Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help. It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

22nd Apr, 2012 08:47:54 PM

Putting aside any controversy over Glenn Beck, if he was speaking the truth and he got Van Jones canned then especially since it's a YMMV page I vote that it stays.

But it's not really a vote is it?

blackcat MOD
22nd Apr, 2012 09:16:03 PM

Um, why are we collecting tropes on a real person when we don't do that?

22nd Apr, 2012 09:34:40 PM

Well they're sort of more guidelines.

Seriously, if we're not meant to do it...can we argue that as a performer we are discussing a work rather than the person?

22nd Apr, 2012 10:15:17 PM

^I asked about Real Life people's tropes pages a few months back, and what I recall is that I guess we don't catalog tropes about them, but rather tropes about how they are portrayed in fiction. But then I also remember something about how Adolf Hitler had to have have Complete Monster taken away even though that's how he's almost always portrayed, and then Theodore Roosevelt has tons of gushing... man, now I'm even more confused.

Edited by nman
22nd Apr, 2012 11:09:39 PM

I think he gets by because most of the tropes relate to him on his radio and television shows, not just him as a person.

22nd Apr, 2012 11:16:25 PM

Much like The Undertaker. He gets a pass on a few real life tropes that apply for the guy who plays him rather than the wrestler.

Fighteer MOD
23rd Apr, 2012 06:43:29 AM

Nobody "gets a pass" on RL troping. We are not concerned with Beck as a person; we are strictly and solely concerned with the tropes employed in his show. If this leads to edit warring over a YMMV page, that page gets locked.

23rd Apr, 2012 12:14:25 PM

In that context, I'm not sure how to proceed with the CMOA in question. My stance is that, regardless of the validity of Beck's statements, he did make them and they did have the stated effect. If somebody thinks that's awesome, then they should be able to add that as an example. But if we limit the YMMV page to only things that related directly to Beck's shows, then I'm not sure if it qualifies.

23rd Apr, 2012 02:12:21 PM

I thought that for Real Life people, we only rarely had tropes for em, and YMMV even less often. Political things usually are right out.

In all honesty, I can see a CMoA page for a lot of real life people... but some people are just too controversial. I wouldn't expect to see one on a Glenn Beck page, nor on a Barack Obama or Bill Clinton page.

The only time I even think we could get away with that is if it's universally agreed by a lot of people, no matter what their politics or beliefs, that it was a CMoA. This is totally likely to happen. Unless it's a case like Glenn Beck rescues puppies from burning building. Or Penny Arcade authors sending in that check for Jack Thompson (is that one on the Permanent Red Link Club? It should be). There's not many incidents like that, and even fewer when it comes to politics.

Edited by TheInferno
23rd Apr, 2012 03:34:03 PM

The issue I and others have had...well, it's a confirmed lie that cost someone his job. Something under YMMV should at least be TRUE even if the issue is left up. If you think lying about someone and having the 'desire effect' is awesome, sure, but to call it 'exposing' them?

23rd Apr, 2012 04:06:46 PM

So when Mark Callaway (the guy who plays The Undertaker) confronted Vince Mcmahon over the Montreal Screwjob, should all examples of that be deleted?

Edited by tsstevens
23rd Apr, 2012 05:58:39 PM

Isn't that Pro Wrestling? I don't know much about it, but that's mostly scripted with a lot of Kayfabe, right?

This is Real Life, with real people being affected. And especially since PolitiFact at least says that his statement was "mostly false", there's more than enough grey on this for the example to be struck from the page. And once again, I still don't like the idea of CMoA for real life people, at least when it comes to politics.

Even if you don't believe PolitiFact is correct or you think it's biased, that doesn't change the fact that at least one group who's entire purpose is fact checking thinks it's bogus (mostly). When in doubt...

Edited by TheInferno
23rd Apr, 2012 07:16:17 PM

Okay, a little background for those unaware. The Montreal Screwjob was a real life event that took place when Vince Mcmahon (not Mr. Mc Mahon the evil corporate man he plays) had the WWF Championship (which is fake, but Bret Hart, or the real life Brett Hart, treated as recognition of his accomplishments) taken off Brett and handed to his in story and real life arch nemesis, Michael Hickenbottem (Shawn Michaels).

