# Talk:Hush (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Please help complete the Angel/Buffy episode articles. See what needs to be done on this sub-page of WikiProject Buffy:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes
Also please help update any major changes made to episode articles on that page so that progress can be mapped.

I removed the part about Hush being the last episode to have been awarded an Emmy. According to the Once More, With Feeling page, it was nominated, but accidentially left off the ballot. Jonas Viper 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Buffy410.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this episode, the Gentlemen are based on characters from fairy tales. Is this actually true? Evilgidgit (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the article only implies that they appear in a Buffyverse fairly tale. I'm not aware of anything recognizably like the heart/voice-stealing Gentlemen in any popular real world tale. Hqb (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Nobody else sees the similarity to 1998's "Dark City"? Lippard (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found it in a source. Have you seen it in a source? --Moni3 (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't either, to my surprise, after watching both...  The Dark City evildoers, called "The Strangers," are an alien race who look like old men wearing long coats who float around silently, and steal & replace people's memories and change the city they live in.  Lippard (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Similar characters have now been used in Venture Brothers--"The Investors" in the episode "The Silent Partners". Lippard (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen these other works, so I'm taking on faith that The Gentlemen are similar, but a reliable source has to say it in order for it to be put in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The article states: "Joss Whedon originally planned to produce the Musical episode "Once More, with Feeling" in place of this episode." "Once More, with Feeling" had not been written yet, and the story in "once More, with Feeling" would not fit into the same time frame in any which way. Joss Whedon had only suggested making A Musical episode at that time, but when discovering that a Musical episode had just been done on Xena, he postponed that idea and went the other way with a silent episode instead.70.179.142.114 (talk)

[Riley] sees that Buffy has superhuman powers, but is unaware [until Hush] of how she uses them.
Remind me: what had Riley witnessed? —Tamfang (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's someone else's fault. --Moni3 (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Now now, I pointed no fingers!  Ain't deniability grand? ;) —Tamfang (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm considering rearranging the narration of the climactic night for thread-coherence rather than strict adherence to the sequence of shots:

Anya falls asleep on Giles' sofa while Spike fetches a mugful of blood from the refrigerator.  Xander enters Giles' apartment as Spike, his mouth wet with blood, bends down to pick something up that he dropped in front of the sofa where Anya sleeps.  Inferring that Spike bit and drank from Anya, Xander pummels him ferociously until Anya wakes and stops him; excited that he fought to defend her, Anya invites him (with a gesture) to go home for sex.
Tara leaves her dormitory to show Willow a spell to help the town get their voices back. Tara trips on her way out of the dorm, turns around and sees The Gentlemen floating toward her. She flees to Willow's dorm, frantically knocking on doors which no one will open for her as The Gentlemen steadily pursue her. Willow hears Tara's panicked knocking down the hall and exits her room as Tara sprints into her, sending them both tumbling. Willow and Tara, fleeing The Gentlemen, lock themselves into a laundry room and try to barricade the door with a vending machine. It is too heavy, and Willow, injured, sits and concentrates on moving it with telekinesis; she fails, but Tara sees what she is doing.  They clasp hands and the machine moves swiftly across the room, blocking the door.
On patrol, Riley notices shadows in the belfry and goes to investigate.  Buffy finds two of The Gentlemen's minions, kills one and follows the other to the belfry.  Riley fights his way into the belfry where he sees Buffy also fighting with The Gentlemen's minions. She is pinned down but recognizes the box from her vision and gesticulates wildly for Riley to destroy it. When he does, she screams until The Gentlemen's and their minions' heads explode.
Is this an undue liberty? —Tamfang (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Which parts? --Moni3 (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I don't understand your question now that I read it again. What are you asking is an undue liberty, rearranging the plot section? Or that the description of the events is "undue liberty" as in..too flowery language or something?
You of course can edit the article any way you see fit. I really, really hope you do it to improve the article. Not that I know anything about you personally to predict you might want to sink it, but I've come across this every once in a while after I rewrite an article. Someone sometimes likes it better crappier, shorter, trivia-er. If I caught you here [1] in the middle of rearranging, ok. I hope you're working to rejoin single or double-sentences to larger paragraphs. --Moni3 (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Compared to the current version,
"On patrol that night, Riley notices shadows in the belfry and goes to investigate. Tara leaves her dormitory to show Willow a spell to help the town get their voices back. Anya falls asleep on Giles' sofa while Spike fetches a mug full of blood from the refrigerator. Tara trips on her way out of the dorm, turns around and sees The Gentlemen directly behind her, floating towards her. She flees to Willow's dorm, frantically knocking on doors which no one will open for her as The Gentlemen steadily pursue her. Buffy finds two of The Gentlemen's minions, kills one and follows the other to the belfry. ..."
that looks like a clear improvement.
—WWoods (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Reading a third time...God...I swear I won't ever multi-task and post on talk pages...no, I won't promise that at all. I'll still do it and I'll still sound like a doofus. --Moni3 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I love how you keep your sense of humor. —Tamfang (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I had forgotten that the last line spoken before The Weird is (Olivia) "That's enough small talk, don't you think?"
