Talk:Reality television

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pbergmann33 (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juliestein016.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vuongc3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Break out Reality competition shows?[edit]

This section seems rather lengthy, and although it needs citations, there are plenty of books and articles on the shows in this format. It could stand as its own article. bd2412 T 02:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-genre: Youth Audience[edit]

I'd like to add a sub-genre section titled "Youth audience," which would examine the appeal of reality television for young people and point to a few programs across the world that have marketed to this specific demographic. Take a look at my Sandbox page. I'd love suggestions as I continue working on this! Jesswalther (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in Criticism Section[edit]

2000 WAS CHANGED TO 200458757 AT 6:34 There appears to be bias in favor of reality tv in the criticism section. For example, it's only portrayed positively in the "as a substitute for scripted drama section", ignoring the frequent criticism of it lacking any artistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.6.22.12 (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to find such criticism, from notable sources, and add it in - I think it would improve the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


What about it's genesis as a scheme to defraud the unions? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53032-2004Aug9.html

Biofuel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split[edit]

This article is over 100k, and is difficult to navigate through because of its size. Dividing the criticism of reality television (because there's certainly plenty of that) would not only supply a well-sized article, but would bring this article down to a much more comfortable length. Thoughts? (We may later determine that further splitting will become necessary, like separating history into a new page). WikiRedactor (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with this. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article is definitely too long, and encompasses multiple subjects. bd2412 T 14:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constructed or structured reality TV[edit]

From The Guardian on 1 June 2011:

The inexorable rise of constructed reality television was boosted last week when ITV2's The Only Way is Essex took home Bafta's YouTube Audience Award, beating the likes of Downton Abbey, Miranda and Sherlock to the prize. As the canny director at the ceremony cut to a close-up of Martin Freeman, the actor's expression spoke volumes about the television establishment's reaction to a bunch of spray-tanned amateurs waltzing off with a trophy more usually afforded to skilled craftspeople. He wasn't angry with the voting public, just disappointed.

The term "structured-reality television series" is used in the article "Made In Chelsea".

Should constructed or structured reality TV be added as a section under subgenres or have a separate article?

Rainjar (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing those out. I added information about those two series to the article (as well as about the series that inspired them, Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County), but I didn't add anything about the phrase "constructed reality". I'm not sure what should be done with that term: at the moment it seems to be used by the BAFTA awards but very few others. The main difference between these shows and other reality shows seems to be that the producers of these shows have admitted to doing what the producers of most other reality shows also do, to one extent or another, but won't admit to. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal[edit]

I propose Merging Criticism of reality television with reality television to create an article with a stronger NPOV and avoid giving undue weight to any topics. the Criticism article has 9 Sections I suggest a merger as follows:

  • Section 1 - Reality as a Misnomer - We have a section "Reality as a misnomer" in this article already, we can easily merge the two together.
  • Section 2 - There is a section "Political and cultural impact" saying that this section is "Negative" makes it a judgement call. what is a good impact what is a bad impact? what if it inspires people to wear short shorts more is that positive or negative? having one section for all impacts is best then we can let the reader make the decision if the impacts are good or bad.
  • Section 3 - Union Critique of Reality TV - this can create a new section "Labor Relations" if it grows enough we can spin it out into an article "Labor in Television" or something.
  • Section 4 - Product Placement - this can go in "Analysis"
  • Section 5 - Undeserved Celebrity - This can go in the "analysis" section since the concept of "instant celebrity" is covered there.
  • Section 6 - Spectacle of Humiliation - this can go in the "analysis" section it would fit there very nicely.
  • Section 7 - Participation of Children - This can create its own section. If the content grows so much we can look at a spin off article "Children in Reality TV" Since a lot of shows target, or have kids in them this is a rich subject that's not in the main article.
  • Section 8 - See Also - The See also section can be merged with the See also section here pretty easily. if there are too many we can look at delisting the excess.
  • Section 9 - References -Can be merged with the reference section clearly.

