Talk:Where My Country Gone?

Untitled

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 pertaining to 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 analytic, evaluative or interpretative claims, such as cultural references in works of satire or parody, because in such cases, such claims are being made by the editor. This is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is not permitted 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.

If you're new to Wikipedia, please click on the wikilinked policy pages above to familiarize yourself with this site's policies and guidelines.

Name of Charlotte's dad

After he says "it's bad enough we have to live in America, now all the boys with maple fever are going to want to have at our daughter" Charlotte's mom says "that's enough ____" and refers to him by name. This happens again later when she asks "What is it ___ ?" and he tells her what Garrison did to the Canadian president (her audio says Thomas, her CC reads Donald)

I heard "Thomas" but the closed captions say "Donald" (sounded nothing like this) so I made a note of both. Possibly a last-minute script change that CC guys didn't get ahold of? What takes precedence when naming him? 64.228.91.102 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The character's name is not important enough to the plot to specify. Best to just use the generic term, as originally written. See WP:TRIVIA and WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Cosby reference

This brought back the reference to Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations of a "hot Cosby", I think first used in the preceding episode Stunning and Brave. I am not sure if it kept the same meaning though. In SAB the teachers warn kids not to refer to rape as this, but its use here in WMCG when Cartman is talking to Butters sounds more like a rushed one-night stand that could lead to remorse decades later. It seems like in these 2 episodes that the SP writers are having teachers describe it the anti-Cosby way and having students use it the pro-Cosby way.

Later it also introduces a new term, "Slow Cosby". After Butters first mentions it, Charlotte says Canadians call it love. Her dad later says to her mom "it seems they're actually falling in slow Cosby" affirming it actually is Canadian slang in the South Park universe and not something Charlotte was paraphrasing in response to something Butters invented.

How many episodes would this joke have to recur before it is worth mentioning on these episode articles? 64.228.91.102 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

In what way does the use of the term directly affect the plot? It doesn't. They could have used any slang term for rape and/or intercourse and it wouldn't have made a difference to the main focus of the story. Now in the episode #HappyHolograms, Cosby was an integral part of the plot and the parody, therefore his activity was worth mentioning, and was thus done. Just because a joke becomes recurring and/or a running gag doesn't make it important to the elements of the plot. See WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE for more details. Hope this helps. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with SanAnMan here, even though we may disagree as to just what the main story is in this ep. Further, the references are interesting yet obscure - too obscure to explain.
Dmforcier (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner

Caitlyn Jenner running over and killing a pedestrian twice is an important statement and it is not even mentioned in the plot. This shoud be worked in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.49.221 (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Dmforcier (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It was at best a trivial gag and not important at all to the main plot of the story. If we included every single gag, joke, reference, implication, etc. in each episode we'd be writing these things forever. Read the notes above people, short and simple is the key here. SanAnMan (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC

Holding someone up as a hero while ignoring the fact that they committed vehicular manslaughter is a pretty big deal, so they were reminding the viewers about this fact. It's hardly a trivial gag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.49.221 (talk)

Even the main article on Caitlyn Jenner doesn't mention the auto incident. If it's not important enough for the main article it's not important enough for here. SanAnMan (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The merit of the gag is not important here. The fact that it was repeated at the beginning and end of the episode indicates that it is significant to the creators. Do I detect some collegiate level PC here, SanAnMan?
Dmforcier (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I loved the gag and thought it was funny as heck. Just doesn't relate to the main plot of Garrison and the Canadians. SanAnMan (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[redacted - I say it better below.]  Dmforcier (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The A Story -> The PC story arc

Matt and Trey are doing something different this season. They are using a multi-episode story arc. In "Stunning and Brave" they introduce the subject: a resurgence in Political Correctness (PC) and its corrosive effects on everyone. To embody PC, they introduce PC Principal, backed by his fraternity of aggressive and intimidating "PC police". As Matt and Trey describe it, the nature of PC is that everyone is required to accept (or at least abide by) a set of "truths", whether or not they are actually true. The particular "PC truth" that they use for illustration is that Caitlyn Jenner is "stunning and brave" - i.e. the episode title - collaterally 'gorgeous and heroic'. Kyle gets in trouble when he innocently opines that Caitlyn Jenner is not heroic. For this he is intimidated and punished. The natural inclination of his friends, teachers, and their families is to resist PC. But one by one they are all brought under its thumb.

The second episode starts immediately by revealing the Big Lie - that the actual nature of Caitlyn Jenner (at least as the creators see it) - is neither stunning nor brave nor gorgeous nor heroic, even though 'everyone' acts otherwise. Just so it is not viewed as a gag, the scene is repeated at the end. Throughout the ep, other examples of Political Correctness are shown, e.g. Garrison not allowed to control his class, the apprehension of "Canuck" as a racial slur (it is no more a slur than "Yankee"; neither is it racial). In view of the story arc, the whole parody of Trump and Canadian immigration is the 'B story'.

