# Talk:Butters' Bottom Bitch

Here are some references for the episode: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, can we find some references for the connection between this episode and ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The scene where Butters gets advice from the pimps during the convention contains almost entirely unadultarated quotes from American Pimp. In a similar voice even. And Keyshone is the spitting image Don "Magic" Juan who wears a green outfit with a gold crucifix around his neck. I don't know where commentary comes from, but this is just so obvious and innocuous info that it shouldn't be removed automatically just because it wasn't immidiately cited.
Peter Isotalo 08:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter, all information in an article must be cited or it can be challeneged and removed (WP:V, WP:NOR). If you beleive there is a valid reason for keeping this information, please seek a third opinion (WP:3). I have made it clear that I object to the insertion of this material and have removed it (as per WP:BRD). If you cannot verify the information added and insist on simply reverting me, the information can be removed again and you may be viewed as starting an edit war (WP:EW). I will come back to this article tonight and remove the erroneous material if no cite has been found. Alastairward (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Neither of us are newbies and I don't think there's any need to apply WP:V in its strictest sense. This information is very easily verifiable by simply watching the documentary. The similarities are just so obvious that I'm not the only one to remark on it[7] and it seems you have reverted others about this without making any attempt of at least checking the claims out.[8][9] There are pretty much direct quotes from the film, and even one of those commenting O'Neal has remarked on it. I don't know why O'Neal himself hasn't noticed the similarities, but I have to assume he simply hasn't watched American Pimp. And since I notice that his extremely vague and speculative claims ("I'm pretty sure that...") about borrowing from Hookers at the Point are uncritically included in the article, so I don't see why this should provoke such a stern reaction.
You seem to be interested in improving the article, and this is quite relevant info, since one of the priniciple inspirations appears to be American Pimp. Since we're not talking about either slanderous, sensitive or wildly speculative info, how about settling for a fact tag for now?
Peter Isotalo 13:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Peter, I've gone through pretty much every South Park article and seen fact tags left for many months without being actioned. I'm happy to challenge and remove the material on sight. I would remind you that the BRD cycle would ask that you not readd material if it's been challenged and removed.
I also note that you were reminded of the verifiability policy by an admin on your own talk page (here).
As you've replied already and declined to provide a cite, I will remove the material and ask you to obtain a cite for it. If you think about it, if the material really is as relevant as you suggest, wouldn't there be a cite available already? Alastairward (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why you would point out that I was "reminded" of policy by citing an older discussion about a completely different article, topic and issue. If you're concerned about keeping the discussing relevant, why not sticking to what's relevant here? What would help this discussion a lot if you acknowledge the discussion about the actual cultural references here, rather than just citing and linking policy. We're still discussing article contents after all.
I've had a run through American Pimp, and it seems I was wrong about the verbatum quotes.  The advice at the pimp convention is close to what's said in The Mack, though. If not taken from The Mack, it's basically a synthesis of the recommendations about pimping given by those interviewed in American Pimp (which also features footage from the Ball). The quotes might also come from Pimps Up, Ho's Down, but it's hard to tell since I haven't seen it and O'Neal doesn't acknowledge anything of it. And as for the inspiration for Keyshone, he doesn't just sound and dress like Don "Magic" Juan as he appears in American Pimp (pudgy, gaudy green plaid suit, gold crucifix, beard with a blond stripe in the middle of the chin, gold teeth) but also wears a belt buckle that says "Bishop". That kinda closes the deal on that one, though it's impossible to say exactly where the inspiration comes from since he's in both of the documentaries.
Since I still don't think it's appropriate to describe O'Neal's vague claim about Hookers at the Point being alluded to with a term as common as "nasty fuckers", I've caveated that statement.
Peter Isotalo 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
No references were given for a parody of Don Juan, so I removed it again, as per the previously quoted policies. Alastairward (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Please acknowledge that you're simply not just ignoring the entire factual discussion, because that's what it looks to me right now. I find it especially aggravating that you're choosing to be this stringent about blatantly obvious reference to Don "Magic" Juan while trying to pass off O'Neal's vaguely stated opinions as facts.