This merger would not be difficult, the result will be a better artile with a stronger NPOV. Any feedback, suggestion, or assistance with the moves would be appreciated :) Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware of it, but the "Criticism" article was spun off in September 2013 to try to keep the size of this article more manageable - see two sections above this one. Since then, both articles have increased in size; the main and "Criticism" article are now at 115KB and 35KB, respectively, and if they were merged the article would be at roughly 150KB. I think that's too much, and spinning off the criticism seems like a good solution. I think it's turned out fine; both articles seem fairly evenhanded (I'm curious if you think the bias here is pro-reality television or anti-). Do you have another idea for how to keep the article manageable? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Korny, first thank you for the background on the article I appreciate it :) I agree that we can't let articles get forever long. but I do think the article "Reality TV" is lacking perspective and sources since we have effectively banned criticism from it. I would like to pose a juxtaposition between two articles. Criticism of reality television and Film criticism when I look at Film criticism I can see that the topic is the criticism, it talks in general terms about the different types of criticism ( the article isn't perfect but it illustrates the point ) when I look at "Criticism of reality tv" I see a list of very specific reality tv criticisms that are information lacking here in this article. that's why merging "Film Criticism" and "Film" would make no sense, both articles can stand on their own. "Reality television" is missing a true NPOV by excluding the content in "criticism of reality tv" I think the two together would make a great article. now that being said, you are right that it would be too long. we will have to create a subtopic or two. I propose a few ideas we could create an article "Children in Reality TV" which could have the history of kids in reality tv, criticisms about it, controversies over labor, etc. another possible article is "Reality television labor" where different information on this topic can exist. another great article could be "Reality Television Controversies" this is a great article because whenever we right a "contra" versy it is nearly impossible to NOT write both sides. here's a typical narrative for a controversy. Party A did this, Party B felt this. both sides show up, its very easy to write controversy NPOV ( oddly enough ) We can manage the length and NPOV but we have to make NPOV our polestar and guide us. Bryce Carmony (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Film criticism" example is not relevant here because that's a different meaning of "criticism". I agree that spinning off criticism is not ideal, but I haven't seen a better idea - and the two suggestions you give, of splitting off "children" and "labor", wouldn't work because they're only about a paragraph each. If you want to rename "Criticism of reality television" to "Reality television controversies", go ahead - though I don't see that it would make a difference to the content. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference of meaning is the example Korny :) That "Film Criticism" is a good article. and we agree that "Criticism spin offs" are not ideal. Here's why I think a "Reality televeision contraversies" article would be better than "Criticism of reality television" , here's how we write a criticism:
  • Ward drobe handling = Some shows, such as Survivor, do not allow the participants to wear clothing of their own choosing while on camera, to promote the participants' wearing of "camera-friendly colors" and to prevent the participants from wearing the same style and/or color of clothing. Additionally, some prohibited clothing with corporate logos.[6] ( How is this a "criticism" no one is giving the criticism, we as wikipedia are just writing 'hey look at this, definitly this is worth criticizing' )

this is how we would write a controversy article:

  • Some shows, such as Survivor, do not allow the participants to wear clothing of their own choosing while on camera, to promote the participants' wearing of "camera-friendly colors" and to prevent the participants from wearing the same style and/or color of clothing. Additionally, some prohibited clothing with corporate logos.[6] ( Clearly we see this is controversial. ) we could throw in a link or two to the "rules" cites of different reality tv shows to reference the chose-your-own-clothing ban. and then we can source any criticism as the opposing view. It is nearly impossible to write a controversy without having both sides. for example here's me trying to do so (Germany invaded poland, they fought, they lost the war ) it's difficult to do that, Controveries naturally create a both sides narrative.

