# Talk:Sexual Healing (South Park)

who the fuck keeps inserting quotes from AV Club? Much less thinks that Zack Handjob's fucked up hate reviews deserve their own BOX QUOTE?
I mean seriously. AV Club just finds it fun to attack South Park, they haven't found an episode funny in 10 years. Either they don't get it, or they just hate on it because it riles up fanboys who come over to them to countercomment and give them pageview clicks.
Enough is enough. No way does that piece of shit "review" deserve a box quote.

If you feel it doesn't suffice as a reliable third party source, you should raise objections at the relevant page (the reliable sources noticeboard. As it stands, a dissenting opinion can add balance to an article. Alastairward (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A dissenting opinion is one thing. An attack piece by a guy who's admitted before he just hates the show? Not so much. Sticking the attack piece in a goddamn SIDE BOX? Come on now. Look at the "Reception" area. Why does Zack Handjob deserve to have a huge fucking quotation stuck in the big yellow box there? He doesn't. It detracts from the article, pure and simple. I'd fix it myself and remove the box but some douchebag has locked the article - and following the diffs [1] it looks like the "reasoning" for doing so is pretty damn fucked up, since the definition of "original research" does not and has never included using the source material itself merely to do things like list names referenced in the episode. But hell, if you want proof that Michael Hutchence is mentioned in the article, why not check the script? Or better yet, since Parker and Stone put all the episodes up for free viewing now, go RIGHT TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE and view it for free to check?
Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ, this place is getting pathetic. WP:OR does not say that the original material is not a verifiable source!
The reception section merely shows viewers what various sources have said about the article's subject material. That is all. If someone wants to find out more about the source or that review in particular, there are ample avenues open to them to do so. Simply disagreeing with that review does not mean it shouldn't be included.
And OR does involve making your own decisions on the intent of the writers in the show. Using a primary source and drawing your conclusions is OR, end of. Alastairward (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be better to take this issue up with the aforementioned noticeboard. I mean, is it not helpful and encyclopedic to read about what a reliable source with an alleged agenda against the show has to say about an episode? I do agree with the Hutchence thing though ...we need not be so picky about requiring a cite for his mention on the show (as long as there is sufficient content to explain the mention was because of his auto-erotic whatsit death). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Alastairward, using the original source to determine whether or not a name is mentioned in the episode is not "making a decision" as far as I can tell. That Dog Won't Hunt, Monsignor (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Monsignor, I never said anything about quoting a name. Please remain civil. Alastairward (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not that the review is not to be included. But STICKING IT IN A GODDAMN BIGASS YELLOW BOX ON THE PAGE IS UNDUE WEIGHT. WTF is wrong with you people?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.148.103 (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC) 

It's all a matter of whether or not this particular quote is needed in order to clarify what Zack Handlen said ...that is, if the point he was trying to make (and the article's relay of that point) is too difficult to paraphrase and condense. If it's not, then the box quote is unnecessary, as each reviewer in a reception section should be given equal coverage (under normal circumstances). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Handlen is already quoted in the paragraph text. The box quote is therefore unnecessary, redundant, and by emphasizing Handlen's review above others, is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. I'm surprised it sat so long and that people gave the original poster of this complaint so much grief rather than looking clearly at the matter. Shame on all of you. That Dog Won't Hunt, Monsignor (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the length of the original quote box seeks to have been cited as a violation of WP:UNDUE, I've shortened it significantly and restored it. I ask for feedback from multiple readers here at the talk page before it gets removed again. If the consensus is no quote box whatsoever, I'll drop the matter. However, I think a quote box is appropriate when it reflects a broad consensus of reviewers, and the consensus in this matter was largely mixed, so of course the quote box will be as well. (For the record, I preferred the original box because even thought it was longer, it made the point better, I felt, but I'm willing to settle for a shorter one.) — Hunter Kahn 16:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, The Dog Won't Hunt Monsignor, when you say you are surprised the original poster got so much grief, are you saying you are not the original poster? I'm just surprised, since you make the same points he/she did, and removing the quote box seems to be the first and only contributions you've made to Wikipedia so far... — Hunter Kahn 16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for assuming earlier that the issue the OP had was with the credibility of the reviewer, and not that the reviewer was given a prominent box quote in the review section. A friendly suggestion: A little more civility may have prevented that. Anyways ...I don't have a strong opinion either way because a good case can be made both ways, I suppose.
I'll just throw my two cents out for consideration: Is the box quote, though not merely duplicating the same quote that's presented in the text of the section, giving the reader a much-needed further understanding of what the reviewer was trying to say? (WP:QUOTE). Can one quote from one reviewer truly reflect a common consensus among all other reviewers? If it does, then technically could we use a quote from any of the reviewers? Would it be fair to choose to present one reviewer's quote over the others who pretty much had the same thing to say? Or ...is it crucial enough to having a better understanding of the article that it deserves to be set aside from the regular text, regardless of whether or not it appears to be giving undue weight to whoever said it? (MOS:TV#Reception) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh good grief. No, Hunter, leave it out. WP:UNDUE most definitely applies, not to mention the fact that the box's content is still incredibly redundant. I notice you have definite WP:OWN issues when it comes to South Park topics it seems... That Dog Won't Hunt, Monsignor (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's review, if we may:
- Putting a single commentator/reviewer's quote in a quote box both elevates and emphasizes their commentary. Therefore, there needs to be a real and significant reason to do so. If there are a number of reviewers, some positive and some negative, and we choose to quote-box a negative writer, that is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE.
- Looking back on Handlen's past reviews, it does seem likely that he has a standing problem with (at least) "modern" (seasons 7+) South Park. It may be that he simply doesn't like the show in a general sense, or it may be that he is an "original fan" who yearns for the days of mere fart jokes and catchphrases. Either way, emphasizing his writing in an WP:UNDUE fashion makes wikipedia look worse, and should not be done.
Those would appear to be the salient points of discussion. Any disagreement about the phrasing of these points, or other points anyone wishes to add? 

