Talk:The Sarah Silverman Program

This article is rated B-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. LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

I changed "honesty" to "self-absorption" because Sarah is not at all honest, in fact she can be quite conniving, as shown in the last episode when she not only lies to her friend to get out of a phone conversation, she lies to God to get him to leave in the morning. She's essentially a narcissist, almost completely unaware of anyone else's needs or desires except as they affect hers.

Hmmm, you're probably right. Although she is relatively honest, she only is unless it doesn't benefit her. 72.206.97.34

I have rated this article as B class because several of the important sections are present but some information is missing. I have rated it as mid importance the show is distinguished from other television series by it's renewal for a second season and the critical acclaim. These categories are arbritrary and are subject to review by any editor who feels confident to do so. Please note that a more formal assessment by other editors is required to achieve

• Re-formatting the characters section into prose - it's pretty much there but the bullet points should be taken out and the characters should be introduced with a sentence instead of "name -"
• Removal of the "overview" section - the lead should act as an overview. The plot synopsis should be moved into the episode list section i.e. plot synopsis and episode list.
• Clean up and remove the trivia section - some of the information can be used to start a production notes section. Some of it could be deleted or moved to appropriate sub-articles.--Opark 77 11:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to the anti-Jewish hate site labeled under "recent comments". If someone would like to highlight those comments using an appropriate and reputable website, they are welcome to do so. User:Umdunno 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses the "overwhelming critical acclaim" bestowed upon the Sarah Silverman Program. The citations listed certainly do acclaim the show, but this is selection is not a representative sample of reviews. 22 reviews at this site: http://www.metacritic.com/tv/shows/sarahsilvermanprogram show that the reviews have been overall "generally positive", and even that might be a bit generous. Several prominent reviews (eg: NY Daily News, TV Guide, Salon) were very disappointed in the show. I'm not very familiar yet with Wiki guidelines and such so I'm not up for editing an article just yet. But if someone else is interested in correcting the blatantly wrong and POV statement, I think that would be a great idea. 76.175.216.133 00:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. On an anecdotal note, everyone I know thinks this show sucks. I think this show sucks. 160.39.129.60 16:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and everyone i know who's seen it hates the show, there's just nothing funny about it all i can't believe the part in the article citing reviews praising this crap and comparing it to chappelle's show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.88.129 (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Anecdotally, everyone I know (including myself) thinks the show is painfully unfunny. But unless we have reviews saying this, we're stuck with a lack of sources. RomanSpa (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's going to be compared to Chappelle's Show, it's Comedy Central's biggest hit since Chappelle. And on a side note, it's way funnier than Chappelle's show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.123.1 (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has the WGA strike stopped production of the show? I noticed tonight's episode is a rerun of "Bored of the Rings", but there were supposed to be 8 more new episodes for season 2. Joe 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, they went on hiatus for a while but iof the WGA strike doesnt end they wont come back :( BUT It DUE to return next summer. so half a year until it comes back

There were 6 episodes in the first season, maybe they cut it off at 6 again for the second season? the strike shouldn't affect episodes that are already done...does anybody have an actual source for why there are no new episodes?75.168.121.252 (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I JUST said, they're on hiatus for filming new episodes. And they cant if they dont have a story so it wont be back untill the WGA strike is over —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.1.218 (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lose the attitude. I was just asking for a source. 75.168.106.114 (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you're looking for? It doesn't give a 'why' but it does update the episode numbers that Comedy Central was declaring earlier this year. http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?pid=1447&cpcat=entertainment&stry=23943016 Sarilox (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering this myself. There were supposed to be 6 episodes aired in the fall and 10 in the spring, so I wondered if these episodes were already finished before the writer's stike and would still air or not. I looked it up, and according to a comment Sarah Silverman made in USA Today, there will be no new episodes until the strike is over: "We have been completely stopped for the past seven days. The last new episode aired last Wednesday. We have no new scripts. The strike has to end before we can move forward." from here I'm just going to go ahead and add this info to the article. Inanechild (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Cookie Party should redirect to this article. There are actually such things as "cookie parties". People bake cookies, bring them to party, exchange cookies, etc. This, of course, is what the show-within-a-show on the SSP is named after. -scola —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scola (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the very (very) large amount of people who are somehow involved with The Sarah Silverman Program who are also involved with Channel 101 be mentioned somewhere? I feel this would fit well with "Production Notes".

Season 2 was just released on DVD recently. Shouldn't that make the newest episodes part of season 3?129.81.135.60 (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are doing Season 2 into two volumes for the DVD release. It is all Season 2 just split in half.74.137.27.31 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The release date for season 2 volume 2 needs to be rechecked. I can not find any stores or web sites selling it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.191.50 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the show first broadcast in the UK and Ireland in 2007, Comedy Central could not have been the broadcaster. It didn't exist yet. The correct name is Paramount Comedy Channel, it only changed it's name last month! I assume someone edited it, should it be changed back? Digifiend (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the policy on this? On a related note, Channel 4 isn't airing the series, is it?--Occono (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The show's humor is predominantly based on satirizing conventional "family-friendly" or wholesome television programs." This isn't sourced. And it really doesn't even seem true, IMO. It makes zero sense to me. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about it doesn't seem true to you? What would you suggest would be a better way to summarize the content of the show?--71.194.101.50 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that description is subjective and not particularly accurate. A more apt description would be something like "The show frequently employs satirical and absurdist elements, and often disguises its edgy humour behind its happy-go-lucky tone." Or something like that, I wouldn't say it satirizes wholesomeness so much as it employs pseudo-wholesomeness. Doesn't so much take the piss out of it, it borrows cues from it. Unrelated note: I'm reverting the edit some guy put in about the show being canceled. It isn't sourced, and I can't find anything more than rumours to back it up. 24.79.89.131 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added section to clean up introduction, im not sure what still needs cleaning up.TheHappiestCritic (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Sarah Silverman Program. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/cabletv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003541857
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080614200900/http://www.glaad.org/publications/resource_doc_detail.php?id=4173 to http://www.glaad.org/publications/resource_doc_detail.php?id=4173

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) 07:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]