There are over 520 articles with "Controversy" in the title. and only 150 with "Criticism of" in the title. I think deep in the wisdom of the masses we see that "Contorversy" is a better article that "Criticism of" ( which IMO is unencyclapedic since I've never seen "Criticism of x" in anything but Wikipedia. ) I know this was a long response I am not the best at getting my point across, but I think it makes sense Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fully understand this, but if you want to rename the "Criticism" article, and/or rewrite any of it, go ahead. And if you want to discuss any of those changes ahead of time, I would think that article's talk page is the place to do it. Then after that, I guess you can rename the other 150 articles. :) Korny O'Near (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do the best job of explaining it Korny, lol it is a little more than just renaming. I dropped the merger proposal and appreciate you participating in the discussion, we're lucky to have you here at Wikipedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reality show with scripted portions[edit]

See Talk:Bering_Sea_Gold#Reality. Someone argued that "Reality TV shows are a genre unto themselves, and the "scripted" portions of them have become an understood to exist element." An interesting thought. In my opinion anything with scripted elements doesn't deserve the name "reality show". Otherwise the "reality" in "reality show" would become a misnomer. Anyway, either the article on Bering_Sea_Gold needs to be altered to not call it a reality show or this article needs to be rewritten to blur the line between scripted and reality shows and allow for scripted portions. But then where does one draw the line? As The World Turns as a reality show with scripted portions? PizzaMan (♨♨) 09:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article already covers in depth the ways in which the term "reality television" is a misnomer, including the pre-scripting of some shows. It's certainly interesting, but I don't think it affects usage of the term "reality television". "Reality TV" is a term that refers to a specific range of shows, and is not simply a synonym for "television that depicts real life" - otherwise, talk shows, for instance, would be referred to as reality TV. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is indeed a decent paragraph devoted to this. However, such background information is usually not present in the articles about individual reality shows. My question is should we still call them reality shows if it is likely or even proven that there are scripted portions? Talk shows are obviously recorded in a studio with prepared themes, so that's not a good example imho. However if shows with scripted portions are still called reality shows, i honestly see the line getting blurred with soap series. In my country there are such (fully) scripted fake reality shows, complete with interviews with the involved people as if the stuff between the interviews isn't scripted, which the makers reluctantly admit it is. Besides, i think viewers are entitled to know if a show is real or (partly) scripted and that should be represented in the word used to name the type of show. It's a very important and relevant distinction to some (most?) viewers. How could we make the distinction? Perhaps by introducing a term like pseudo-reality shows for the shows with scripted portions? PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the talk show example is a good one: "reality court shows", for example, are considered reality TV even though they also are filmed in a studio and follow preset themes and structures. Reality TV is not just a term for "reality on television". Obviously, if there were a fully scripted, completely contrived show billed as a reality TV show, that would indeed be a gray area, but I'm not aware of such a thing. I don't know of any show, for instance, where someone is presented as having a name or occupation totally different from their real one. Are you saying there are such shows? If so, can you give an example? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know of several examples in The Netherlands alone. For example Brugklas, a series about kids in the first year of high school. It's meticulously created to suggest that it's reality/documentary, with for example interviews with kids and teachers. But it's really all scripted and acted. There are also two shows of people visiting the psychologist that suggest to be documentary/real but are actually scripted/acted. You propose drawing the line at a show being 100% scripted and acted. Even the actors in totally unrealistic science fiction movies draw upon their real life emotions for acting, and some of the best scenes in movies were improvised to deviate from the script. So you could argue that no movie or show is 100% fake. My point is: viewers should know if a show is 100% documentary or if there are portions that are acted or scripted. And i'm not talking about a (semi-scripted) interview. I'm talking about manipulating the events that take place. For example, in the show Bering Sea Gold, one gold digger sends his employee away, hides a major part of his found gold and then gives the employee his share of the minor part. All on camera, commenting about it while he's doing it. That's obviously not real. I *don't* see the distinction between this and a soap series about gold diggers. I *do* see the distinction between this and a program which portrays the life of real gold diggers as it is, in a documentary style. Observing without (the intention of) changing what you observe. I think we should only call something a reality show if it's a documentary series with no scripted portions and no acting at all. Or at least we should consider shows part of a different genre depending on whether there is acting/scripting. And those genres should have names that are not deceptive. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, scripting is not a great metric for determining the genre, since, as you point out, some fictional movies include a great deal of improvised dialogue. But I think the criteria I suggested at the end, of whether people are presented as having names and/or occupations totally different from their own, might be a reasonable one. By that standard, Brugklas completely fails as a reality TV show - if I understand it correctly, it has professional child actors portraying characters with other names. Some people do indeed call it a reality show, though I don't know why; it very clearly seems to be a (non-comedic) mockumentary instead. As for reality shows with fakery, like Bering Sea Gold (and there are many others), as far as I know, the people on the show are not actors, and they are in fact gold diggers (or whatever it is). That might not be an ideal boundary to set, but it works for me. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources[edit]

