they are currently interviewing potential contestants all over.. is that notable information?

on the lot is an awesome show.

user with IP 216.205.224.64 deleted major sections of this article as well as all unofficial links. [1] A lookup of this IP address reveals it was FOX itself: [2] Provocal 19:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user jeffkingla deleted the same sections again. [3] Looking up the name jeffkingla in google, a myspace entry likely identifies him as Jeff King, Vice President / General Manager of FOX Branded Media [4] Provocal 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edit [5] ... is it wikipedia's place to offer this kind of analysis or justification for On The Lot's casting decisions, beyond the bare numbers? Provocal 14:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fox continues to edit the article in order to remove elements concerning their treatment of filmmakers in the early stages. Keep an eye out...

So now that the show has begun should someone start an elimination chart on the page like on the American Idol season pages? --Fez2005 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An elimination chart would be nice, once the number of contestants gets down to a more manageable number. -- MisterHand 11:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed (twice now) the highly biased section where all the sources were forum posts and blog entries. This section violated at least three Wikipedia guidelines:

• First and foremost, it lacked a neutral point of view.
• It lacked reliable sources.
• It lacked notability (to my knowledge there has been no media coverage of this "controversy")

Please do not add the section back in unless they concerns are addressed. -- MisterHand 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE- citations provided are evidence to the assertions made in the article. Some films were over the time limit. Citations show clear evidence of such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.230.83 (talk • contribs).

Discovering films that violated the rules and posting them here constitutes original research. However, if you can cite a reliable source (i.e. not a forum or a blog) that note these films, then you can add it in. Follow the links for full details on Wikipedia's policies on this. I have flagged the section as NPOV for now. If these concerns are not addressed, it will be removed again.

Also note that anybody who is somehow involved in this show, whether employed by Fox or who was a participant on the show in any way, should refrain from editing this article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- MisterHand 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: please be civil. Labeling an editor as a "vandal" during a content dispute, as was done here is unhelpful. -- MisterHand 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: vandalism has occurred [6], although I agree the one quoted above by MisterHand was not an example of it. Is it notable that Jeff King the Vice President of FOX Branded Media has repeatedly and personally censored the wikipedia article that talked about FOX propensity for censorship? [7]. I agree with MisterHand that no one who is employed by FOX or who is a participant should edit this article, and yet deleting this section is exactly what Mr. King wanted for obvious reasons. I believe this is a case for following the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. The spirit of the laws about notability and no original research is meant to prevent personal opinions and things that are simply not facts from making it into wikipedia. So does anyone here doubt that the claims in the disputed section are facts? And does anyone here feel its not notable that FOX's censorship powers extend beyond thelot.com and into wikipedia? I agree all personal opinions should be removed, and the section should be cleaned up to sound much more impartial and unbiased, I volunteer to do that. But at the same time, for as long as they're reasonable, relevant facts should be allowed to stand. --Provocal 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't determined by us as editors, it's determined by coverage in the "outside world" (see WP:NOTE). Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a soapbox, and that's my main concern here. I've looked for media coverage of any of the controversies listed in the article, so that I could rewrite things in a more neutral way -- so far I haven't found anything. AICN has expressed some concerns about the semi-finalists. It's not exactly what I'd call a reliable source, but it could be used to establish notability. -- MisterHand 22:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Website and Controversy" section looks full of original research, and contains citations of message board threads, and not reliable sources. See self-published sources.

For example, the first citation used in the section goes to a message board thread, where a user FableForge posts a link to winnipegsun.com (which is down as of May 24, 2007 and missing from Google cache and archive.org) and claims James Swirsky got an audition, and then posts a link to iFilm and lists a runtime from iFilm and then assumes that was the runtime of Swirsky's final submission and then says it was too long according to the rules (which are never linked to). That all may be true, but Wikipedia readers should not be expected to verify the claims of a message board user. Rather, reliable, published, secondary sources should be used instead.

I have found this article on whatsonwinnipeg.com that says Swirsky submitted his short film Jannie Bananie Quits Smoking. Okay. But for an editor to make any assumptions and synthesis from iFilm and submission guidelines constitutes original research. Nevermind the fact that the producers may have reserved the right to alter contest rules.