Not counting the scream, there's actually less than 15 minutes of talk by my measure — 5:04 in the teaser, 7:05 in the first act (up to Olivia's last line), 2:37 in the epilogue (then :20 of awkward silence).  A more generous measure is 12:34 before the Gentleman opens the voice-trap, then 3:34 between the breaking of the box and the credits, for 16:08 of possible speech in all.  So, "less than 17", okay, never mind. ;) —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources vary between 25 and 29 minutes of silence. The book sources say 29 minutes of silence. I didn't count the silence, but the episode ends at 43.44 and I rounded up to 44 minutes and subtracted from that. --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It took a few times to rehearse because the scene came out mistimed, in all "about 12 seconds" to complete because none of the actors could play off each other without the use of verbal cues and they all pantomimed over each other.
Er what? How many seconds does it normally take to complete a scene? Could "seconds" be a misunderstanding of "sessions"? —Tamfang (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is seconds, but Whedon may have been using hyperbole. I don't know. That's why "about 12 seconds" is in quotations. The scene in question is about four to six minutes long. --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
More like hypobole. :P —Tamfang (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
That quote must be out-of-place. It takes hours to film a scene, not seconds! Is this on the commentary? I can listen to it and see what it seems to mean. Maybe it's sarcasm.--TEHodson 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't normally link to scripts. However, in this case, I'd recommend it. I presume viewers who can't read lips would like to know what the dialogue iswhen people first realize they are mute. samwaltz (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The script linked would have to be in a reliable source, not a fansite. I've seen the script on the DVD, but I don't know if reprinting it in full would be a copyright violation. Our linking to it would be just as wrong. Do you have a source in mind? --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:LINKVIO, to link to it, we would have to find a site that published it, and had permission to do so.  The last part of that might be the impossible find, though if such a site exists, I agree it would be helpful. Courcelles 20:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my plot summary has FEWER words than the old one (722 vs 735). I re-wrote it because the old was wrong in many particulars, particulars which are then specifically referenced in the rest of the article. For example, Riley doesn't enter the tower to find Buffy fighting. He is in the middle of fighting when she bursts through the boarded up window and he turns to attack her, which is how they end up face to face, weapon to weapon. Another point which gets referenced in the rest of the article is Tara's inability to speak in the group. She is not "silenced" by the others, in fact one girl silences the others in order to make room for Tara, which is what makes Tara feel too shy, too on-the-spot to say what she was going to say. Her fear of exposure is pertinent, so stating that other people make her stop speaking is misleading and doesn't support the rest of the carefully researched points in the rest of the article. I removed the paragraph about Xander and Anya because it took a whole paragraph to make the one small point about him "saving" her, and I don't think it's important that we read about the sex hand gesture. It's not a salient point to the overall plot. By the way, I only re-write plot summaries while actually watching the episode in question so as not to have to fill in from memory, and that is how I did this one. I'm going to put it back the way I wrote it. Also, when you reverted it en masse, you restored bad grammar that I'd corrected. --TEHodson 22:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In the Language section, Tara's having been "overcome with shyness" is mentioned, therefore I corrected the section in the plot summary that deals with the Wicca meeting, not just because it was inaccurate, but because the accurate version is specifically discussed later. In the Fairy Tales section, Buffy breaking through the window is discussed, so having the plot section claim that she is already there fighting is not only inaccurate, but confusing. Please discuss these points, rather than just revert!--TEHodson 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm too drunk and tired to get into this tonight, but I just want to make sure you realize that not everything must be in chronological order. Sometimes different issues are placed together regardless of chronology because it's either easier to present this to readers unfamiliar with the episode, or sources concentrate on some issues this way. --Moni3 (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Chronology isn't the whole issue, but certainly a summary of a plot must proceed in a straight line if you want people to follow the story--what sort of plot summary goes all over the place? In any case, the things I corrected had nothing to do with chronology, but misrepresentation. If Buffy breaking through a window is important enough for a scholar to discuss in the Fairy Tales section, it shouldn't say in the summary that she was already there when Riley arrived--it should say she burst in on him. That's a pretty big moment in the show--they end up face to face, about to shoot each other, hardly a minor thing. And if the whole episode is about silence, Tara's being too shy to speak is important. It's noteworthy, so it should be noted, especially as it's discussed later on in the article.--TEHodson 04:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This has been previously discussed on this talk page by editors interested in improving this article's quality. The plot itself is rapid and difficult to explain chronologically here, particularly for readers who have never seen the episode. It does not misrepresent the episode to explain how the various miscommunications in the show get resolved out of order.
I don't understand your points about Buffy and Riley bursting in on each other. Are you saying that readers will be unable to comprehend that they finally realize each others' true identities unless it explicitly states that they burst in on each other in the belfry in the Plot section?
Also don't understand your point about Tara being silent with the way the plot is currently written. It's clear to me that she's shy.
Finally, I see you posted at WP:Buffyverse about someone going through and tagging non-notable Buffy articles. If this is your response, to fastidiously clean up "The Body" and this episode's article, relax. These articles are fully cited and their notability is firmly established. They're not going anywhere. I collaborated with a couple other editors to write these articles, making conscious decisions about how to present it based either on what reliable sources say about the episode or my experience writing featured articles on Wikipedia.
