This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV Dispute

I didn't make the NPOV review nomination, but I do agree with it. The article seems awfully link heavy, and it reads like a press release. I attempted to clean up the article a bit, but I feel it still needs more work. Do all of the networks it's ever aired on really need to be listed? Do the paragraphs with nothing but links to artists who influenced the show really contribute to the article? I'm not confident enough to start hacking up those portions, although I do feel they're unnecessary. - ep 20:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion

As a fan of the show, I found this page shortly after it was created; I think by the same IP as the Dubtitled article. I added the infobox and uploaded the screenshot. This article had a "promotional" feel to it then, and it does today, so the NPOV flag doesn't surprise me. However, some of that is style; most of the information is relevant, though I would suggest breaking the article into sections, with the series description in the lede and seperate bits on background and DVD releases.

As far as the NPOV goes:

• Kung Faux creator Mic Neumann and his companies [...] launch of a magazine called "NYLON".

This whole paragraph is only tangential to Kung Faux, and belongs in the Dubtitled article, not here. That article has similar style issues; it is written like marketing material, not an encyclopedia article (I have no problem with its general existence).

• ...inspired by the "Skull & Chopsticks" logo...

I don't recall seeing this logo in the TV show (but have not seen the whole series or the web/DVD versions). If this logo is something new just for bentobox.tv, then it isn't relevant enough to Kung Faux to warrant detailed discussion in this article. If it is as prominent in the show as is described, and I just missed it, then so be it. As far as the "Death Proof" connection (which seems to have had lots of edits and reverts), I'd like to see some sort of citation to back this up. The HUGE ® on the logo at bentobox (the only image there so marked) raises an eyebrow, as though there is a conflict external to Wikipedia that is being argued here. I have not seen the movie, so I have no opinion on the smiliarity of the 2 logos. I notice a comparable claim on the Dubtitled page regarding the Killers logo (and do see the similarity there). If there is a legal dispute or something, this isn't the place to argue it - though an unbiased factual mention that a dispute exists would be admissible.

I think (re)moving the first item, and rewriting/justifying the second, would settle the NPOV concern.

Responding to ep's comments above, the first list of artists names those that actually appeared on the show as voice-actors, so that seems reasonable. Removing the paragraph I mentioned covers all the artists who are only connected to Dubtitled but not Kung Faux specifically. As historical data, I don't have a problem with the list of networks, but it is tedious reading and should probably be further down in a detail section.

The CyberSlug 22:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Neumann the Creator of Kung Faux's opinion

Thank you to "The CyberSlug" for caring enough to actually look into the article and see the links to artists were there because they INFLUENCED the show, they were there because they actually participated in the show and often list KUNG FAUX in their credits.

I feel that the person nominating all of my relevant articles for deletion or who has simply deleted them wholesale as judege & jury in the "Hack it up" style that "(ep) aka EricPeden" is hesitant to do ( thankfully ) such as the one about me, Mic Neumann aka Michael "Mic" Neumann, Kung Faux, Dubtitled & now Dubtitled Entertainment, and Skull & Chopsticks needs to be looked at closely, because everytime I tried to make changes he or she would just delete everything I did & even go as far as to delete me from other articles that I linked to because I was mentioned.

I agree that my writing style can take on a promo feel & I welcome constructive edits, and formatting, as I am not an expert at working with Wikipedia and entries, but I am trying to get better, and I can find a hundred pages that are more poorly done than mine ( or maybe I should say as poorly as mine ), but where are the editors that find hacking up articles fun for these other articles.

I seem to get attacked every time I try to update an article with new information that I think people researching the articles might find relevant as I am at the center of the things being written about in these articles and know first hand what happened, and I can see where the need for more citations are better, but I find it odd that if I am related to a source website, the citation runs a risk of being deleted, yet if someone that was thought not to be associated pulled the same info from that same website, it would likely be cited and left alone.

All I can say here in closing is "Thank You" to "The CyberSlug" again for knowing what was relevant and speaking up along with the healthy criticism, and "thank you" to "(ep) aka EricPeden" for not "hacking up my article further, and finally,...

I hope an Admin is noticing that the person nominating this article for deletion did not leave anything on this talk page, he or she just deleted things wholesale from the article & then threw up all of the warnings & request for deletion. - Does that seem fair to anyone ?

Knowing how to do everything right went it comes to Wikipedia entries feels like knowing how to drive a Formula 1 race car when I can barely ride a bike, but does that mean I should be run over by a bus ?

