Talk:Trapped in the Closet (South Park)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

High Importance?

I see that this article is tagged as a high importance Scientology article. Is one TV show that important? Thanks. Steve Dufour 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is a question for the talk page WP:SCN, not here. Thanks. Smee 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Are there any medium or low importance articles in the Scientology series? :-) Steve Dufour 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please refer to WP:SCN and the associated talk page for more info, not here. Thanks. Smee 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Of course it is not high importance. It is of zero importance to understanding Scientology, the correct purpose of the Scn series. It is of low importance to understanding (as opposed to simply repeating) criticism of Scientology, another valid purpose. It is of high importance to presenting a biased view of Scientology, a disallowed use of Wikipedia. So, Steve, pick which one of those is your goal for the project and make the appropriate adjustment to the rating. Remember, the most important thing about Wikipedia is that it is a wiki - you change things that you believe are wrong, misrepresented, etc. --Justanother 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a more appropriate discussion for the WP:SCN talk pages. Please move any further comments in this thread there. Thanks. Smee 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Steve can move it there if he cares to. I can answer his question here if I care to. And it is totally appropriate that parties interested in the South Park series but not especially interested in Scientology know what is going on with this article so here is just fine, thank you, Mr. Smee. If an actual change is made then, yes, any needed discussion should take place there. --Justanother 16:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology importance level changed to "Mid". Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park importance level changed to "Top". Smee 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

That sounds more fair to me. I understand that this episode was a very important event in the history of the South Park series, of which I have never seen an episode since we don't have cable TV. On the Scientology issue, I have already said that there are way too many articles for this fairly small group of people with a not too remarkable belief system. On the other hand, their founder was quite an interesting guy. Wishing everyone well. Steve Dufour 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Later... Smee 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I checked out the project and there are 236 Scientology articles. 22 are top importance, 56 high importance, 91 medium importance, and 67 low importance. Steve Dufour 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Again, please take these comments specific to WP:SCN to that talk page. This is not relevant here. Thanks. Smee 04:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Questions

I saw that your trying to get this article to FA status, and it is a pretty good article. There is a LOT of stuff to cover and it seems to be well written. But, i have a couple questions:

• I am a member of the South park WikiProject (Albeit an inactive one) but I am curious as to why it is of top importance. In the Simpsons Project, all episodes are of mid importance, except the first episode.
• I know there is no policy against them, but I was wondering if the notes are really necessary. Could they be integrated into the main article?

Other than that, the article looks pretty good. I'll help out a little if I can. -- Scorpion 02:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Answering your questions:

• As you can see, this episode has generated a lot of press and controversy, and thus became among the core episodes of the series. I have changed the importance to high to resemble that.
• When I originally started working on the article, I've removed one part of the trivia, integrated another part inside the article, and moved what's left into a "Notes" section. In other words, this section is meant to contain the important popular culture references, as similar to the "Cultural references" section in The Simpsons episode articles. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 14:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why not just move them to a Cultural References section? Cape Feare and Homer's Phobia have them, and they are FAs. And, one problem we ran into with Cape Feare was overuse of images. I think that if this article is to become an FA, the Tom Cruise and R Kelly Images may have to go. But, leave them in for the time being and see what others say. -- Scorpion 15:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

False Information Section?

<< moved new subsection post to the bottom >>
I was looking at the article for the South Park episode "All About Mormons," which similarly criticizes a religion with flashing "THIS IS WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE" captions. In that article there is an "Inaccuracies" section which, obviously, contains what was not adequately portrayed about that particular faith. Just wondering, I suppose, if anyone knows enough about Scientology to know if there are any inaccuracies in this episode's depiction of Scientology? I suppose Scientologists won't be able to help us out here, seeing as how this article will most certainly be on their blocked websites. Mileslivingston 10:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

• If you can find the information in cited secondary reputable sources, by all means. Smee 02:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
• As Smee said, making a comparison yourself will be original research. However, there are quite a few books available on this subject, including South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating and South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. I'm not sure I can purchase them locally, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • However, portions of these books can be browsed for free online, in services like Amazon.com or Google Books. Smee 19:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Article upgrade???

1. Which is a higher rating, "Good Article", or "A-Class Article" ??
2. Is this article ready for nomination to "Featured Article" status?
3. If not, what other steps, suggestions are there to improve its quality?

Yours, Smee 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not the one who has been doing all the work on the page, so I can't answer the second and third questions, but in answer to the first, the A Class rating is higher than GA, but anyone can promote an article to A status (even if it isn't a GA) whereas to attain GA status, an article must be reviewed by a different editor. Some regard the GA as being higher than A for that reason and don't even bother promoting articles to A-class. But officially, A is higher. I hope that answered your question. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, perhaps this article should now be upgraded to "A-Class"... Smee 01:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

(40) citations.