Peter Isotalo 23:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Peter, as per WP:BRD, I am challenging the material added by you, as per the discussion above. It was not cited, as such I removed it and we may discuss it further here.
However much you may have viewed the source material that you mention above, you cannot be seen as a reliable third party source, so your perception of the material that you added is original research. Without a source it will remain so. Alastairward (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You're not challenging anything, you're just saying that I'm wrong over and over without any reasonable motivation. You've so far refused to engage in any factual discussion, even of how to summarize cited material. The problem with your sticking blindly to the letter of WP:V in this case is that you're completely ignoring unproblematic observations. Have you even checked any of the referenced documentaries out? Did you notice that Don "Magic" Juan is on the cover of Pimps Up, Ho's Down and that he's the main protagonist?[10] He's even wearing his trademark spring green suit, for crying out loud.
Peter Isotalo 08:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
If you Google for the exact phrases, or look for a transcript of the film, you can easily confirm this.  And information should never be removed unless you sincerely doubt its accuracy, not because no one bothered to add a citation for it.  Dream Focus 08:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Fact: The Players Ball really does exist.  It first started in 1974 held a birthday party for Bishop Don Magic Juan.  Butters talks to a pimp that dresses and looks like him, who has a belt buckle which reads "BISHOP."  Does anyone sincerely doubt the information?  If not, I say put it in there.  Dream Focus 09:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
All of which is simply WP:SYNTH. And yes, since I've challenged the material on the page, we need to step back and find cites. Alastairward (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
That policy is there to prevent people coming up with far-fetched theories based entirely on the opinion of a single individual. They need not be fringe theories, but there needs to be a reason to actually doubt them. This is clearly not tha. Like Dream Focus pointed out, if you actually doubt the veracity of the claim, give us arguments for that. Otherwise you'll be upholding policy for its own sake. The mere inclusion of links to policy pages combined with the statement "I dispute this" is not how it works. As an active, experienced editor you can't cite ignorance when the information is so easily obtainable and obvious.
Peter Isotalo 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have added this information again Peter (describing it as a "fact" in the edit summary does not suffice. That it was added first in early Dec 09, and that a cite has not yet been found, would seem to indicate that on balance one does not exist as of yet. Alastairward (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This material continues to be added and still no cite is provided. A third opinion has already been provided below. I suggest that you Peter find another avenue, or a cite. Alastairward (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Did you actually read what was said both below and above? It seems like you're focusing merely on that which agrees with your opinions, while comletely ignoring the parts that don't. Do you genuienly doubt the "Magic" Juan information despite the extensive discussion?
Peter Isotalo 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the only source here is the primary source of the episode itself, you have to be extra careful not to extrapolate your own interpretations, even if they do seem obvious. Unless a reliable secondary source has observed that the character is a spoof of the other character, it might be best to leave it out.  Don't take my general comments that people shouldn't go on crusades to remove unsourced information without a particular reason other than it being unsourced as justification for adding material that does border on original speculation.  As I said below, if no secondary source has thought this to be worthy of writing about, then maybe it's not all that important to have in our article either. Gigs (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
As far as I see, this pretty much amounts to a crusade. One that is generally justified, but seems to be unwilling to recognize any exceptions to the general rule. No one is willing to openly doubt the added facts, but policy is still being used to justify removal of relevant, useful and apparently accurate information. The argument is that we have to stand by meta-arguments, not to improve articles.
Peter Isotalo 15:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Gigs, thanks for your contribution. I would agree with you on that last point. Wikipedia is a gathering of information from other sources. If they haven't covered it then we can't. If its not important to be mentioned elsewhere, then we can't make up a new synthesised entry for it here. Alastairward (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


### Third Opinion
A third opinion was solicited regarding this dispute.  Below are a list of my impressions regarding this dispute:

I agree with Dream focus that editors shouldn't go around and remove unsourced information unless they actually do have good faith doubts about its veracity.