Sincerely, Michael "Mic" Neumann aka Mic Neumann aka ( squeezedot ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeezdot (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean

Less than five minutes after I post the {{hangon}} up & give my point of view on the talk page, someone has the power to remove my {{hangon}} request & subsequent page announcement stating that I am contesting the request for deletion. Please look into the person who is out to get me so bad.- Thank you. - Sincerely, Mic Neumann

You are contesting this type of deletion incorrectly. I've commented on your talk page about why your hangon tags are being removed. --Onorem♠Dil 03:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to add a section about which films were used in the Kung Faux episodes. The only one I was able to find out so far is that 'Mini Lee' is based on 'Bruce Lee We Miss You'. 90.192.98.188 (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the previous sections of the article regarding "episodes" and their related "movies" referred to above, as well as the "Skull and Chopsticks" section of the article referred to by The CyberSlug and the "Kung Faux" logo that was repositioned into the box by The CyberSlug near the top of the page were completely deleted by another editor before any further discussion or consensus could be met, and no further attempts to address these sections of the article were made. An attempt was made to create a new "Skull and Chopsticks" article, but that article was also immediately deleted by the same editor, along with the entire Dubtitled article which was active at the time it was "cited" by The CyberSlug above. - Sincerely, Mic Neumann 50.14.3.215 (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the POV tag. I hope other editors agree that it should stay there until the following issues are resolved, hopefully by the main author, Mic Neumann:

1. Add more history mentioning other involved people and organizations, with
   WP:IRS
   , which are mentioned in some of the cited sources, but are left out of this article by Neumann.
2. Add independent reliable sources supporting the historical claims about its development. If there are none, remove the claims.
3. Delete irrelevant and unsupported claims such as "entrepreneur" and anything else about Neumann which is not relevant to the series, its creation, distribution, etc. The article is about the series, not Neumann.

I'm glad the series exists, and has a following, and has made a mark. But Mic Neumann, you have relentlessly tried promoting yourself at several articles, repeatedly, such as at Nylon (magazine) and even Helena Christensen, for which exist not a single reliable source to support your claims of involvement. Please understand the purpose of an encyclopedia as opposed to a press release.

Neumann: if you would prefer, I'll be happy to perform the edits I mention above. But I guarantee you will not like the results. I'm asking you to take responsibility for excessive promo, and dial it back to zero. Reread the generally accepted standards practiced at Wikipedia regarding

I just found first issue of

WP:IRS

.

http://www.touchpuppet.com/2009/05/15/the-very-first-issue-of-nylon/

http://www.nylonmag.com/?section=article&parid=3040

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nylonmagazine/3529387688/sizes/l/in/set-72157618109931778/

50.14.3.215 (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sources you've listed aren't really "references to both people being co-founders" - they merely list personnel; there's a difference. The term "founder" or "co-founder" can have specific legal meaning (but I'm not a lawyer) and can be bestowed as an honorific by a principal of a company. Jarrett and others made special note of Christensen's position at the magazine prior to, during, and after the premiere issue. The magazine's masthead later listed Christensen as a founder, likely as an honorific, rather than as a legal declaration. The statement in Helena Christensen that she was a (co) founder was removed at Christensen's request. No source so far has listed you as a literal or figurative co-founder. --Lexein (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. And, I am not trying to fight to have my name added back in as co-founder at this time, because I realize that until a Wikipedia accepted source article for reference appears that clearly states the fact that I was a co-founder by name and description, it needs to be left alone in this article. I was just pointing out that after the above article edit claims that not a single reliable source exits to support my claim of involvement, the recently discovered posting of the debut issue of the magazine's masthead on Nylon magazine's own website clearly supports my claim of high level involvement at the very least, and the fact that Helena Christensen requested the removal of the reference of her being a co-founder of the magazine speaks volumes about the shared feelings of many of us who were critical to the founding and the debut of the magazine before leaving to pursue other interests, which in my case was to leave to create Kung Faux in 1999, but because nobody else but me knew I was creating it and later debuting it on my websites at that time, there are no Wikipedia reliable references to state that claim either, so I have to wait until 2003 to be able to talk about the release of Kung Faux with Wikipedia reliable sources. I am not looking to argue about this and other items, because I know it needs a better article of support to be able to state anything greater than "Development Director" for Nylon magazine or an earlier debut date for Kung Faux at this time, and no longer being involved with the magazine leaves only the current remaining co-founders of the magazine to list whomever they choose to list as honorific co-founders. But, as I mentioned previously, you can see that their are no co-founders listed in the debut issue of the magazine, because that is only something they began to do later, primarily because the celebrity element of Helena Christensen, who was primarily used to attract advertising support in addition to her creative input, had physically left the magazine, but listing her on the masthead as a co-founder left a degree of ambiguity viable enough to continue to attract advertisers, although Helena Christensen has been steadily distancing herself from this practice as you can see by her article edit. I have no interest in pursuing this potential article item any further. I just wanted to make a point that I was absolutely involved in the launch of this magazine as a broader form of recognition that my claims in general were credible enough to not be considered complete fabrications. But, as always, I thank you for your input, feedback and clarification, because it is absolutely making me be a better article writer when it comes to the combination of readability and sourcing under the guidelines of Wikipedia. - Thank You. - Sincerely, Mic Neumann 50.14.3.215 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein: Thank you for your review. I have deleted claims such as "entrepreneur" per you request and added "other relevant organizations" as you have also requested without hopefully jeopardizing the possibility of them being repetitive or reverted, or even deleted and redirected to other articles the way both