Here is a list of five additional sources I think would be beneficial to this article:

1. Reiss, Steven. Wiltz, James. “Why America Loves Reality TV,” Psychologytoday.com, Sussex Publishers, September 01, 2001. Web. Feb 17 2016. https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200109/why-america-loves-reality-tv This is an article in the Magazine "Psychology Today" titles "Why America Loves Reality TV" I think this would improve the article because there is a section called "other influences in pop culture," and "appeal" but nothing specific on why Reality TV is so successful and popular, especially in The US

2. “Most Popular Reality TV Shows,” TV.com, CBS Interactive Inc, Web. Feb 17 2016. http://www.tv.com/shows/category/reality/ This is a list of The most popular Reality TV shows. It's a short and simple source but is relevant to adding information to this article because part of this article focuses on "sub-genres." I think we could expand on this information with examples of the most successful sub-genres"

3. “Reality TV- A Bried History”, “Oregonstate.edu,” Oregon State University, Web. Feb 17, 2016. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/soc499/cordray/media/Realitytv.html Here is a scholarly article from The University of Oregon titles "Reality TV- A Brief History." I chose this source because a large chunk of this article is "History" and this source can serve as building material that has already been written. The source also discusses old Reality TV shows as well as their owners, broadcasters and the CEOs of said companies.

4. "Reality Television: Creating a World Where no one is Real,” Wordpress.com, Web. Feb 17 2016. https://anhoward.wordpress.com/the-effect-reality-tv-is-having-on-us-shocking-statistics/ This list titled "Reality Television: Creating a World Where no one is Real" seems bias and opinionated, but is actually a list of compiled facts and statistics pertaining to reality TV. Unbiased facts such as these will make a great additional section to this article.

5. Hazlett, Courtney, “Reality Check for reality TV fans: You’re more neurotic.” Today.com, Nov 9, 2012. Web. Feb 17 2016. http://www.today.com/news/reality-check-reality-tv-fans-youre-more-neurotic-1C7320186 This source, found from TODAY.com discusses personality attributes associated with the liking of reality TV. This article will coincide with my first source, noting the "appeal" and "pop culture influences" on Reality TV.


Juliestein016 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for compiling this list. I don't think all of these references are usable - #3 seems to be just a paper written by a student, while #4 is a non-notable blog post. Also, #2 is just a list of reality shows, which doesn't seem that useful - there are plenty of those already, including some on Wikipedia itself. That leaves #1 and #5, both of which are interesting, and would add analysis that's not currently in the article. Of the two, I happen to think #5, the Today Show one, is more insightful and better-written. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

proposed lead section edit[edit]

In the article “Reality Television,” I would like to write the following content as an addition to the second paragraph:

In the mid 2000’s the popularity of competition based reality television series shifted towards a more documentary style, although documentaries are not technically considered a subgenre of reality television. Today, American Idol, The Amazing Race and Face Off, rank as the top three most popular reality television series, documentary style is not lagging far behind. Keeping up with the Kardashians and 19 Kids and counting follow behind and hold the sixth and seventh most popular spots.