Well I'll be. I forgot to sign in and that IP comes up as me. I think that may be a neighbor's kid. I'll go have a talk with them (and lock my wireless down better). That Dog Won't Hunt, Monsignor (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Monsignor, I see that you've removed the quote box again without waiting to see what WP:CONSENSUS is reached. For the sake of civility, I'll leave it out until after a discussion is generated here. But you might want to reconsider such etiquette problems in the future, especially before you go making WP:OWN accusations against other editors. Anyway...
The reviews for this episode were mixed and, if we're being honest, probably skewed more toward negative. (Some of the reviews, like CNN and MTV News, said very little in their reviews except that they liked it, and The Cowl is a college newspaper.) Entertainment Weekly, Newsweek, IGN, The A.V. Club and iF Magazine all had problems with the episode. Several reviewers (A.V. Club, iF Magazine, IGN and Newsweek) all had a similar gripes: that the quick turnaround of the show can be an asset and a liability, but that in this case it was a liability, that the running joke of the episode was weak and that it was driven largely into the group. I didn't repeat these same complaints with every review snippet because that would be redundant. However, I used in the A.V. Club quote quote box largely reflected these gripes shared by many reviewers. (Note, the original quote had more positive elements to it, but it was shortened due to the complaints.) This is not undue weight, this is using a quote reflective of many voices. (If you can find a better one to use, please suggest one.) Then there's also the matter that the box's sourcing is completely fine, although this objector has complained about The A.V. Club, which shows a bias on his part in the vein of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Frankly, it seems to me based on your repeated complaints about The A.V. Club's negative reviews, and your strong feelings about keeping the quote box out (I notice you've never objected to positive quote boxes in past articles), you are doing all of this because you are a fan of South Park and don't like seeing the negative quote being used. I'm a fan too, but you can't let that cloud your judgment, or you're in violation of WP:ILIKEIT. But, the fact that you are a new user who was brought into Wikipedia because of this specific despite, I can assume good faith and chalk it up to your unfamiliarity with the policies.
Anyway, we've both already wasted too much time debating this issue. Feel free to respond, of course, but I think we've both articulated our points here, and I want to hear from others. I'll respect whatever the WP:CONSENSUS decides, and I suggest you do the same. — Hunter Kahn 14:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the use of quote boxes.  You put the best quote you got in them, and it adds visual interest to article, without having to worry about NFCC.  It's not a big deal either way, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat ironic that Monsignor is talking about undue weight, when he/she mixes into that argument their clear dislike of Handlen, leading me to believe that if another review was quoted in that box, they wouldn't be so adamant. It's hard to take your argument so seriously Monsignor, when you seem to have such a bone to pick with the AV Club reviews. Suggesting that they do not constitute a reliable source (by way of suggesting there is some sort of "problem" between the reviewer and subject) is another matter entirely and should be left out of this argument.
One suggestion that WP:UNDUE makes is that pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant. In this case, several reviewers made a very direct reference to the timeliness of the episode's content. It can be clearly discerned through the quotes made in the article. I would go one further and take one of the slightly positive reviews that mentioned that theme as well as one of the slightly negative ones and quote them both. Alastairward (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Neighbor kid's been warned about his language. In any event, I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia, but I do know of a few relevant policies.  Alastairward, I agree that it'd be fairer to quote one positive and one negative review in box-quote, yes. Hunter, I don't have a dislike of Handlen, I merely looked back into his previous South Park reviews on record and from that, it appears he has a need to say something negative about almost every episode. Reviewers are free to do this, but the reading public needs to take the reviewer's biases into account when deciding what they will or won't like (I never could agree with Gene Siskel, and generally went to certain movies just because his dislike was an indication I would probably enjoy it... anyways). 
I don't mean to suggest that Handlen is an entirely "unreliable" source, but when noticing a trend in a particular reviewer (disdain for directorial style, or lack thereof, of a given filmmaker for example), giving extra weight to their reviews in the form of a box-quote (which suggests that the quote is either (a) overly representative of the mass opinion or (b) at the forefront of analysis regarding the work) is probably not a good idea. That Dog Won't Hunt, Monsignor (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like, once again, this line of argument is more relevant for the reliable sources noticeboard rather than here. However, one thing I'm confused about, what other South Park episodes has Handlen written about? Looking in at the previous Wikipedia articles at least, I'm not finding any... — Hunter Kahn 03:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
