![]() | Sexual Healing (South Park) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 27, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
South Park episode "
Sexual Healing" parodied the recent
sex scandal surrounding golf pro
Tiger Woods, and satirized the media attention it generated? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
"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'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)
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)
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.
Thats all for now! Xtzou ( Talk) 17:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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:
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).
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:
{{
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=rssWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Sexual Healing (South Park) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 27, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
South Park episode "
Sexual Healing" parodied the recent
sex scandal surrounding golf pro
Tiger Woods, and satirized the media attention it generated? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
"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'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)
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)
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.
Thats all for now! Xtzou ( Talk) 17:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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:
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).
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:
{{
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=rssWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)