That said, the burden is on the person adding or readding challenged information to provide a source.
When supporting material with primary sourcing such as the episode itself, it is best to stick to the plain facts.  It's very easy to stray into synthesis when using the primary source.
If no secondary sources thought that it was important to mention the send-up of American Pimp, then maybe mentioning it here isn't all that important anyway.
Alastairward, if you don't doubt that the episode segment was a send-up of American Pimp, then a citation needed tag would be fine.   That is to say, if your only problem here is the lack of citation, but you otherwise believe the information to be accurate and useful, then that's what the tag is for.  If you have good faith doubts that the segment was send-up of American Pimp, then the information should stay removed until a citation can be found.
Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference in the following sentence says "An obvious reference to HBO’s classic Pimps Up, Ho’s Down in the Playas Ball".  Well what happened at the Playas Ball?  We saw someone looking like Bishop Don Magic Juan who was in Pimps Up, Ho's Down. [11]  He was also in American Pimp, and other films, looking the same, but this is the only movie that is relevant to this case.  Now then, you have an accepted reference in the article that says Butter visiting the Playas Ball, was just like the real Playas Ball shown in Pimps UP, Ho's Down.  And you can NOT have a Playas Ball without the Bishop Don Magic Juan there, it created for him, and he always there.  Can everyone agree with that?  That reference enough?  No one is actually doubting the information, and the evidence seems to be rather obvious, so use WP:COMMON SENSE NOT WP:Wikilawyering.  Dream Focus 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually this looks like synthesis to me. If the reference doesn't explicitly mention Bishop Don Magic Juan, then it doesn't support this contention at all. If you have to read between the lines or infer something that isn't stated, you have classic original research. Find a source that states the character is based on this man, or leave it out. AniMate 04:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Did you see a picture of the man and the cartoon parody of him?  Is there any possible doubt in your mind, after looking at the two, that there is even the slightest chance that the didn't base it on him?  Dream Focus 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I see a lot of things, but my observations don't belong in an encyclopedia. AniMate 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a time and place to complain about WP:Synthesis, but this is obviously not one of them. It's one thing to show healthy skepticism, but this is more like deliberately playing dumb. Peter Isotalo 05:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Peter, don't complain about receiving templates on your talk page if you behave like that to other users. An accusation of "deliberately playing dumb" is indeed uncivil behaviour. You had an edit challeneged and that challenge fully and lengthily explained and a third opinion provided, all of which you have seemingly ignored. If the veterans can't take onboard wikipedia policies, they shouldn't complain when they are reminded of them.
I am having this problem on another talk page with a user similarly adding uncited material, as you have done. The Third Opinion there suggested leaving the material tagged for a week and then removing it. I am happy to apply that here, you have added and readded the material since December 09, so you've had plenty of time (assuming good faith, that you've actively tried to cite the material) to dig up some sort of cite for the entry. We will leave it a week and review further. Alastairward (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't confuse the chronology.The "reminders" you offer here amount to fairly high-handed lecturing. Please keep mind that you're not a neutral party here.
We appear to have conflicting views on how this should be handled. Animate and you are saying that it's not obvious who Keyshone is based on and any attempt to show visual associations with Don "Magic" Juan is speculation. Dream Focus and I think that connection is obvious beyond any reasonable doubt. I agree that your stance to follow policy quite strictly is in general a correct one, but holding fast in literally all is different. It's basically saying that your interpretation of policies are always right.