Now, to the point. There are some editors here that just don't get it. They have reverted edits that simply narrate the events of the episode, including the fact that it parodies PC and CJ, any implied criticism of CJ, and any other example of Political Correctness. The excuse is that these are "trivial" or "unnecessary" details. They are anything but! They essentially form the A story. Okay, keep the synopsis concise. Leave out extraneous details and unimportant cultural references. But don't castrate the story in service of some potentially inapplicable policy.
Dmforcier (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We can agree to mildly disagree. Doesn't mean I respect your opinion any less. In fact, I'm willing to acknowledge and compromise. I don't want this to be a point of contention so I've added the Jenner detail to the article. Fair is fair. I can see your POV and hope you can understand mine as well. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What!? You won't accept my truth!? Be prepared for intimidation and punishment, you hater! ;) Seriously, to accommodate the A story there will have to be a few more changes. But know that I generally support your principles. Dmforcier (talk)

Mmm.. Do you think that Canadians should be included in the list of parody targets? Obviously the whole series parodies Canadians, but are they a particular target here? It's almost as if they are stand-ins for Americans in terms of the Trump thing. Thoughts?
Dmforcier (talk)

Agreed, Canadians aren't really a target, they're just the typical South Park stand-in for a group to parody. And to be honest, I would ALMOST question Caitlyn and PC as targets too. Do the cited sources support these statements, or are they WP:SYNTHESIS? - SanAnMan (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It's either a parody of Jenner or an accurate portrayal. Take your pick. Personally, I prefer to rely on my own eyes rather than wait for some flak to tell me what I just saw. Dmforcier (talk)

User:EauZenCashHaveIt edit warring

User:EauZenCashHaveIt is clearly showing signs of edit warring, as he has done previously as per his talk page history. In this case, he is not following WP:SYNTHESIS. The policy clearly states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." So even though it may appear a logical conclusion that the reviews stated lead to a positive overall review, this is still original research. We cannot draw any conclusions, no matter how "obvious" they may seem to us. Unless a source can be cited showing that EVERY SINGLE REVIEW out there is positive. Continuing to revert to your version is also in violation of WP:Edit warring, and you have been warned accordingly. Continuing to revert the article without discussing it properly on the talk page will result in further review. Please act accordingly. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are sorely mistaken. This is not a dispute over opinion, this is a solid fact. All the reviews discussed here are positive. This is standard stuff, check out about a million TV episode articles. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, my TP history would also show that ALL those warnings were premature, and that I proved all the other editors wrong. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: SanAnMan reverted me three times in 12 hours before templating me. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

First off EauZenCashHaveIt, I DID NOT revert you three times in 12 hours, the edit history proves that. Secondly, you expect me to accept your opinion just because you say so. I have cited policies and quoted them directly. If you can prove I'm wrong via policy, I'll admit so. Otherwise, I stand by policy. - SanAnMan (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the edit history shows three reverts in that time frame. I have also proven you wrong: the reviews quoted in the section are positive because the numbers are high, this is not a personal deduction as described in WP:SYNTH. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A ref *need not be a citation* !

SanAnMan, a ref is a way to enter a footnote. As with any footnote, it need not contain merely a citation to another work. An interjection of interest is also valid. Please broaden your formal horizon a little. Dmforcier (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It need not always be a citation but it need never be a random remark. Mezigue (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Noting that a popular character appears in future episodes and citing where is a "random remark"? I don't think so. Dmforcier (talk)

It is. Mezigue (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Nowehere in WP:FN or WP:CS does it mention anything about adding a random remark as a footnote. Remember the main goal of these summaries is to cover the points that are essential to the understanding of the plot of the episode. The fact that the girlfriend makes a brief appearance in at least one other episode (and I'm pretty sure it was only one) is completely inconsequential to the plot of this episode. And as for her being a "popular character", where are you getting that as a source and why does that matter? I stand behind the edit and it appears to be supported by WP policy. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Trump media inclusion

First three comments copied from User talk:Dmforcier#December 2016: Hi Dmforcier, you keep removing Template:Trump media from the article Where My Country Gone? while that article clearly is about a Trump media appearance and established consensus to be included in the template. Please stop your disruptive removals. Thank you. --SI 07:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump does not appear in the episode! Therefore your use of the template is inappropriate and I will continue to revert it. Dmforcier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 5 December 2016‎

Hi Dmforcier, good that we come to talk about it. At first I want to say sorry that my reverts were without comment, because it was hard to see good faith in them and I am still not so common with Twinkle. That said, I still don't agree with your edits, because in my understanding an appearance certainly includes parodies and animated series where the "appearance" is not an appearance in person, but impersonated or parodied. The template {{Trump media}} contains more of those instances, so I feel sure that other editors (like @Polar Cup: or @MrX:) will agree? --SI 22:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion about this, but including episodes of television programs parodying Trump is setting the bar pretty low. If it is included, I guess it would go in the "About Trump" section.- MrX 22:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

ETA: Polar Cup is a blocked sock.- MrX 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me also note that Trump not only does not appear, but is never named or directly referenced. Any parody is only inferred by the viewer. Now, I don't know what the intention of the template was, but it seems doubtful that if was to gather anything that could be inferred to relate to Trump. Do you have any information about the intention of the template? Dmforcier (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)