If the articles need to be improved, they can be, but discuss it on the talk page so you can understand how and why the article was constructed. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I am discussing it on the talk page. You appear to be suffering from what experienced editors refer to as "over-attachment" to your writing and to the subject. You are reverting edits just to restore your own prose, which is not in the spirit of WP. I am not responding to the tags, by the way, but to a few cases of inaccurate plot summarizing. Are you seriously making the case that Xander blaming Spike for his muteness and Spike responding with a rude gesture is more important than a bit more explanation of Buffy's dream, which sets up the whole episode? Are you really stating that Anya's sex gesture is more important than Olivia's fright by one of The Gentlemen, which is, by the way, Joss' favorite moment in the episode? Are you really claiming that it's better that it say the women of the Wicca group tell Tara to be quiet when in fact they do the exact opposite? That Buffy shocking Riley by smashing through the belfry window and joining him in the fight is not important? I've explained my rationale for making the summary, you know, ACCURATE, but so far all you do is insist that your way is the best, right, and only way simply because you wrote it. Explain your rationale for these points in a way that is meaningful, please. You do not own this article, or any other Buffy article. I can and will rewrite anything I feel needs it. Engaging in an edit war just because you're the original writer is very poor form. Why not watch the episodes in question before you insist that you're right? I was watching them as I wrote, because I take accuracy seriously. WP suffers from a seriously high rate of inaccuracy and super-fandom problems in articles like these. I think this is the best Buffy episode article I've read, and I only changed a couple of things for good reasons. One reason is that the summary should be as accurate and well-written as the rest of the piece you all worked so hard on, and right now it is not.--TEHodson 21:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You wrote above: "Also don't understand your point about Tara being silent with the way the plot is currently written. It's clear to me that she's shy."  Yes, it's clear to you. This article isn't there for you, but for people unfamiliar with the show or who want to be reminded of the storyline. But the real point about Tara being too shy to speak is at the very heart of this episode! When the group encourages her to speak, she's overwhelmed and can't utter a sound. Once everyone is in a state of forced silence, she is able to gather courage and approach Willow, something she couldn't do with words. This is exactly what the episode is about. That point gets lost when you inaccurately state that she was silenced by the Wicca group. She was not. She silenced herself, and is only able to communicate once language is no longer involved. I don't think Joss could have made his point any better. Not sure why you a) don't get it, and, b) insist that you're the expert whose final word should be taken regarding these essential points.--TEHodson 22:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I have just reread the WP:edit wars policy and I believe you are violating it. The policy encourages us to discuss and give our reasons for what we think is right, something I have done in great detail. So far your only argument in favor of continually reverting what I've done is that you wrote it, therefore it should stay as it is. Accuracy is its own argument for change; that shouldn't even be an issue, yet you've actually made it one. You are arguing for less accuracy, and not even attempting an explanation beyond the original prose being yours. I've also made clear that the points I clarified in the plot summary are discussed in the sections below--another good reason for making those points in the summary. And I did it without adding words, even subracted a few. You have no legitimate complaint, but are stubbornly insisting on your own work as superior by definition. Again, that is not in the spirit of WP.--TEHodson 22:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You might also want to read this: WP:OWN. You appear to be unable to allow others to collaborate simply because you feel the article is already perfect because you're one of the original writers (or claim to be). You've done this on The Body, too, even calling your own writing "better prose" when reverting to it, and there I only re-worked two sentences!--TEHodson 22:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Suffering. Yes. Greatly. Stigmata also. 
I don't get to determine what's important in the episode and neither do you. The sources do that. Read them, then let's discuss them. Maybe in ALL CAPS, just for me.  
And hey, I don't know who you are and until yesterday I don't remember you editing this article. You could be some bumpkin who has a delusion that he's got a hotline to Joss Whedon's brain. I don't know. Clearly I cared enough about this episode to write this article, so settle down and collaborate on this collaborative encyclopedia. That means discussing stuff. 
My problems with your edits are:

Too much detail about the rhyme. It's not necessary and it overburdens the plot too early.
It's not that Tara becomes too shy but that she is silenced by the attitudes by the other wiccas in the group. This point is made by the sources.
There seems to be no introduction to Anya and Xander's conflict. In fact, you seem to have removed any mention of it at all. I think. Where did it go and why do you personally get to make the decision to remove it?
Why the detail about Olivia drawing the picture for Giles? Is that integral to the understanding of the plot?
Plot summaries need to be as streamlined as possible. Why is it necessary to tell the readers that Tara found a spell on her own?
He thinks another minion has crashed into the tower and turns to attack, finding himself face to face with Buffy. How do you know what Riley is thinking? Plot summaries need to include only what the audience sees and hears, not what the characters think. Ditto: She fights while he stares in amazement. Just get the point across, which I think was done quite well in the previous version.