I am cautiously optimistic about your progress. But I see you have bunched sources at the end of a paragraph. Are you sure that that's the only way they can properly support the paragraph, in toto? Usually, we try to support a claim (sentence or two) with a source. If a single source supports a whole paragraph of claims, fine, but these don't, in my opinion. It's a hard balance to strike. I'm suggesting distributing the inline citations (or named refs) to support the claims they best support. Also, please (and I know this can be difficult) avoid sources which consist of mostly your press release text, or "rip and writes." If you avoid such sources, you avoid their voracious decimation by hardcore promotion deletionists. --Lexein (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I thank you again for your feedback and advice. The bunching of sources in the opening paragraphs came about because when I originally tried writing the article in the style that you refer to with a collection of "cited" sentences linked together in the past, another editor came in with the critique that the paragraph was poorly written and unreadable, then rewrote the paragraph in the "conflated" style that you see now while using just one source. Then a few years later another editor came in and flagged the article for deletion because there were not enough sources cited. So, like you mentioned, with the balance being hard to strike, I just tried to fill in some of the gaps to make it read well and allow me to "cite" more sources to avoid deletion, then I backed it up with even more sources to be safe in the "releases" section, because the natural occuring time related format lends itself well to a set of sequential "cited" sentences being linked together to form a paragraph. So, I was hopeful that a short and easy reading opening description conflated down from a collection of "cited" sources that was then backed up further down the page by a sequential set of "cited" sentences linked together would address the "hard to strike balance" you refer to in your advice. I realize that the Wikipedia process and different editors over time have different opinions and styles as you also mention, and I have witnessed it firsthand over the years, which is why I am again grateful for you choosing not to unilaterally delete the "Kung Faux" article, and instead have decided to create a helpful and democratic discussion for consensus. - Thank You. - Sincerely, Mic Neumann 50.14.3.215 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I indented your reply, hope that's ok. My current top-of-head question is: what's a "revisionist"? If that's not commonly used anywhere, don't use it here. In England, revision seems to mean studying. In the U.S. it's a pejorative term referring to lying about history. Just saying, careful.

I'm an

WP:42

. Now that the article is more stable, it's a good time to consider distributing sources to their claims. Try to use the minimum necessary to support a claim. "Extra" or "defensive" sources should be listed in Talk, or perhaps carefully added to a ==Further reading== section, but only if they're long.

So the meat of an article must come from independent reliable sources. If an editor senses that

WP:RS. Can't help that, except by thorough, gimlet eyed, harsh editing and monomaniacal source-searching. I purloined this phrase from R.A. Heinlein: Wikipedia is a harsh mistress, demanding much, granting little. --Lexein (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Gah - don't lose the Billboard announcement. Geez. WTF. Oh. I see what you're doing there. Nevermind. --Lexein (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your guidance. As you see I am still working on it while keeping everything in mind discussed earlier and over the entire history of this article. In the USA and Canada a "revisionist" is "someone who advocates the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements." as defined by TheFreeDictionary.com, which is what I do with dubbing and scoring audio visual art and media, and did with "Kung Faux". I paired it with the word postmodern due to their inclusion in the review by "The Film Cynics" from Canada, because I think it makes more sense in context, and I don't think I can take a second harsh mistress. I have one already - LOL. I know I need to likely do more, and again I appreciate your patience, input, and advice. - Thank You. - Sincerely, Mic Neumann. P.S. - For insight, Check out the Wikipedia articles for Postmodernism & Revisionist Western. 50.14.3.215 (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Critically acclaimed" doesn't go in the lead for any film or TV articles. Also, it only applies when a large number of critics, especially

I have just modified one external link on Kung Faux. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620030156/http://www.sawfnews.com/Bollywood/63901.aspx to http://www.sawfnews.com/Bollywood/63901.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kung Faux. 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 archive https://archive.is/20130222123711/http://www.nowondvd.net/kungfaux/ to http://www.nowondvd.net/kungfaux/

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]