I also don't feel that you are justified in claiming that anyone has ignored your arguments here. I know I've disagreed with them, but that's something we all do at times. My impression is that you have so far not been able to acknowledge even the existence of mitigating factual circumstances. Instead you've simply avoided addressing them in any way and merely repeated the policy citations. My complaint about "playing dumb" might seem uncivil, but I'd say it's just a blunt way of stating the obvious. To dismiss the facts presented here with blanket arguments about avoiding "speculation" is tantamount to feigning ignorance. Policy citation isn't an argument that wins by defaul, not even when we're talking about WP:V:
Peter Isotalo 15:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I tried to introduce a compromise which didn't involve what could technically be seen as a vioaltion of WP:V or WP:SYNTH, namely to mention that "Magic" is the main protagonist of Pimps Up, Ho's Down (and, like already pointed out, the reason that the Players Ball exists). I was however immediately reverted by Alastair without discussion.[12] Since there has been no mutual discussion of the issues brought up by me and Dream I'm reintroducing the new version and hoping that we'll discuss this rather than simply revert one another.
I think that a very good way to move this discussion forward towards building consensus would be for those who disagree with what Dream and I have argued for to actually explain wherein the negative aspect lies. We know that the topic of discussion is verifiability policies, but it's not clear how what is being discussed here actually goes beyond mere technical violations. How does this information hurt Wikipedia? How does its exclusion make this a better article? And please don't just cite policy for the umpteenth time. We're all perfectly aware of what's relevant here. Try rather to explain how you see this is an instance of irresponsible, dubious and damaging speculation.
Peter Isotalo 07:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Peter, as per the third opinion and Wikipedia policy, the burden of proof is on you. That's the way Wikipedia works. If you don't like that, an article page is not the place to discuss policies, unless you wish to make a POINT:point.
You want this material to stay, you explain how its inclusion helps the article, especially the way you have presented it.
I also corrected what I will kindly assume to be a mistake in the moving of a cite to make it look as if its supporting what you say. Alastairward (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I really recommend that you not try to make this into an issue of point-making. Stick to the factual discussion and assume good faith.
We've already had a protracted discussion about the role "Magic" has in American pimping since the 1970s. He's the main protagonist of the film that even you think is relevant to include (even featured on the cover of the DVD) and he's the reason that Players Ball exists. You're welcome to contest mine and Dream's observation that Keyshone is based on him, but you can't do it by simply ignoring everything that has been said so far.
That I moved the citation to the end of the sentence was a layout issue. I never place footnotes in the middle of sentences unless it's supposed to cover a very specific statement or word. I agree that it doesn't technically say "Don 'Magic' Juan is the main protagonist of Pimps Up, Ho's Down, but it's hardly the kind of statement we tend to demand citations for.
It's one thing to remove things that you deem irrelevant due to violation of WP:V and such, but repeatedly removing information you personally deem irrelevant is quite different. Reasons for including the information have been given in excess, so please explain the reasons for removing it. If you're willing to include statements like "featuring real life pimps", you can hardly have a problem with inclusion of the main protagonist of the film.
Peter Isotalo 14:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm certainly not making a point, check my edit history, I edit all articles in the same way. I've edited South Park articles, scrubbing OR, synthesis etc for some time now.
I've not removed things for being "irrelevant" using WP:V as a reason, the two things are unrelated. If something's irrelevant, its most likely trivia (and there's guidance on that too y'know).
That I moved the citation to the end of the sentence was a layout issue. No. Citations go where they're needed, if you have to cite mid sentence, do so. If you don't want to, then split the sentence. What you did simply made it look like the cite supported something it most certainly did not.
As for the article itself, why specify one particular part of the documentary? Is there a good reason for it? WP:BURDEN and all that... Alastairward (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've brought this issue[13] up at the original research noticeboard.
