did. Has he replied back to you? I also think that we should have a Prizes section as the article doesn't state that the HouseGuests are playing for a $500,000 prize, just vague a "grand prize".Atlantics88 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope he never got back to me on that. A picture or something of the House would be good to show. A prize section is good also. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Terribly sorry. I haven't logged into Wikipedia for a while and just now saw I had a new message (I also haven't checked out my talk page). I am willing to do so, and should be able to have something soon. Jj04 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I put up the prizes section, I'm working on the House section. Atlantics88 (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, did what I could and put up the House section. If anyone can, please help out the section by adding more information or help fix errors. Thanks. I'd also like to suggest this picture to put up in the section. Thoughts? Atlantics88 (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the picture to the article. Since it is a publicity/promotional picture it should be fine plus it is very obvious that a free alternative can not be produced and it doesn't represent a living person. I believe I filled out the fair use rational correctly, if anyone would like to double check this. The image can use a better caption than the one I have. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 18:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Fact or Fiction" Controversy

Alucard, your revisions to my edit (adding the section regarding the controversy, which I moved from the highlights page at your request) are just different. They are not particularly more encyclopedic. Moreover, you have some significant grammatical errors. I am going to revise your language. I am going to add back the sub-title because it was a game-changing controversy (unlike the others). GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Guðsþegn, when you added the information about the controversial HoH competition bits were simply not needed as they didn't pertain to the competition and irrevelant to the subject at hand. Example:

Your revision;

On Day 70, after the eviction of Natalie, there was a controversial Head of Household competition.

There is no need to mention Natalie's eviction as her eviction had no impact on the competition, the voting history and the highlights article already make note of her eviction on Day 70 so it wasn't needed. Also there are many fans that find the last statement ufair but believe that no matter who was in the lead the statement would be "fact", however there are many fans that think the question was both unfair and was deceptive on the part of the producers.♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason Natalie was mentioned was to give context to the point in the game that the controversy happened, not to implicate her in anything. On the second matter, I have yet to hear or read of anyone that thinks that such a statement could be considered fact given the context (except perhaps yourself). GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another part, in my opinion, that wasn't needed "was considered "fact" by Big Brother producers". The bit with "Big Brother producers" isn't really needed as it is common knowledge that in every Big Brother or any game show/reality TV competition it is the producers who come up with tasks, questions, competitions, etc. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to frickin chill. You're not the only legitimate editor here. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just stated my opinion. You didn't need to snap. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And this one controversy should not have its own sub-title. How do we know it was game changing? There is no proof that the producers rigged the game in favor of certain HouseGuests. It is simply a trick question, that's all. Julie pointed out the two obvious relationships this year, she didn't specify if they were players, humans, pets or anything. It was simply "a third relationship". So does this one controversy at this time need its own sub-section, no. Now if this controversy continues to grow and it is found that the producers were caught playing favorites then is when it should be branched out. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 23:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said, or implied (and neither does having a sub-title), that the producers rigged the game to favor certain houseguests. However, we do not have to wait to find out whether it was a game-changing event. The game has already been changed by this question. The HoH was stolen from Sharon, and she was put on the block. That changes the game (no matter what the outcome). GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The HoH was not "stolen" from Sharon. Yea it is an ufair question but she answered wrong and Ryan answered right. Ryan answered right on the tiebreaker question so therefor he earned HoH. By staying that it was stolen from Sharon then we could easily say the very same about other HoH competitions. By saying that it was stolen you are indirectly implying that the production team rigged the competition so Ryan would win. Also by saying in the article the HoH was stolen from Sharon that is a point of view and all Wikipedia articles are against a certain point of view. Each article must maintain a neutral point of view. Also and I will say this again that at this time the controversial HoH does not need a sub-title. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just taking a quick look at it, this seems to be getting an WP:UNDUE amount of space. Is there any other source other than the "House Calls" ref that expresses the "controversy" over it? Redrocket (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