Anything else I'm violating? --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

1)The rhyme is what sets up the plot; I've added exactly 5 words to that section. This makes it "overburdened"? 2)Tara is, according to the source in the Language section, "overcome by shyness." Why say she is told to be quiet when the opposite happens? I've made an excellent argument about this crystalizing Joss' point perfectly. That should do it for you. 3) Xander and Anya's conflict could easily be restored without reverting the other work I've done. It can be done in one sentence, which, if you think it's important, you should write. It isn't exactly life-altering or particularly salient to the overall arc of the episode, though. It's just another way in which silence makes space for communication, already better illustrated by Tara (and we can all do without the gestures--why on earth would you think Spike giving the finger and Anya simulating sex are important in the plot summary?). 4) Olivia is terrified by The Gentleman. That's important. Her drawing is the first clue of who these guys are. 5) I reduced the word count, did not increase it, so your "streamlined" point is moot. I did not add the sentence about Tara finding the spell--I added the words "on her own" because again, she was unable to speak up before, but now is taking initiative (no pun intended). 6) Riley turns and points his weapon at Buffy, who has come in on the back of a minion, just as she points her crossbow at him. I think we can all tell what he thought she was (and vice versa), unless you think he'd shoot her anyway. He stares, literally open-mouthed and unmoving, while she kicks ass. He has never seen anything in her to indicate that she would be capable of doing anything like this. It is self-evidently a shocking moment to him. In the previous version it says he came across her already fighting. Wrong. He did not. She made a dramatic entrance which took him aback and left him, well, speechless.
And if there is a rule about sarcasm, you are violating that, too. Look, I can understand you being surprised that someone has come along suddenly and edited "your" page. As it happens, I'm not a "bumpkin," but a professional writer and editor, and I edit here on WP mostly for clarity, sense, grammar, and as a filmmaker who has written lots of treatments, I'm pretty good at summarizing plots. I happened to be re-watching Buffy as I go through a long, painful physical therapy regimen, and during my rests have come on to see the state of episode and other Buffy articles, to see if I can help. I said this is the best episode article I've read yet, and only corrected a couple of things. You've reacted as though I've called the validity of the whole article into question, when I changed very little at all. I always have the episode on while I edit a plot summary so that I get it right, and if it's a book I'm summarizing, I have it open before me (that did not stop someone from insisting a book starts in '89 when on the first page the date is '87!). Your feelings of proprietorship are getting in the way it seems. I don't think there should be this much consternation over so few changes. They didn't increase the word count. They didn't add inaccuracies. They kept entirely to the main thrust of the episode. They made the summary as well put together as the rest of your excellent article. I come in peace. Why the fever? --TEHodson 23:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
And by the way, were I indeed a "bumpkin" you'd still have to tolerate my editing contributions, unless they were grossly inaccurate or vandalism or added 1,000 words to the summary. For better or worse, that is WP policy, and you don't get to dismiss as useless people whose existence you weren't aware of until yesterday. There has to be a reasonable reason for reverting, and especially for repeated reverting. None of us gets to decide who is "qualified" to be a WP editor. And none of us were born here--to someone else, we all "just appeared."--TEHodson 23:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Errrgghhhaaaffffff. I think that sums this up pretty much.
There are two issues going on here. The first is the actual changes to the article. The second is the godawful method of communication known as the Internet.
The first one is easy.
The second better belongs on my talk page. It involves all your accusations of bad behavior on my part. Very little of it is true and I face it regularly, mostly from editors who are adamant that their changes are kept in an article when those changes, however minor, compromise the integrity of the article. It makes me loathe this site; I rarely see other editors face the level of unwarranted accusations of bad behavior on such a consistent basis, mostly because very few editors have amassed a collection of FAs and GAs as I have. So. Please stop accusing me of doing things I'm not doing. It makes me hate Wikipedia with a white-hot hate. Really. It makes me miserable and hate the articles I've written. Tone it down, please. I'm asking as graciously as I can right now. I recognize that I come on very strong when changes are made to articles I've written, but that is from my 5 years of experience maintaining 20 FAs and a dozen GAs, not to mention this start class article.
To collaborate on this collaborative encyclopedia, it helps to suggest changes and discuss them. You say you're a writer. Great. As am I. I write Wikipedia articles. A lot of them that have received an intense amount of scrutiny, which has shaped the quality of my writing here. It leads me to anticipate where writing is not as strong as it could be. These are the examples I've highlighted. So I'm going to revisit this article tomorrow. It would help a great deal if you acknowledged the issues I brought up and did not wave them away with insufficient explanation, but suggest constructive changes. Your edits don't deserve to be in the article just because you made them. Mine either. Edits deserve to be in the article because they improve the understanding of the concepts presented by the sources.  --Moni3 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow. I said in my latest post that I understood how you feel, I wasn't obnoxious. Have you read anything I've written to you? I suggested you put Anya and Xander back in if you think it's important. I only asked that you not revert everything and for good reasons. And I'm only "accusing" you of exactly what you are doing: reverting again and again on the basis that you wrote the article so should have final say as to what belongs in it. I have said you are too attached to the article and your own writing, and you have, in fact, admitted to that. I've said that you have to tolerate others, because it is WP policy. I have both acknowledged and answered every question you've asked, more than once and in depth. I actually answered them before you asked, because I explained the basis for my changes when I made them--I did not simply re-write. I pointed out where in the rest of the article my changes are made relevant. It seems the only answer you'll accept is, "You're completely right, Moni, I'm completely wrong; forgive