Peter Isotalo 10:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In the episode "Hooked on Monkey Fonics" (Season 3 Ep. 13) Butters kissed for the real first time a girl (the "slut" Rebecca) during the Bay of Pig memorial dance. After the kiss he said: "Woo-oh Holy Cow!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.126.185.62 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 

Entertainment media doesn't have to be historical accurate.  Interesting bit of trivia though.  Dream Focus 08:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In the middle of all this debating on the relevance of WP:V, I really need to clarify about something concerning O'Neal's review. He says the following:

I'm pretty sure that outside-the-car shot of the lieutenant calling his john a “nasty fucker” was also lifted from Hookers At The Point
The association to a specific scene looks like a wild guess, rather than anything approaching an insightful observation or qualified analysis. If we're prepared to fight to keep out an allusion to Don "Magic" Juan that is obvious unless you choose to ignore it, it's not reasonable to include vagueries of this type. Has anyone here seen the film in question? Even if it turned out not to be a completley free and erroneous association, it still seems way too trivial to include.
Peter Isotalo 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

O'Neal writes for The A.V. Club, which is a reliable source as far as the article is concerned. If he sees a connection, it can be included. If the wording has to be changed to reflect that, so be it, but it's no reason for removal. We take his word and repeat it here as the reliability of the source allows us to assume that he's likely to be correct. It can be taken with a pinch of salt, but it passes muster for verifiability.
If in writing his review, he feels it necessary to point this out, it also passes muster for trivia. A cultural references section was included specifically for that type of information, so we include it in that category, else mark down all such references as trivia.
Also, by referring to a discussion above and linking removal of one piece of information to another, it does seem that you're trying to make a point of some sort. Alastairward (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I amended the article to reflect this. Alastairward (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Butters' Bottom Bitch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CTJF83 GoUSA 02:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

alt text for the images please
I'm slightly concerned with "both of which commentators said was a surprise given the popularity of South Park." I see only one person mentioning that he is surprised. It doesn't say if SP had been outperforming the other shows on previous weeks or not.
Just 2 minor concerns this time! CTJF83 GoUSA 21:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay! I've added alt text and dropped the wording in question. — Hunter Kahn 04:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Passing CTJF83 GoUSA 04:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about why the ratings information is given such a focus in this article.  The fact that "Butters' Bottom Bitch" was outperformed by various shows in the ratings is mentioned early and explored again later in more detail.  I'm honestly confused why it is present at all.  Is the point to say that despite "generally positive reviews" this episode failed to draw viewers?  If so, some contextual information to compare it to other South Park episodes would be useful.  Is there some other point being made about the viewer-ship of those other shows?  If so, is it needed in this article?  I'm all for the neutral presentation of facts in this encyclopedia but some context for understanding relevance seems to be missing from this instance. 97.120.129.184 (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The bare ratings are ok, but the mention in the lede and reception sections about the "surprisingly" poor ratings seems to stem from one comment on the webpage used as a cite for those ratings. I agree with the above and have removed that extra commentary. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily opposed to that change if that's how the consensus feels. Personally, I would prefer to see it removed from the lead (which you're right, is a bit UNDUEish) nut mentioned in the "Reception" section, perhaps with it mentioned in the prose that it came from TV by the Numbers, so it's not getting undue weight. Any thoughts on that? — Hunter Kahn 19:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
However, although I'm not opposed to the commentary being removed, I am opposed to the mention of the ratings and reviews being eliminated from the lead altogether. This is fundamental information for a television episode article, and all the other high-quality South Park articles have this in their leads, as they should. So I've restored that bit, but kept out the commentary about the ratings. — Hunter Kahn 19:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not against ratings going back in the lead, now that you've amended it so. And if there was a small note in passing that the TV by the Numbers site felt this an usually small audience, I wouldn't mind that either. Perhaps I was a bit hasty and deleted where I could have rewritten. WikiuserNI (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Which I've now done. WikiuserNI (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Butters' Bottom Bitch. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5u1hzbyoX?url=http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/15/cable-ratings-niptuck-returns-to-2-92-million-and-a-1-4-adults-18-49-rating/30603 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/15/cable-ratings-niptuck-returns-to-2-92-million-and-a-1-4-adults-18-49-rating/30603
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) 01:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)