Talk:Reverse Cowgirl (South Park)

Pop cultural references, continuity notes and other details
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:PLOTSUMMARIZE and 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.

Reliable Sources
And what makes a reviewer or a TV critic reliable? Some of them loathe the show and would come up with anything to put it down, does that make them reliable? According to you, yes. Also, one sees one way and another sees another way, should we then post one view and its opposite because they are from "reliable sources"? Lastly, if one opens an internet blog and claims himself a TV show critic, does that make him a reliable source? I understand this is Wikipedia policy, but maybe it could be altered in some way.

Wouldn't it be better to post on the discussion what one thinks and depending on the amount of positive responses, that would become a reliable source? Then the general opinion would become the reliable source.

As the name says it is pop cultural references not TV critic/NY Times reviewer cultural references.

Just my point... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.113.130 (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Editors who are interested in editing here should learn the site's policies and guidelines, several of which are linked to in the notice at the top of this page, and that includes those pertaining to Source Reliability and Original Research. Sources are those that are generally considered reliable or authoritative by the industry in question. Whether one "loathes" the show has no bearing on this, nor is the personal blog of an uncredentialed person considered a reliable source, and if you think it does, then no, you most certainly do not understand Wikipedia policy.


 * "Does that make them reliable? According to you, yes." According to me? Um, no, I never said nor implied any such thing, as this is an idea of your own fabrication.


 * "Wouldn't it be better to post on the discussion what one thinks and depending on the amount of positive responses, that would become a reliable source?" No. That would be Original Research. Editors add material from sources, ideally secondary ones. They do not originate material themselves. Again, this is explained in the policies and guidelines linked above.


 * "As the name says it is pop cultural references not TV critic/NY Times reviewer cultural references." You're implying an Either/Or disparity where none exists. In the first place, the heading is called "Pop cultural references, continuity notes and other details." In the second place, "pop cultural references" refers to the episode content, not the nature of the sources for establishing them. To argue that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines governing source reliability (from which the above message is directly derived) is in some way mitigated because of the title of a talk page heading is a non sequitur, to put it mildly.


 * Also, please make sure you sign your talk page posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)