me for trespassing on your page." You are beyond upset by this--you seem completely undone. After 5 years, I'd have expected you to be really good at collaborating and dealing with people, rather than engaging in edit wars. I think, based on your level of rage, that we should ask for help. If you are unable to tolerate other opinions and input, you should probably do what WP:Edit wars suggests: take a break from editing for awhile. This place can be maddening; I've likened it to pouring water into a leaky bucket, but you are really warring, and don't seem to be able to stop. I'm sorry you get confronted a lot, but it seems pretty obvious why that happens. I find it hard to believe that this is really about substance--the changes I made were minor in the context of this article (which I've praised again and again). This seems entirely proprietary. Is it worth getting drunk over?! Someone else will probably come along and change it again down the road anyway. That's the way it is here, unlike in the real world, where what I write and edit stays done (I'm a real-world writer, not just a WP writer). If you can't handle this, let's ask for help.--TEHodson 01:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I just strolled through to the origins of this article and I can see that for the last year you and a couple of others have been working really, really hard. You all did a great job. But I can also see that you have consistently reverted everyone else's edits (outside of the small group of you who were obviously working together). This article was begun in 2004 and others had to make room for you guys. It shouldn't be this hard to make room for someone else now and again.--TEHodson 02:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Moni, I've gone over a few of the Talk pages associated with articles you've written, and seen the above rant again and again, and I want you to know I genuinely sympathize with your frustration (though I can't back you on your communication style, and I'm grateful you didn't swear at me). WP is a hard place to work for those of us who write (as opposed to merely criticize writers and tag articles). I see that you discovered Buffy the Vampire Slayer last March (2010) and that your enthusiasm for the show led you to a committed effort to upgrade the articles associated with the Buffyverse. I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your efforts. I wish you would try to see me as an ally, not an enemy to be fought off. If you can't and want to continue fighting all comers there's nothing I can do about it but leave you to it, but I hope you'll make the effort (for your own sake, not just mine--these upsets that last days can't be good for you). Collaboration is not just in the spirit of WP but also very much in the Buffyverse and Whedonworld, where "family" and "cooperation" are practically holy words. In any case, I wish you the best.--TEHodson 06:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm off my 2-day bender now appreciate that you wrote this. My expression of frustration up there was done for a similar reason. I sensed that you were frustrated and hoped maybe we could share that starting point to review what we were doing. In the Isn't It Hilarious? file, we should put in there that you seem to be thinking I'm off my rocker when that's exactly what I was thinking of you. *rimshot*
I'm not looking for praise or appreciation and you're not wrong to say that new blood needs to come into writing and maintaining these articles. But by far, in my experience, newcomers and general editors tend to pull articles into mediocrity for one reason or another. I would be thrilled to go away and let newer users improve upon the articles I've written if I could be sure they would actually improve them, meeting or surpassing Wikipedia's highest standards. So far, that's a laughable prospect. It's quite unfortunate to see that not only do anonymous IPs vandalize articles, but very experienced editors do some very odd things to articles from some misunderstanding about what high quality is. The majority of editors make adjustments to articles and move on quickly to the next one, not viewing articles as entities that should retain a certain amount of integrity.
If you are indeed a professional writer, the folks at WP:FAC need you to review articles. There, not only can you help out, but gain an understanding of what the standards are for writing featured articles and see the kinds of issues editors are told to change in articles nominated for FA. I thought the first time I read through the FAC page it was inhabited by people horribly afflicted by Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. For the most part, though, editors there are truly trying to improve articles. Writing for Wikipedia is like writing for no other publication, including other encyclopedias. It is a truly bizarre and at times inspirational place to write.
As for the pragmatic part of this discussion, the issues in the article are still there.
Although you did indeed lower the word count in the plot summary, you did so by removing a major part of the plot, Anya and Xander's story. That should be replaced. I've not re-added it because this is the confusion borne of rapid reverting. We're both ready to get blocked for reverting 3 times. I could get blocked for re-adding it. At this point, so could you.
I still think the detail about the rhyme is unnecessary and serves only to muddle the reader before the reader has an opportunity to understand the setup for the action. It's furthermore somewhat repeated in the paragraph about Giles reporting about what will get rid of the Gentlemen in his overhead presentation, where I believe full understanding about the Gentlemen's motives and methods are discussed in proper context: the reader understands when the characters understand.
I deliberately worded the issue about Tara to reiterate the theme of the episode. Where previously it read A shy blond woman in the group named Tara Maclay (Amber Benson) speaks up to support Willow's suggestion, but she too is silenced by the others, the word "silenced" has been replaced. Whether she is silenced by her own shyness, the attitudes of the others in the group, or something else is open for interpretation, which we should not do in the plot summary. This is a valid point. However, I think it not an improvement to replace "silenced". Best case scenario here, we should reword this part of the sentence to put "silenced" back in the sentence but decline to say why she is rendered thus. Ex: "A shy blond woman in the group named Tara Maclay (Amber Benson) speaks up to support Willow's suggestion, but she too is silenced."
I don't think Olivia's drawing adds anything to the plot summary and it does not move the action in the episode nor is it integral to understanding the plot. Although this is Whedon's favorite moment in the episode, that is stated in the Production and writing section and cited to a source; reversing that by stating it in the plot summary is not possible. Restating it would be redundant and highlighting it in the plot summary so it can be discussed later is unnecessary for such a minor point.