Also, I don't know if links to karmacritic.com belong on the page. Is it a news website? A blog? Was it started by rejected contestants? Is it link spam? It appears to be a website full of filmmakers. How is that site related to the show? It looks like it was created by a disaffected forum user upset with forum moderation. Is that notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia?

We need to discuss whether links to topic threads at community.thelot.com are reliable sources or not. I feel they are not. I think perhaps one link in external links labeled On the Lot Forums may be acceptable. The way the secton is now, I agree with MisterHand's removal. It needs reliable sources, not links to message boards or blogs. --Pixelface 11:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update 5/24. Since no attempt has been made to address the concerns raised by Pixelface, myself, and others I have once again removed the section. If notability can be established, and concerns can be worded in a neutral way, we can add some of the information back. -- MisterHand 16:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least the heavy censorship part should be kept, especially since there's a very simple way of knowing if they are correct. Try posting on the fox message boards, ask about their censorship or about karmacritic. If the it gets deleted without even an attempt at a response, you'll know it's true.

And just in case you are uninformed regarding Fox's agenda or about how Fair and Balanced Rupert Morduck really is, I suggest you watch Outfoxed before commenting, there's at least one credible witness to Fox's horrific ethics on it.

There is no reason to defend any other Fox owned brand since they obviously adhere to the same standards; the fact that Mr. Jeff King himself deleted the criticism about the censorship twice, without even making an attempt at a valid reason, is proof enough.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.143.158.176 (talk • contribs) 02:26 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing Moveon.org's "Outfoxed" doesn't help in an argument concerning credibility...just so you know... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.230.83 (talk • contribs).

There may be censorship taking place at community.thelot.com, but I haven't found it reported on any website other than message boards or blogs, so we can't include it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia readers shouldn't have to post on a FOX message board in order to verify a statement in the article. If a secondary source is found (such as an entertainment reporter talking about it in a newspaper article) then the information can be included and cited. I'm not trying to defend FOX, I'm trying to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines: no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view, as well as reliable sources.

I have some suggestions for those that want to include the section. Find a secondary source that discusses censorship on those message boards. Also, a link to contest rules may be helpful. But if any editor makes any assumptions about the contest rules and possible violations of them and puts it into the article, that counts as original research, and can be removed. If a reliable source discusses it, then the information can be included with a citation. --Pixelface 03:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a. some points refer directly to material already available and verifiable. are they not, therefore, valid, all things considered?

b. the official show website www.thelot.com is considered a reliable source for material on the show. by corollary, when material on the website is referred to, does it not constitute reliable source? does the definition reliable source restrict its ambit, in this case, to official statements from the registered owners of the website?

c. if that is the case, can the article be restructured to reflect a 'public opinion' section? Reincarnut 19:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My real problem with the section has less to do with verifiable facts than it does with the tone of the section, which comes off very much as an attack on the show's casting process. A neutral article should describe that process, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. If there is controversy, and it's notable (ie covered by major media), then that can be included as well.

A good example: there was a similar dispute surrounding Jericho (TV series), where a group of individuals have been protesting it's cancellation by sending nuts to the network (long story). While interesting and factual, it wasn't really notable...until the media got a hold of the story and started repeating it. If the same thing happens here, then we can move forward. Until then we need to be cautious about what we include and don't include -- and try to stay neutral. -- MisterHand 22:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

media the idea that we must wait for media coverage to prove the notability and veracity of a known fact is absurd. Are these issues not real and verifiable? Then how can we make any claim against them?- Homer—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HomerS3 (talk • contribs) 00:11 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability, yes. Veracity, no. Just because something is factual, doesn't mean it's notable. It's a fact that I stopped by 7-11 on my way to work yesterday. Does that mean it should get an encyclopedia article? -- MisterHand 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if a show about it aired on a major network, yes... - Homer—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HomerS3 (talk • contribs) 23:32 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the "response" section. If anybody knows how to add a reference, the ratings are on several pages, but here is one that can be linked to: http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003589073 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.242.241 (talk • contribs)

Added second show ratings. Man, will this show last through the summer, or are we gonna have to watch that Survivor Pirate ripoff instead? Boo...