House Calls is the only source I know to use. From my understanding we can't use fan sites or message boards. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Then this appears to be really WP:UNDUE. There's no controversy to speak of, other than Evil Dick getting upset? It was a game where the contestants were guessing the answers to questions. It's not like the producers lied about a math problem, they just asked a question with an ambiguous answer. In my opinion, it doesn't deserve it's own section at all, and only a brief mention under "Controversy" if anything. Redrocket (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I have been saying. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an imperfect analogy might help you understand the problem ... Say you have a semi-finals track race put on by a school. In this event, the track coach says beforehand to the janitor to get a bat and knee-cap whoever crosses the finish line first, so that they cannot compete in the finals. Say Joe Littleknees passes the finish line first (doing everything correctly) except that he gets his knees bashed in as he crosses the finish line (meaning that the guy in second place gets an effective win). Even if the coach knew the janitor was a drunk that might not succeed at his task, and he didn't know who would be ahead in the race; could it not be said that the effective win and the guaranteed spot in the finals had been stolen from Joe by the organizers of the race? Answer ... YES, obviously. This is what happened to Sharon. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

...and yes, it's a VERY big deal. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a big deal to you, yes, but do you have any other reliable sources expressing outrage, or that this move was controversial? Otherwise, your assertation that the HoH was stolen from Sharon is opinion and original research. Redrocket (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you not listen to all the callers in that episode of House Calls? (Of course, we can't mention the reality of the message boards.) BTW, respond to my analogies. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 03:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's an imperfect analogy regarding the question ... Say I live on a street that has houses with nothing but single people in them. My landlord comes along saying I can continue living in my house if I answer his question correctly. He asks if anyone on the street is married. I say "no". He says "Gotcha, the guy down the street said he is "married" to his work. Move out now." Would I not have just been royally screwed by my landlord? GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I appreciate the analogies, but they're not relevant to this discussion. Are there reliable secondary sources that refer to this controversy? Otherwise, it's OR as above. Callers to the show aren't enough. An example here is James' past in gay porn. It might have been discussed, but until there was a reliable secondary source that verified it, it didn't belong here. Redrocket (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The House Calls program of April 17 referenced in the article is a reliable secondary source regarding the existence of controversy regarding the April 16 episode of the Big Brother 9 program. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I asked above, are there others? The other controversial events this season (Adam and Matt's inappropriate comments) are all referenced by secondary sources, none of them refer to message boards or call-in shows. Again, this doesn't seem to be much of a controversy without outside references, and certainly not deserving of its own section. Redrocket (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I fully support Alucard 16's removal of the subheading for this section while this discussion is taking place. Redrocket (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not an event happened outside the house (ala, James gay porn) would not be verified by someone on House Calls talking about it. BUT, whether or not there is controversy concerning an event on the Big Brother show IS verified by discussion of said controversial events on the House Calls program. Where else (besides message boards and blogs) would one expect to find out whether some game-changing controversy happened on Big Brother? This isn't newsworthy to the general public, but it is to the particular (Big Brother) public; and House Calls is a secondary source for controversy on Big Brother. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 04:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the extended treatment the event received on tonight's episode of Big Brother is added evidence regarding the controversy. BB9 tried to play it off as a funny joke by putting words in the mouths of the guinea pigs. They're idiots. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 04:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Guðsþegn, have you even tried to look for other reliable sources beside House Calls? I am sure if you search sites like TVGuide.com, EW.com and other third party sites like that you can find just about what you need with a current edition of Big Brother USA. And currently this HoH controversy has not garnered the media attention Adam's comments have made. I am not saying that we should ignore a controversial Head of Household game, I am saying by giving it a sub-heading we as editors are giving that controversy more attention versus Adam's comments. We need outside, third party sources too not just first/second party. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=135910

[2] ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjcfhOTyS20

[3] ttp://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/14/university.shooting/index.html

[1]

[2]

[3]