A box quote "is useful in articles which are short on images and need some graphic-like element, or where an important or interesting quote wants to be presented in a way that sets it off from the surrounding text" (Template:Quotebox) Considering the length of the critical reception section of this article, I don't see the problem with keeping the original box quote in the article, as long as it is an accurate reflection of a general critical consensus (which I would consider both "important" and "interesting"). As stated before, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but in the interest of moving towards a consensus, I'll say go ahead and keep it in. And I know this is a little off-topic relative to the article ...but enough with trying to put blame on the earlier incivility on the "neighbor's kid". - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this discussion can go much further to be honest. Monsignor and/or the "neighbor's kid", your argument to counter the use of the quote box and the AV Club review rests too heavily on your negative opinion of the reviewer themselves. An allegation of bias against certain artists does make a source unreliable. We need to untangle the two before moving further on the issue of undue weight. Alastairward (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"After it is explained to Kenny that auto-erotic asphyxiation often involves wearing a costume of some type, he dons a costume of Batman, the DC Comics fictional superhero, and subsequently dies in the outfit." - What does the reader learn from this? Unless this is referencing some sort of study or article from a reliable source about how wearing a Batman outfit while choking yourself is a common occurrence, I really don't see any reason why this fleeting moment in the episode is notable enough for inclusion in the article. All I really gather from reading it is that there is a fictional character out there named "Batman". - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that as long as there is a source, this is perfectly acceptable to have in the Cultural References section since it is just that: a reference to culture, or at least to pop culture. Besides, it is of course obvious to you and I that the costume featured in the episode is Batman, it might not be to people from outside the country, or to people reading this article 20, 50, 100 years from now. — Hunter Kahn 00:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
SoSaysChappy, I know what you mean. But at the same time, as Hunter Kahn says, it's all cited. Some of these cultural reference sections end up a bit like a list of trivia. Like in The Coon, Bruce Vilanch and Harvey Fierstein are referenced. Why? It's cited.
Calling it cultural references shows relevance, why the writers have someone doing something or have included places or events. But sometimes it just feels a little drawn out. Alastairward (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, the Fierstein and Vilanch scene in "The Coon" is elaborated on in that article, with the explanation of the joke being comparing Cartman to overweight, gay comedians, and the fact that Vilanch wrote a complimentary letter to the creators. I'm just harking back to the "general rule of thumb" I remember reading about determining what should or should not be included in a "cultural references" section: if what is included in the section is merely mentioned or shown in the episode, and/or all the reader learns is that it was merely mentioned or shown, and not learning anything beyond that, it doesn't warrant inclusion. Although it is cited, I personally didn't learn anything about Batman and/or autoerotic asphyxiation from the section. For those who don't know who Batman is ...if you go on to explain that Batman is a superhero from comic books, it begins to feel like it's straying from the subject and becoming connective trivia, as it doesn't explain its relevance to the episode. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the Crossing the Bar reference, which was removed in this edit under the apparent misconception that we need a secondary source to tell us something that is obvious from a primary source (namely, that the priest recites the poem, when it is taken from the poem word-for-word). Raul654 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me what Wikipedia policy says we don't need a source? My understanding was that the policy in this matter would dictate it does, but if it is indeed a misconception on my part I'd appreciate it if you clear it up for me... — Hunter Kahn 06:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The old Wikipedia adage: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The episode is the primary source. There is nothing presented in the episode that verifies this was Crossing the Bar by Tennyson. Not even the fact that the priest is reading it, because it's not technically "obvious" to everyone because we can't assume everyone recognizes the poem. If the book the priest is holding had "Cross the Bar - by Tennyson" written on it, then that would be an instance where the primary source verifies something. So we would need a secondary source (someone agreeably reliable enough in the matter of poetry) to cite that this was indeed the poem being read. Seems kind of strict in this instance, but if the fact that this is Crossing the Bar is unlikely to be challenged by anyone, then a case can be made that it requires no citation at all. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. May I state that this seems like people taking themselves way too seriously? If you can sit down with a copy of the poem (easy enough to find), and the words match, then it's a match. I don't believe we need a "reliable expert on poetry" to compare script to poem, that sounds more than a little inane. This is on the same level as people insisting on removing the INXS singer's name from mention until someone found a "source", when the episode itself is a good enough source. That Dog Won't Hunt, Monsignor (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To follow up: WP:OR says that drawing conclusions is bad. Therefore, the "Original Research" of saying "Father Maxie recited Cross the Bar, by Tennyson, which means that Parker and Stone were making fun of..." would be bad. Merely confirming that the lines Maxie reads appear in the poem - unless there is another poem that somehow has all those same lines, which a simple google search seems to counterindicate pretty well - wouldn't seem to be a problem by the bounds of WP:OR or WP:Verifiability. That Dog Won't Hunt, Monsignor (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I never said "expert", just someone reliable enough (say, a critic, and not someone's personal blog) ...Anyway, I was merely pointing out the difference between using a primary and secondary source. What you mentioned would still be the original research of an editor. And like I said, if it's obvious and not likely to be challenged, I have no problem with its inclusion sans citation. But a source in this instance would be icing. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sexual Healing (South Park)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 17:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am reviewing the article and so far I have only a few comments. It seems that a great deal of work went into this and it has paid off in a very well written article.