As one might expect, the likes of Mick Foley (then wrestling as Mankind), Brett's brother in Davey Boy Smith (the British Bulldog) and Mark Callaway (The Undertaker) were angry at what took place. Callaway saw fit to hunt down Vince (not Mr. Mc Mahon, the real life Vince) where he was hiding in his office and Callaway, as a legitimate tough guy, told him, "If you don't open this door and get your ass out here I'll knock the door down and kick it." Vince did answer, and Mark told him, "If you still want to have a company tomorrow you better apologize to Brett." This wasn't staged, this wasn't worked, this was real, something a lot of fans would give their left tit to see.

Now my question is, if Real Life is not to be applied should examples of Mark Callaway's handling of the Montreal Screwjob be removed?

23rd Apr, 2012 08:10:35 PM

I don't know wrestling too well, but in this seems incontrovertible that Vince Mc Mahon screwed Bret Hart over hugely. And Callaway standing up for Brett doesn't seem something many people will really DIFFER on. That's not exactly the same.

23rd Apr, 2012 09:15:29 PM

How much Brett is to blame (refusing to lose to Shawn, fears he'll leave with the championship), or Vince (for enacting the screwjob), or Shawn (for saying just take the belt off him) or even Triple H (Shawn's friend who said Brett was being selfish and expressing fears of Brett dropping the title in the garbage on the competing Nitro) is debated to this day. If you'd like the details head over to the trope page and Wikia, they can explain it probably better than I could.

As a side note to show how real this was, not only did Brett legitimately punch out Vince, Triple H was cussed out by Brett's wife and Mick Foley was going to leave. The WWF praised him and he was given a surprisingly large payout for the show he didn't go to, and Brett was really grateful for what Mick did.

23rd Apr, 2012 10:39:35 PM

The discussion over The Undertaker should take place in that page's discussion page.

24th Apr, 2012 02:50:51 PM

Indeed. We need to resolve this first. Bolding For Mod in the hopes we can get some weighing in or at least a "we're discussing it."

lu127 MOD
24th Apr, 2012 03:23:48 PM

Okay, if this is so much trouble, do you want to nuke that CMOA page?

24th Apr, 2012 07:46:27 PM

Since it's only two examples, it might be a good idea. As I've said before, we might have CMoA in fiction, but in real life politics?

I don't find the other two nearly as controversial, so I could live with just removing this particular one. It's just that by having this on the wiki, we're saying "Good job Glenn Beck! We're glad you cost that person his job and possibly his reputation and career!"

Regardless of whether or not he was wrong or right (hell, there might be a shrine to Stalin in that guy's basement, who knows) it's just an area I really don't think we should tread into. If there are similar cases on other politically active people (general term, since I don't know the actual one <_<) then those should probably be pulled as well.

Edited by TheInferno
19th May, 2012 02:01:42 AM

GB is on record multiple times saying that he regrets that his reporting got Van Jones fired. He just wanted to get the truth out and feels Jones is more dangerous outside of the limelight a White House position provides. As Beck himself is not happy about this, it's probably just as well that it's been removed.

FastEddie MOD
19th May, 2012 06:35:41 PM

I cut the Awesome.Glenn Beck page. There is no content that could be added to it that would not start an argument, there being a contingent of people who are pretty sure that an action can either be awesome or it can be something done by Glenn Beck. There is no overlap.

30th Jun, 2012 02:08:39 AM

How can you say "no content...that would not start an argument" when the argument was over one particular entry?

The Restoring Honor rally, for instance, was very-explicitly AGAINST being political and mainly spoke about country and faith. The only "controversy" one could associate with it was that Al Sharpton was angry that Glenn Beck took "their day"(note: Sharpton was speaking about how 8/28 is the anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech and that it was somehow "Their day", 'they' being unspecified) and used it "to promote an agenda of hate."

It was only after the fact that the rally was seen as rather innocuous and, overall, positive that Sharpton was forced to eat crow by Bill O Reilly.

Other than that, there is nothing to suggest that listing the Restoring Honor rally would stir up controversy on the wiki.


How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: