Talk:Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle

message: I deleted the stereotypes section again (someone else originally did) as that seems obvious original research.  Please see WP:NOR which states 
* Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. 
* Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis. 
* Content should not be synthesized to advance a position. 
I realize the section was written in good faith.  However it was written (stylistically and content-wise) like an editorial, while citing a "community input"/message-board type opinion piece as a source which cannot be used per WP:RS.  If the opinion/analysis was published by a WP:RS-conforming source, then it's a keep.  However as-is it was obvious synthesized original thought borrowing from a non-reliable source, and must be deleted per WP:NOR.  Cheers. Tendancer 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barring a miraculous appearance of reliable sources for that section, I'll delete it wholesale (again) in the next few days. For now, I'm commenting it out. - Mdsummermsw 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No sources. Deleted. - Mdsummermsw 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted racism/stereotype section: clear original research 

message: After a long while, we now have a third party source for the plot. While you would think that a few basics would be easily established, a number of items in the plot have bounced back and forth between differing opinions. This source can be checked without firing up your DVD player or poking around in the cobwebby corners of your brain.
With this in mind, I have repeatedly reverted the claim that Doogie was on X, in favor of the claim it was crystal. Please keep in mind WP:3RR and WP:V if you feel the need to change this again.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just don't get it. It's about verifiability, not truth. I've now added a ref to cover Doogie on X. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doogie on Meth or X? 

message: The whole freaking Location section is a load of WP:OR. I'm going to get rid of the cruft and keep what we can verify to a reliable source speaking about this movie. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: Shouldn't the Battleshits be on the article? It's one of the most famous scenes in H&KgtWC. Togepi 987 (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in the "Plot" section. If you have something neutral and verifiable about it to add, go ahead. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battleshits 

message: I am again reverting the return to the old, long, unencyclopedic, slang-filled, "Dude, like, you 'member when that guy got totally wasted and did that stuff with the thing to the other guy? That was sooooo funny" plot outline. As previously discussed, it was loaded with POV and OR, was far longer than guidelines suggest and generally sucked. The newer version -- while not as chatty and full of all your favorite moments -- is encyclopedic, sourced and within guidelines in every way. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot revisited

message: I can't see any rationale of the deletion of the box-office section and the characters section. Can someone explain? --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article got butchered. 

message: How is this section notable and/or not original research? DP76764 (Talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of cameo section? 

message: Qty      Description              Price
 30       Cheeseburger               27.60
 4        Sack French Fries           9.16
 2        Large Cherry Coke           4.18
 30       Cheeseburger               27.60
 4        Sack French Fries           9.16
 2        Large Cherry Coke           4.18
                          Sub- Total 81.88
                               + Tax  5.74
                          ________________
                               Total 87.62  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBD339 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is how much it would cost to order the same thing that Harold and Kumar ordered 

message: Apparently this title was used in some locations, likely because White Castle is limited geographically to portions of the U.S. with a few in other countries at various times.
An editor has been trying to add that it was released "on Netflix" under this title. The only cite offered so far is an unofficial site that says it used that title on Netflix UK at some point. The source does not say this title was for Netflix (or Netflix UK). It is not a reliable source for the claim. The ...Go to White Castle title is certainly being used by Netflix in the U.S.
We need a reliable source discussing either where the alternate title is/was used to say where/when the alternate title is/was used. A weaker version would be a reliable source that clearly discusses the same film with the alternate title, which we could use to then list it as an unspecified alternate title.
(Various possibilities exist, including but not limited to: It is a somewhat different film. The title varies by location. The title varies by location and date for whatever reason. Some sources may have an incorrect (earlier?) title. The title varies by release method (e.g., UK DVD vs. Netflix UK vs. U.S. VUDU vs....). Unless we know what the determining factor is we shouldn't say.) - SummerPhDv2.0 13:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ETA: There is some earlier discussion of this issue in the talk archive, but it's all guesses. The only other source I could find was a forum posting saying it was the "European title", though I would think there would be titles in other languages and locations other than Europe using variant titles. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Harold & Kumar Get the Munchies''