Although I have no issue with Buffy and Riley bursting in on each other--the energy to fight about that is gone--we absolutely cannot say what the characters are thinking. This goes also for She fights while he stares in amazement. A combined paragraph: "On patrol, Riley notices shadows in the belfry and goes to investigate. Buffy finds two of The Gentlemen's minions, kills one and follows the other to the belfry. Riley fights his way into the belfry and while he's embattled, Buffy crashes through a window and they face each other. After they fight together to reach The Gentlemen, a minion pins Buffy down; she sees and recognizes the box from her vision and gesticulates wildly for Riley to destroy it. When he does, the stolen voices escape. Buffy screams until The Gentlemen's and their minions' heads explode."  My point about not stating what the characters are thinking relates to the last sentence in the summary. It should not read as "not knowing what to say" but "they sit facing each other in silence". You didn't put that in, I know. I'm just saying it should be changed.
So I hope we can compromise on these issues. If you have suggestions, please make them. Collaboration comes from discussion: one suggestion, an alteration, another suggestion, a discussion about it, agreement, move on to the next point. Sometimes it takes months depending on how carefully something must be worded. The best articles I've been involved with have pages upon pages of discussions about how to word certain issues. If the participants are ready to work hard on hashing out what the sources say and the best way to present the information within Wikipedia's standards, it can be immensely gratifying and helpful. I look forward to your response. --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moni. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm pretty much exhausted by this, too, so here's what I would suggest in response.
Anya and Xander: Not a very interesting bit of the episode in my opinion, but putting back Xander's inability to express his love in words, while able to show her his love when he thinks she's been hurt can be done in pretty much one sentence. Before, valuable words were wasted on this: Xander blaming Spike for his muteness, Spike giving him the finger, Anya simulating sex in a hand gesture. I can't come up with one reason for those details being put back in, can you? We should stick to plot elements.
The rhyme: I'd like to keep the word "cryptic" in there, as it's colorful and accurate and very Buffyish. Let me think about how to do it a shorter way. I also think "The Gentlemen" should be mentioned, otherwise we have no way of knowing what they're called--the little girl's clue is the only source, within the episode, for who they are.
Tara: The fact that she silences herself is very important. This one I'm asking you to think about more deeply, because it is at the heart of Joss' point--when forced to use language, she quails and can't speak up, but when that barrier is removed, she is able to act and finds reaching out to Willow to be easy. If the wording implies that others in the Wicca group have in any way compelled her to be silent, the point gets lost. How about the words "falls silent" instead of "silenced"?
Joss' favorite moment is Olivia's being frightened by the Gentleman outside the window. That should stay in, as he is using her to contrast the groups' less fearful, more business-as-usual response to the events (these things are discussed further down in the article, with quotes from Joss, the best reason for keeping them in). The only reason the drawing is mentioned is that it flowed easily from mentioning Olivia in the first place, and it is their first solid clue about what's happening. It may not be critical, but it's not doing any harm, either.
I am happy to take out the adjectives in the belfry fight sequence, but it is important that Buffy's entrance be accurate, as down in the Fairy Tales section, it is discussed in more detail. This is the first time Riley sees Buffy as anything other than a cute student he's got a wee crush on, and he's pretty surprised. On the Talk page someone asked about when Riley knew who she is, and this is his first exposure to that. In the next episode he asks her, "What are you?"
I also see no reason for the two last sentences, but I didn't take them out because they are an accurate end-of-episode tie-up, and I was being respectful of anything that didn't fall into the accuracy category. I'd prefer the summary end with the Gentlemens heads exploding. What do you think about that?
I was really taken aback by the distress that rewriting this caused. I've rewritten many film plot summaries (which are notoriously overlong, over-detailed, and filled with dialogue, and sometimes really wrong despite being written by passionate fans of the films), and all of that work was welcomed and resulted in lots of tags being removed. Of course, it all gets undone later when the next fan comes along and puts in all his favorite bits, but at least I know that for a little while the summary was tight and well-written. I don't stand guard over them, but ocassionally go back and do a bit of cutting. Years of writing treatments for screenplays has made writing plot summaries pretty easy for me. But really, I don't have time to dedicate to WP. I'm writing a book right now and that's my priority. I have, as I said, been in the middle of a long physical therapy regimen that has been made bearable only by watching Buffy while I force myself to do what is practically killing me, and during my rest times I just came by to see what the state of Buffy-related articles was at the moment. I'm not going to take on the whole Buffyverse, so don't worry that I'll be a full-time problem for you! Usually on WP these days I just correct for grammar, spelling, and try to untwist as many pretzel sentences as I can (if I can divine what the writer meant to say). I know these episodes by heart after all these years and just wanted to tweak the more important ones into a higher degree of accuracy. I didn't touch any of the rest of the article, which is excellent and needs no help from me. So I'll take a whack at the things noted above, and see how you feel about them. --TEHodson 23:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that's much better. What do you think?--TEHodson 23:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks really good, Moni.--TEHodson 22:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone would object to this being nominated for a Good Article. I want to ask first just because I'm not sure if the main editors to this article do not want that at this moment or what exactly (further improvements?). Moni3 was the main contributor (among others) to push this article to where it is now, Moni was able to get "The Body" and "Once More, with Feeling" to FA, and I'm sure this could also reach FA, but maybe nominate for just GA now. This is a really fantastic article and should definitely be recognized. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hush (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 01:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Eurgh, Buffy. :(
