Jump to content

Talk:Cartman Gets an Anal Probe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCartman Gets an Anal Probe is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starCartman Gets an Anal Probe is part of the South Park (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 7, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2009Good article nomineeListed
September 27, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
February 5, 2010Featured topic candidateNot promoted
March 6, 2010Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Themes: Ethan Thompson in-text attribution

[edit]

I disagree with this reasoning given for this edit .and have reverted it so that it can be further discussed per WP:BRD (Note: edit was actually reverted by Cirt with this edit before I could do so - Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)). The statement that the in-text attribution is simply "Primary source talking about itself" seems to be contrary to what is being said in WP:PSTS, WP:INTEXT, and WP:PLAG. Thompson's "Good Demo, Bad Taste: South Park as Carnivalesque Satire" would, in my opinion, be considered a primary source if it were being used to discuss itself in an article about itself, i.e., a Wikipedia article titled "Good Demo, Bad Taste: South Park as Carnivalesque Satire". That, however, does not seem to be the case here at all since the source is only being used to discuss Thompson's interpretations and opinions on a particular South Park episode.[reply]

Not giving Thompson proper in-text attribution in text seems to contrary to the "rules of thumb" given in the lede to WP:PLAG, which says Naming the author in the text allows the reader to see that it relies heavily on someone else's ideas, without having to search in the footnote. You can avoid inadvertent plagiarism by remembering these rules of thumb: (...) INTEXT: Add in-text attribution when you copy or closely paraphrase another author's words or flow of thought, unless the material lacks creativity or originates from a free source. (...). Not properly attributing Thompson also seem to be contrary to example #6 "In-text attribution, no quotation marks, text properly paraphrased, inline citation" given in WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism. The opinions being expressed are Thompson's and properly attributing is simply stating that is what they are; there is no original research or synthesis being done by any editor, but it could be construed as such without a proper in-text attribution.

In addition, WP:INTEXT says [In-text attribtuion] can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words. It avoids inadvertent plagiarism and helps the reader see where a position is coming from. An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question. and directly follows that with an example where in-text attribution being properly used. Moreover, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says, Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. and it seems fair to say that Thompson's opinion is "biased" to a degree because it is Thompson's opinion, and not undisputed fact. Furthermore, WP:BIASED says, Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Finally, this article is an FA article. It appeared on the main page on February 7, 2012. I believe this that was used on that day. The text in question was in the article at that time. If the attribution was a blatant policy violation, it's fair to assume that it would've have been removed before the article was added to the main page. Furthermore, the text in question was in the article after its FA review process in this September 28, 2009 version, the day after it was promoted to FA status. It looks as if there was no mention of the Thompson attribution at all during the FA review process. If it was obviously problematic, then it's fair to assume that it would've have been pointed out during the discussion. Therefore, the in-text attribution appears, in my opinion, to be quite stable and acceptable per Wikipedia's standards, and at least should remain in the article per WP:STATUSQUO until its removal can be properly discussed. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Marchjuly, and I've restored to the WP:FA version. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

[edit]

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Awadewit for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cartman Gets an Anal Probe. 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).

  • 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) 10:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cartman Gets an Anal Probe. 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).

  • 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) 19:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe&oldid=1244556092"