Talk:Beer Bad

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


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 don't think the moral of this ep is "beer and sex are bad." If there is a 'moral', so to speak, it is that excessive behavior is irresponsible. (Buffy is trying to, as the saying goes, "drink her problems away".) It's not "don't do it", it's "be careful". I think this article's writeup is far too slanted and subjective. I would like to rewrite it, but I'll come back to it later. -- Che Nuevara

Indeed, there was the same problem on the Teacher's Pet page, which I have modified (IMHO the message of TP is not "sex is bad" or "it's great to be a virgin", but "peer pressure is bad"). Flagboy 13:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that this page is not NPOV. Jwolfe 14:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So much POV. "Only gets worse"? "Widely seen as heavy-handed"? I was loathe to remove such a big paragraph but we really need some verifiable sources. I already removed a section which claimed that many online surveys consider it the worst episode (but didn't link to any online surveys), that some people disavow it from continuity (but linked to a BBC site that didn't mention that), that some Norwegians love it (and just linked to one fan's website), but that it's widely disliked (and linked to a site giving it a pretty good score of 7 out of 10). Ngeh.--Nalvage 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There has been some complaint about this article but i see no reason to change it. Most people do consider it one of the worst episode in the series. And yes, the morale is "don't drink underage" and yes it does get worse when it is seen from other countries. To deny the crapyness of this episode would in itself be POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not allowed to express any point of view in articles. We are obligated to source our material, so if opinions are expressed, they must come from published, reliable sources. Only then should we worry about NPOV. The "International response" section was chatty in tone and drew unsourced conclusions, so I removed it. (Its statements about drinking ages are potentially sourceable, but they are irrelevant to the subject — the international response to this Buffy episode — unless some publication actually talked about this.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added back in the generally negative reception this episode received, this time with sources. Kweeket 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy405.jpg[edit]

Image:Buffy405.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)Reply[reply]

More on Morals[edit]

I know the bits discussing the morals of this episode have citations and sources but there still seems to be a lot of original research. I know, this might be a bit vague. I recomment rewriting it to focus on what the third party sources have said and nothing more. Lots42 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started to tweak the source citations of the "Writing and acting" section that I believe Lots42 was referring to, but soon realized that the citations in this entire article were frequently misleading. (For instance, the Salon citation is republished by an activist site, the source mentioning ESPN is a now-broken link from a blog, and the source for the "some fans" statement is an obscure TV-review website. One really strong signal that sources are not reliable is when they don't have — and will never likely have — Wikipedia articles.) I did fetch a link to the actual Christianity Today article incorrectly cited by giving another obscure site's mention of this article as the source. (When one claims the source is an article by an author in a magazine, the link one provides must go to that article by that author in that magazine or its web equivalent, not to someone else's article that merely mentions the actual source. I included both the original and the referrer in case the latter has other useful info, but it may not be a wiki-reliable source anyway.)
I've taken a pass at correcting, updating, and reformatting all the citations to show exactly who is really being cited in each case. I made no attempt to confirm any of the statements based on the source material, but merely made it easier for regular editors of this article to see if the source material actually supports the statements. Anything that isn't found specifically in the sources is, as Lots42 suggests, forbidden original research, and any sources that aren't reliable by Wikipedia standards cannot be used to support statements in the text. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Beer Bad" is the episode where Buffy gets over Parker: At the beginning, she is pining for him, at the end, she is hitting him over the head with a branch, thus clearing the way for Riley.

How do we know this for sure? At the point Buffy thwacked Parker, she was at the 'Beer bad, tree pretty' stage. Pretty hard to go through a major emotional catharthis when shinies are a major part of your day.

Willow also rants about men, which could be interpreted as foreshadowing her relationship with a woman.

I don't get it. I, as a hot guy, complain about women a lot but I'm still straight.


I think it's noteable that Xander locked the temporarily-nuts student into some completely random vehicle...I added this in but it was reverted. Lots42 (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A BBC reviewer complained about its "American puritanism" ....

The link was recently disambiguated to Religious fanaticism (which is largely about violence). Of course the temperance movement – and American small-p "puritanism" in general – had religious roots, but there's nothing overtly religious in the episode (that I recall). Is there no more appropriate link? —Tamfang (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vampire apperance[edit]

It states in several articles that vampires do not appear in this episode. However buffy's day dream sequence at the begining of this episode shows her fighting several vampires. Shouldn't this epidsode be removed from the list of episdoes where vampires dont appear as a result? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really worst episode?[edit]

The statement that some fans consider this episode to be the "worst" is biased and DOES NOT come from a reliable media source. It comes from a random TV reviewer with no ties to any verifiable media outlets or renowned entertainment critics. I am therefore removing it and any resulting disputes will be referred to moderation. Writerchic99 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually the random review referenced in the article might be the worst I've ever read. The reviewer makes two main points and both of them are invalid. Firstly, he claims that the episode fails in attributing bad effects to drinking. There might have been an attempt to get money from the government by asserting there was such a message, but the episode as it stands on its own tries not show any harmful consequences of people being drunk. It cannot fail in something it hasn't tried to do. Secondly, he is objecting the cavemen being stupid because it contradicts his personal religious belief that men where created as intelligent as modern humans by some god. I hope I don't have to explain why this point is preposterous. At least there is a claim in the beginning of the review that could be interesting for the article: "BBC viewers voted this episode as the worst ever.", though this cannot be verified directly since the voting is defunct. Thank you for reading this review of a review.--Hurfunkel (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beer Bad. 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) 06:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]