Talk:A History Channel Thanksgiving

Please read this before adding pop cultural references and continuity notes

Please do not add mention of pop cultural references, continuity notes, trivia, or who the targets of a given episode's parody are, without accompanying such material with an inline citation of a reliable, published, secondary source. Adding such material without such sources violates Wikipedia's policies regarding Verifiability, No Original Research, and Synthesis.

While a primary source (such as the episode itself, or a screencap or clip from it at South Park Studios) is acceptable for material that is merely descriptive, such as the synopsis, it is not enough to cite a primary source for material that constitutes an analytic, evaluative or interpretative claims, such as cultural references in works of satire or parody, because in such cases, such claims are being made on the part of the editor. This is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, regardless of whether one thinks the meaning of the reference is "obvious". Sources for such claims must be secondary sources in which reliable persons, such as TV critics or reviewers, explicitly mention the reference.

In addition, trivial information that is not salient or relevant enough to be incorporated into the major sections of an article should not be included, per WP:TRIVIA, and this includes the plot summary. As indicated by WP:TVPLOT, the plot summary is an overview of a work's main events, so avoid any minutiae that is not needed for a reader's understanding of the story's three fundamental elements: plot, characterization and theme. This includes such minutiae as scene-by-scene breakdowns, technical information or detailed explanations of individual gags or lines of dialogue. Nightscream (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not normally one to call people's names, and I won't join in the profanity, but I will agree that that paragraph is a pretty ultradense and deeply unwelcoming mess of bureaucraticese. It saddens me someone spent a portion of their life writing it! 207.181.228.210 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

New users are prone to adding such trivia to these types of articles, Nightscream is correct in trying to educate them on Wikipedia policy and guidelines.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's actually three paragraphs, not one, took far less time to write then everything else in the article, and much of my other contributions to WP, and it's necessary because of editors whose additions often violate the site's policies and guidelines. If you really think that three brief paragraphs is "ultra dense", and that being informed of the site's rules is "unwelcoming" (as if one can only be welcomed if they are implicitly allowed to break the rules), then the problem is not the note above, it's the editor who reacts to it as you did. Anyone who really wants to contribute should be willing to learn the site's rules as I did. Those who don't want to shouldn't be editing here. Nightscream (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

An "B"?

The guy from the A.V. Club gave the episode "an 'B'"? Surely his opinion is so vital to our understanding of humanity (who is he, again?) but you can't give someone an B. You can give them a "B," or a rating of B, but not an B. Oh, and good thing the article is locked! We wouldn't want anyone correcting any of this.

Seriously, do people run to the internet after their favorite shows air so that they can trash the relevant Wikipedia articles? Humanity is certainly doomed if that's the case. Dear god... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE do something about the guy from the A.V. Club? He's being referred to in every Season 15 episode as the only reviewer - obviously someone trying to get publicity and pushing their agenda. Please at least just add some other sources/reviewers, the A.V. Club guy under every article makes it look like he's Roger Ebert or something, which is obviously not the case and very misleading. Thanks. 82.45.125.47 (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

He is not referred to as the "only" reviewer, he may simply be the only one referenced in some of the articles, but that doesn't imply that there aren't other reviews out there. 1%, for example, cites five different reviews. As for whether "someone" can "do something" about this, why can't the "someone" in question be you? Find those other reviews, sign in for an account, and add them! Why do so many people come to these talk pages to whine about this or that in the article, when they can just fix it themselves? And if you don't care enough about the matter to do so, then why come here at all? Nightscream (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

He DOES have a point though. The A.V. Club's review of a South Park episode is cited in just about every episode's wiki page. That seems a little odd to me. And instead of giving me a tired "why don't you fix it and find more reviews?" response. Doesn't it seem a little odd it's cited EVERY single time? I've never even heard of AV Club other than from South Park Wikipedia pages. I would guess that the editors of the site edit this each time and put links to their own review which seems like biased editing to me. Richjenkins (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. It is the constant whining by people like you about the content of the South Park articles, who seem to do nothing about it, that is "tired", since I'm constantly coming across these rants. By contrast, those like me who point out that you yourself can fix it, seem to be in the extreme minority. More to the point, by dismissing it as "tired" without answering it, you sidestep the point entirely: Again, why can't you fix these problems? If you're not willing to do some searching for other reviews, then what obligation do the others here have to do so? What do you hope to accomplish by complaining about it on a talk page? I do my part. Why can't you?

Editors add reviews from the reliable sources that are available. Since the number of sites considered reliable that provide reviews of TV episodes may be limited, this will naturally limit the number of reviews that can be added to articles. Since IGN and the AV Club regularly provide such reviews, naturally, it's easier to add them to articles. But when other sources do become available, they are added. 1% is an aforementioned example of an episode article that cites five different reviews. Another is Crack Baby Athletic Association, for which one IP editor complained that the one review by IGN was biased, and pointed to a review by an NCAA critic as one that would make a good addition. Why that IP editor couldn't just add that other review himself, he never said. So I did it myself.