I would like to add this information because I want to add a section “Youth Audiences” to the article, and this can be a perfect transition.

Additionally, I want to expand on the article’s section “appeal.” Therefor I will add the following into the end of the existing lead section:

In a survey of 19,000 people, the people who actually watched reality TV compared to those who did not were reported to be “more extroverted,” “more neurotic,” and to have lower self-esteem. 70% of reality television watchers are reported to be extroverted compared to only 59% of non-watchers, and 24% of those viewers considered themselves “neurotic” compared to only 14% of non-viewers. Two of the most common misconceptions about reality television viewers are that they watch to be able to talk to friends and coworkers about the shows and that they are less intelligent than other television views. The main appealing aspect of reality television is its competitive nature, which doesn’t quite explain the popularity of shows like Keeping up with the Kardashians, but can attest for shows like Survivor and The Bachelor(ette). The desire for prestige and importance of status are attitudes that can easily separate regular views from others.

Juliestein016 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of the first change: first, because the intro is already quite long, second, because I don't know what the source is for describing a shift toward documentary-style shows, and third, because I believe that list on TV.com is ordered by popularity on the site, not popularity in terms of ratings. The second change seems pretty good - it would be especially good to get that first sentence into the article. The rest of the paragraph needs some copy-editing, in any case. And it should probably go into the "Appeal" section, not the intro. Although maybe that's what you meant.
On the other hand, feel free to add anything you want into the page - it's a wiki. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Evaluation[edit]

This article is really written well. I really like organization of your article. The history part was really impressed me. Unlike other articles in Wikipedia world, it was organized by chronologically. Chronological classification helps me to understand whole history. Moreover, I can figure out feature of each period easily. And, you have great lead section. When I read your lead section, I can understand what the reality television is. And then, you have a lot of hyperlinks for difficult words, unfamiliar one and word needs explain. I really like this part too. When I find difficult words or unfamiliar one, I can find it through click. I think that you can add more visual information such as pictures. There are so many paragraphs in your article. Everything is important part for your article. However, most people don’t like read too much paragraphs. People may feel boredom from too much paragraphs. If you add some visual data or images, people can relieve boredom. And then, I checked editing history on your article page. There are many editors on your article. That means that you can get a lot of feedback from Wikipedia community. In my case, my topic is unfamiliar one. There are no editors for me. Just Wikipedia official editors help me for my article. I want to apply active editing for my article. Moreover, article was written from a neutral point of view. References are reliable. Active editing is perfect. Please add your article’s link on your journal assignment. In fact, I can’t find your article from journal #8 which is mentioned by professor. I just was searching Google to find your article. PILJOONG KANG (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reality television. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New reference?[edit]

Is this source reliable? It gives some examples of "reality" shows that went the extra mile in manipulating things. [1] PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 05:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confession room[edit]

Why the hell does Confession Room redirect here?? GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unreality[edit]

This genre should be called Unreality television as all these shows are fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5C03:400:7583:4F6C:38BB:7904 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Criticism of reality television into Reality television[edit]

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.
The result of this discussion was not merged. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRITS says: "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. (...) Generally, new subarticles should not be devoted to criticism, controversies, or other specific points-of-view – instead sub-articles should focus on topical themes." fgnievinski (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. From the same essay you quoted:"In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." There are plenty of material and sources discussing the subject, and it is way too much for including it all in main article. Some of the critisim section in Reality television, probably could be trimmed and moved to the criticism article imo.
Also for note: Article was split after small discussion here on talk page. A merge request that was also discussed also here on talk page. Both these discussion had only a few participants. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

eReality[edit]

What channel no on DSTV is eReality? 41.57.156.169 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn[edit]

Robyn’s eyebrows 😂 173.191.242.206 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: English 102[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mads7683 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mads7683 (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Unreality show" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Unreality show has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § Unreality show until a consensus is reached. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 2[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CHICOtibo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Everlark13 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reality_television&oldid=1216702175"