"Particularly, Stone said he was simultaneously fascinated and disgusted by Woods's public apology, so the writers were sure to include it in the episode." - starting off with "particularly" seems odd.
Dropped that word. — Hunter Kahn 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The last section Dutch April Fools joke seems out of place. I don't see the relevance. Is it about this episode?
Yeah, someone else added that, and I agree it's not quite right for this article. I dropped it. — Hunter Kahn 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
There is one dead link: http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/guide/1401/
Dropped it. — Hunter Kahn 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thats all for now!  Xtzou (Talk) 17:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass! 

Congratulations! Very nice article. Xtzou (Talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

".....I nëver shöuld häve märried yoü!". Nice line. In the end, did I see a Gürkin shaped like Sweden?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sexual Healing (South Park). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailyinformer.net/2010/03/21/ea-sports-to-sue-south-park-creators-over-tiger-woods-episode/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sexual Healing (South Park). 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/5u4p2N9TC?url=http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/41654 to http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/41654
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) 01:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sexual Healing (South Park). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Spoof-Of-Troubled-Golfer-Tiger-Woods-To-Appear-In-Cartoon-Sitcom-South-Park/Article/201003315574037?f=rss
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324032614/http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/tvblog/south_park_tackles_tiger_woods_ssHhC52oYYM6znMGrZf43K to http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/tvblog/south_park_tackles_tiger_woods_ssHhC52oYYM6znMGrZf43K
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019041841/http://www.thecowl.com/arts-entertainment/south-park-delivers-the-laughs-1.1280738 to http://www.thecowl.com/arts-entertainment/south-park-delivers-the-laughs-1.1280738
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416140736/http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en_fuego/2010/03/south-park-torches-tigers-cheatin-hearts-club.html to http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en_fuego/2010/03/south-park-torches-tigers-cheatin-hearts-club.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100322192930/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/18/south-park-and-ugly-americans-lead-comedy-central-to-highest-rated-and-most-watched-night-of-2010/45465 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/18/south-park-and-ugly-americans-lead-comedy-central-to-highest-rated-and-most-watched-night-of-2010/45465
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) 00:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)