And as far as your accusation of editors adding "their own reviews", either substantiate that accusation, or go elsewhere for your web hobbies. False WP:COI accusations by people who barely contribute to articles serve only to violate WP:AGF, and do nothing to improve individual articles, or Wikipedia as a whole. Nightscream (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh for crap's sake, grow up. I said "I would guess." That's hardly an accusation. I'm glad you wrote a dissertation of a response to me saying I agree with someone though. And yes, your links prove you're more of a Wikipedia nerd than I am. Most of us don't have all day to make updates constantly. You still didn't even establish who the AV Club even is or why their reviews are relevant. Richjenkins (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if you phrased it in the form of a Broadway sonata, a TV jingle or a dirty limerick. The fact is, you suggested that editors are making WP:COI violations, and without any substantiation for that idea, which violates this site's policies on Assuming Good Faith. You've offered nothing in the way of answers to any of my questions, or solutions to the issue of sourcing, you refuse to do any checking regarding your stated concerns, and you contribute little to begin with, and denigrate editors who contribute more than you, while simultaneously coming here to express a supposed concern over the quality of articles. If you bothered to just go to The A.V. Club article, for example, you'd know that it's a notable website of a notable publication, The Onion. I myself have no affiliation with that publication, any more than with IGN or The Huffington Post or any other publication whose reviews I add to articles. None of this has anything to do with "having all day to make updates constantly", since I don't either. It has to do with you whining about something while choosing to do nothing about it except make false accusations, and remain willfully ignorant of any relevant facts. Either step up to the plate and offer some ideas of actual value to the issue you believe exists, in a transparent and civil manner, or go elsewhere. Nightscream (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, ladies. Save your nails. I didn't mean to start a cat-fight here. I think RichJenkins has a valid theory, however - though it was obviously misinterpreted by Nightscream. The AV Club is a pretty obscure reviewer irregardless of their affiliation with The Onion, and to find them named in the majority of WP articles related to one of the most successful television comedies of all time is a bit suspect. I think what RichJenkins was trying to say was: An editor (most likely someone from AV Club) is salting and/or peppering the South Park episode articles with "plugs" of his/her website in the form of reviews that no-one would otherwise read or care about. RichJenkins wasn't accusing editors as a whole of bias toward or against a certain reviewer; he's saying that AV club may be surreptitiously advertising their site under the guise of some pseudo-legitimacy, which would indeed violate the Wikipedia guidelines regarding objectivity and NPOV. Now, Nightscream has declared that the AV Club is "a notable website of a notable publication," and also implies that they may be mentioning AV Club reviews only by virtue of the sheer difficulty of finding reliable sources for reviews ("the number of sites considered reliable that provide reviews of TV episodes may be limited"). I find that notion to be either willfully misleading, deliberately ignorant or downright stupid. It is incredibly easy to find valid, reliable sources of reviews for one of the most famous cartoon shows in the history of television, as one would expect. IMDB, for example, has reviews and ratings of every South Park episode ever released, and is highly regarded by WP. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Certainly there are more prominent and "reliable" sources for these reviews, and most certainly said reviews are anything but "limited," to the point where we need not rely on AV club to tell us what the public thinks about entertainment media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"I think what RichJenkins was trying to say was: An editor (most likely someone from AV Club) is salting and/or peppering the South Park episode articles with "plugs" of his/her website in the form of reviews that no-one would otherwise read or care about." And indeed, that's what he did say. And my reaction is the same: I do not have any affiliation with The AV Club or the Onion, and sometimes add reviews from that source (as do other editors) because I happen to know that they regularly review this series. It is likely that this is the same reason that other editors do so as well. But if you really feel this is not the case, then you can check the edit history of episode articles that include such reviews, and see which editors added them in order to see if there is some sort of illicit pattern. If it turns out that those reviews are added by multiple editors with long-standing contribution histories, then this makes the theory of an AV Club writer doing this himself less likely. If it's one editor, especially an anonymous IP editor or someone without a great deal of standing in the community, then that might bolster the theory. But without bothering to do that bit of checking, it's just a lazy accusation.

"Nightscream has declared that the AV Club is "a notable website of a notable publication," and also implies that they may be mentioning AV Club reviews only by virtue of the sheer difficulty of finding reliable sources for reviews ("the number of sites considered reliable that provide reviews of TV episodes may be limited"). I find that notion to be either willfully misleading, deliberately ignorant or downright stupid." What I did was speculate as to the possible reasons for the frequent inclusion of AV Club reviews in articles, provide examples of articles with reviews from other publications, some of which I mentioned that I added myself, and stated the need for editors to commit to do some searching instead of just coming here to complain, which is neither "willfully misleading, deliberately ignorant or downright stupid".

That said, accusing another editor of being "willfully misleading, deliberately ignorant or downright stupid" is a violation of the site's Civility policy, in particular No personal attacks and WP:Assume Good Faith. Disagree with other editors if you must, and explain why you disagree with a given statement, but please do so without such pejorative comments. Thanks.

"It is incredibly easy to find valid, reliable sources of reviews for one of the most famous cartoon shows in the history of television, as one would expect. IMDB, for example, has reviews and ratings of every South Park episode ever released, and is highly regarded by WP." IMDB is not "highly regarded" by Wikipedia. Under WP:USERG, sites whose content is user-generated, such as blogs, open forums, other wikis, etc., are not reliable sources, since anyone can post material to those sites. IMDB's content is indeed user-generated, as it comes from uncredentialed visitors to the site, which does not exert editorial control over that content. Wikipedia is obviously not in the business of including the comments of uncredentialed, anonymous nobodies in its articles, and this is widely known on Wikipedia, where WP:USERG is a part of its Reliable Sources policy, one of the most fundamental policies we adhere to. That you are apparently unaware of this is rather interesting, given your tendency to chastise others for being "ignorant".

"That's just the tip of the iceberg. Certainly there are more prominent and "reliable" sources for these reviews, and most certainly said reviews are anything but "limited," to the point where we need not rely on AV club to tell us what the public thinks about entertainment media." We don't rely on the AV Club to tell us what the public thinks. We rely on the AV Club to tell us what that publication's reviewers think. Nightscream (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Natalie Portman

Can any one explain why they're making fun of Natalie Portman in this episode? why are they saying she needs to open her "warm hole"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.17.43 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The episode parodies the film Thor, in which Portman was the female lead, and which involves characters traveling among the nine realms of Asgard via a device that opens wormholes between worlds. Nightscream (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)