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Few minor changes needed."Willow and Buffy realize they have no voices, in an episode of 27 minutes without dialogue" -> Should probably be "an episode including 27 minutes""Startlement" seems needlessly sesquipedalian. Perhaps "fright" or "shock" would work better."Whedon considers the scene, of the entire series" -> seems a bit awkward. Perhaps "Whedon considers the scene, more than any other in the series"Not a 1A issue per se, but I'll forget about it if I leave it for 3A - is all of the music deigetic or non-diegetic? I ask only because the article specifies that the characters have lost their voices, so I'm wondering if any of the music is played in-universe or if it's all incidental.If you're using the brackets in words like "(c)lever" to indicate you've changed the case, that's not necessary. You can take someone saying "Clever" and just parse it as "clever" without needing to denote the change, as it's entirely aesthetic.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
MOS is fine.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 
Citations are grand, not a problem with them or how they're used.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 
Scope's grand. Thought at first the in-universe side might be too long but the rest of the article is beefy enough that it all balances out nicely.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Article appears neutral and unbiased.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
History seems okay, nothing too controversial or hostile.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Images seem fine. Two non-free ones have good rationales and there's a commons image that doesn't need to be worried about. Thinking that the two stacked images might be better moved up a paragraph as they leave an unsightly orphan line in this browser, though that could simply be my screen resolution. Ah well.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Just going to hold this until the 1A fixes listed are dealt with, which shouldn't take too long. After that we should be ready to pass this one. GRAPPLE X 01:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I rewrote for prose improvement, something I've been wanting to do for a long time, but was afraid to due to the often combative responses of other Buffy editors. I hope that the GA editor considers the prose improved. I did not change anything of substance, only made the prose more elegant and easier to read. I also removed the controversial (and never resolved) nonsensical "12 seconds" quote which no one has ever understood nor been able to explain. It is either a misquote, or a quote about something different, or perhaps a sarcastic remark, but in a section discussing the difficulty of shooting a scene which required multiple takes, it made no sense to say it took "12 seconds" to accomplish, when the rest of the sentence is emphasizing the extra time the scene took. I removed a few redundancies, too, but mostly the changes are to the prose itself, not the content. I hope that what I've done will be well received and not start another edit war. It was a pleasure to work on such a good article.--TEHodson 09:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The changes seem fine to me, but if you're worried about it causing an edit war I'll keep this on hold a little longer to be sure that the stability criterion is still met. GRAPPLE X 14:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you; I worked hard. Re edit wars, if you read above about what happened when I made a few small changes to the Plot Summary, you'll understand why I was worried. I made one grammatical correction on The Body and even that little bit of editing caused a crisis. One must tread very, very carefully on certain Buffy pages.--TEHodson 20:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's me TEHodson is writing about. I feel special all over.
However, in the last throes of the emotion English is insufficient to describe, the one where you have a single-digit percentage of belief that it might be worth your time to say something, then laugh when you know how useless it will be...the prose changes do not improve the article. For instance, the best guide to prose on this site was written by User:Tony1, and it can be found here. It offers useful tips like not over formalizing the writing by adding "in order to", constructing complex sentences to avoid repetition ("as the 'Scooby Gang'. The gang's"), clarity "chosen by mystical forces and endowed" → to be endowed as it's not clear what she's chosen for unless it is to be endowed with superhuman powers.
Wikipedia itself discourages the use of euphemisms (to sleep together) in place of the actual words (to have sex), which would constitute rewriting the sentence to avoid repetition. Also, this wording "The Gentlemen, led by Doug Jones, were actors with previous..." is inaccurate because the Gentlemen are not actors, they are characters. It was worded accurately before the prose changes. Similarly, this "wanted to replace Seth Green, who played Oz, Willow's lycanthropic boyfriend, who had" makes it seem as if Oz told Whedon he was leaving when it was clear before that Green told Whedon he was leaving. Why is 27 written out (see WP:MOSNUM)?; "to spontaneously kiss" is a split infinitive, the source makes a point that the Gentlemen's existence is in direct contrast to the fumbling of the Scoobies, not just The Gentlemen's grace, check "Opportunistic capitalist fervor results in by a man selling ...", "individulas" ("individuals" is also a vague term that should be replaced by a more descriptive one: people, characters, etc.), and I don't know why TEHodson prefers gerunds, but the tense in the article should be as simple as possible.
But, as you know, I suggested the article should be nominated for GA and I suppose this article is out of my hands. If it goes to FAC, I recommend changing back most of the prose issues, especially the ones listed. If not, get a very, very strong copy editor, such as Tony1 or User:Malleus Fatuorum to take a look at it. They don't favor me; I respect them because they don't. I furthermore strenuously recommend whoever nominates the article not only reads all the sources, but has those sources available while the article is nominated. If they merely suspect you have not read the sources, they will oppose the article on that alone. At the present, the article is at GA level. It was previously at FA quality, but now it fits right in at GA. --Moni3 (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I corrected the errors Moni pointed out. It was very late when I was finishing up and my eyes were crossing. Glad you picked up on those, Moni.--TEHodson 21:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the above, it was Drovethrughosts who suggested the article be submitted for a GA review.--TEHodson 21:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
How would you characterize "go for it" if not a suggestion? Encouragement? I encouraged. --Moni3 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Encouraged, seconded the motion. He said I'd like to do this, you said, Do it. Suggestion implies the idea was yours to begin with. No big deal, just making sure I understood what had happened.--TEHodson 21:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you all content with the current article revision, then? I don't want to pass it until I'm content it'll remain stable, but if the main editors are okay with it then I'll be satisfied. GRAPPLE X 22:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm satisfied.--TEHodson 00:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC) By the way, Moni, I don't see any evidence that this was a Featured Article. Why are you saying it was "FA quality" before I edited it last night, but now is only GA quality? Did I miss something?--TEHodson 02:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't around during the review (work). I'm content with the changes, it looks great and is an easy GA pass. As for FA, no, it was never an FA. I believe Moni is just referring to how the prose was worded previously. If Moni wants to eventually push it to FA, it'll have another extensive look at the prose with a copyedit. But, for a GA, it's fine. Also, thanks TEHodson for your recent work on the article to commend the reviewer's suggestions. And of course give kudos to Moni again for all the hard work put in the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I see. It was a little dig about how I down-graded her article. Well, what can I say? I am not a fan of sentences such as this one: "He had a dream where such and such happened" instead of "He had a dream in which such and such happened." The first sounds like High School-level writing to me. And this is just plain wrong: "the conventions by which society in the episode functions is so disrupted..."; it should be: "in this episode, the conventions by which society functions are so disrupted..." This is pretty basic sentence structure stuff, and I'm certainly not going to apologize for correcting all those twisted up subject-predicate messes I rewrote. I do not have the time nor the inclination to heavily research and generate from scratch complex articles and I admire Moni for being able to do that again and again--her articles are stellar and no one disputes that. But one does not have to be brilliant at everything, and in fact, I have no idea whether she, or one of the many other editors of this page, wrote those sentences, and I'm certainly not going to criticize any one person for them (nor defend any one person). It would be nice if there could some recognition of what other people may have to contribute. I edit and write in the real world and that's what I bring to WP on those occasions when I drop by. I do a good job of those things and I don't pretend to do anything else. I feel that seeing this as teamwork where everyone brings to the mix whatever it is they do best is a far better attitude than "Mine! Keep away or I'll insult you!" But that's just me.--TEHodson 21:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, if everyone's content with the current revision then I'm content that stability won't be a concern. I'll pass this one then and we can leave it at that. GRAPPLE X 15:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is this section here? It doesn't fit with any of the other pages and seems to be superfluous information. None of the other pages have this section.Elamdri (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite right.  If a reader wants to know what Buffy is all about, that's what links are for. —Tamfang (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe the Background section was created by Moni3, who brought the article up to Good Article status (with help) back in 2011. When I helped rewrite the article later, I was told that it had been a requirement of those in charge of granting the GA status. It wasn't random. All of the episodes that were rewritten in the attempt to reach GA status have a Background section (see Restless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). I believe, therefore, the section should be restored.--TEHodson 23:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I for one would rather have a good article than a Good Article. —Tamfang (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I, for one, would like a bit of courtesy? I answered the question. Moni3 was a highly respected writer and article-creator here. You certainly don't have to agree with her, or the GA editors, that the section was required, but how about not being snide? Thank you.--TEHodson 00:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of linking to some statement of why the "Good Article" standards require pretending that this is not a webpage, devoting considerable screen space to a passage that could easily be replaced by a link to another page that already contains it.  (Then I could go be more appropriately snide on the relevant Talk page.)  With all due gratitude for Moni3's diligent contributions, and for your reply to the OP, the GA icon adds nothing to an article's usefulness; when a standard arbitrarily impairs function, my habit is to disregard that standard.
I shudder to imagine that someone might try to make all 140 Buffy episode articles "Good" and thus require me, if I were to read N of them in sequence, to scroll past the same material N times. —Tamfang (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The editors involved in passing the article as a GA required it. That was years ago now, so I do not remember who they were, nor can I link you to any explanation of their requirements. It was a process that went back and forth for a while. If you have the time to read 140 BtVS articles, it seems to me you have the time to hit the down arrow once to get past a brief summary paragraph, even with all the time you waste shuddering.--TEHodson 04:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hush (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). 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/20110717034307/http://slayageonline.com/PDF/shade.pdf to http://slayageonline.com/PDF/shade.pdf
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hush (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). 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/20110706220906/http://offline.buffy.cd/outlink_en.php?module=%2Fwebserver%2Foffline%2Fwww.slayage.tv%2Fessays%2Fslayage9%2FSlayage_3.1.pdf to http://offline.buffy.cd/outlink_en.php?module=%2Fwebserver%2Foffline%2Fwww.slayage.tv%2Fessays%2Fslayage9%2FSlayage_3.1.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091030002058/http://www.tv.com/untitled/story/19102.html?tag=headlines%3Btitle%3B1 to http://www.tv.com/untitled/story/19102.html?tag=headlines%3Btitle%3B1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417071456/http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/popwrap/happy_birthday_sarah_michelle_gellar_hYlGJjarv7TfJxrq4zweSK to http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/popwrap/happy_birthday_sarah_michelle_gellar_hYlGJjarv7TfJxrq4zweSK
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The redirect Hush (Buffy the Vampire Slayer 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/2024 February 3 § Hush (Buffy the Vampire Slayer until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 21:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)