Article now has citations from (40) reputable sources. Now to just go back and make sure they are all formatted with Wikipedia:Citation templates, which will be a tedious but worthwhile endeavour... Smee 07:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Slight variation of the Xenu story

What exactly is not portrayed truthfully? I believe, on basis of the OTC3 "scriptures" from xenu.net, handwritten by "the Prophet"/"Sci-fi author" L.R. Hubbard, coincides with the depiction in the episode. Can someone reference this? Madskile 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have heard rumblings about the differences, but nothing per se specifically in sources. I'll look into it, hopefully others will as well. Thank you. Yours, Smee 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Pretty simple: the real OT materials are kept confidential and what South Park uses is some nonsense internet printout close enough to the original to piss Scientologists off. Which is the purpose of the show. Misou 05:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• That is an incorrect assumption. See below, for the actual reputable sourced quote of this information. "Alleged" is a Wikipedia word to avoid. Smee 05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC).
• The OT3 materials are not kept confidential. This is why scientology lost its "trade secret" motion in Denver in the Wollersheim case. --Tilman 07:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged" is a Wikipedia word to avoid

• "Alleged" is a Wikipedia word to avoid -- and as this information is backed up by a WP:RS reputable source, there is no need to use this word in this context. Therefore, this edit Diff, is unnecessary. Smee 05:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

Reputable citation

• Arp, Robert (Editor) (December 1, 2006). South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. Blackwell Publishing (The Blackwell Philosophy & Pop Culture Series). pp. 27, 59, 60, 118, 120, 132, 137, 138, 140, 224. ISBN 1405161604 , ISBN 978-1405161602. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Page 137 -- "In the episode, Stan learns the actual dogma of Scientology in brief. The "president" of Scientology tells Stan a short version of the story of Xenu, based directly on the actual Scientology OT III document. This is accompanied by an onscreen caption reading, "THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE."

Quote, from reputable sourced citation

This is the direct quote itself, from a citation from a WP:RS reputable source. This explains why this should be in the article, without the word "alleged". Smee 05:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, I get a "Red Alert" if you use the word "reputable". Looks fine however, taking WP:RS. Go ahead and spread the lie (i.e. revert me). Misou 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that this is a reputable source. I would prefer it if you were to revert yourself on this one. Thank you. Smee 05:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

Currently failing GA

Problems with this article that fail GA criteria.

1. Big issue, literally, is the plot. First, "plot synopsis" is redundant, as a synopsis is a summary of the plot. Given the length of detail it should be simply "Plot". This isn't that major, just something minor as I get to the other problems. The plot is overly long. There are 980 words for a 22 minute episode. Wikipedia does not create Derivative works, as they violate copyrights, and the 3 non-free images along in the plot do not meet non-free criteria either. There are 4 screenshots for this page alone. Screenshots are used with critical commentary, not decoration. Here are the criteria. More specifically 3a (as little non-free content as possible)
2. What is the purpose of the Scientology infobox? -- Moved down instead to a "footer" template, used as a navigational tool for readers and editors. Smee 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC).
3. Images in general. This page is overloaded with non-free images that bleed into other sections.
4. Any thing that says "user rating" does not meet reliability and verifiability criteria. The reason being, online polls are notorious for not being an accurate representation of viewers. The people that vote on TV.com and IMDb and IGN are ones that visit those websites constantly, and doesn't represent the viewers reliably. Also, we cannot verify that there is no vote stacking going on. -- Removed this paragraph, along with the TV.com, IMDb and IGN references. Smee 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC).
5. External links should be at the very bottom of the page. It should be the last section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC) -- -- Moved the External links down to the bottom of the page. Smee 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

• Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I will begin to immediately implement your points above. Smee 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Perhaps User:Michaelas10 may wish to address some of your other above points. Smee 15:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC).
    • That's fine, I just wanted to bring it here instead of doing a simply "delisting". The non-free content is the real problem. 980 words is a lot for a film article, and this is a 22 minute television show. We don't typically allow 3 images in a plot for anything, and this page technically has 4 when you include the infobox image. Generally, what's in the infobox should encompass the entire episode, as television episodes do not have posters like films. The two images at the bottom, one of the DVD Ninth Season and the other of the Comedy Central advertisement have issues as well. The Ninth season DVD has 1 sentence of mention, and it's merely to say that the episode appeared on the DVD. The image itself has no critical commentary to go along with it. It's merely just showing that they put a mention on the cover. The Comedy Central ad image literally just reiterates what the text says. The text says "C'mon Jews...", and the image says the same thing. Neither have any notable critical commentary on them to suggest a need for their use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for elaborating. Though I have thoughts on responses to these points as well, as User:Michaelas10 had been heavily involved in many of your above questions, I think it's only polite/fair to see if he wishes to comment about some of these points first. Smee 16:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC).
  1. I concur the plot needs cleanup and will shorten it to a length of 3-4 paragraphs.
  2. I've removed the inappropriate images to abide the stricter fair use policy on television stills. You may see the fair use rationale for those who remained.
  3. It's essential for readers to be aware of the user ratings on popular websites, despite them not representing the general viewers' opinion (similarly, one critic's rating doesn't represent the general critics' opinion). Votestacking in particular occurs on a very small scale. Moreover, many featured articles of television episodes and movies do provide those sort of the ratings, see for example Homer's Enemy and Abyssinia, Henry. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless it's been replaced, last time I checked the Simpson's featured articles had them removed. I didn't know the MASH one had it as well. It isn't excepted for films, so I don't see why it would be accepted for television shows. Mainly because when it comes to the audience, for film's the creed is "money talks", and for television it would be "Nielsen ratings talk", as that would be the equivalent. It's just not an accurate representative sample of what people think. Nielsen Ratings do that best, as you can actually see that so many million people watched the show. There are far too many viewers for IMDb or TV.com to create an representative sample rating for an episode. Bignole 23:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Question: -- Instead of removing those images - might it not be possible to try to contact the owner of the images (South Park) and get permission to use them in this manner on the project, or to release those still shots as CC-A or GFDL ?? Smee 00:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
  • I think that's a leap. You have to verify they gave permission. For that to happen they would either have to release the entire episode into the public domain (unlikely) or release those specific images to the public domain. Both instances would need verifiable proof (not emails) that they did release them into the PD. Plus, it would have to be a comedy central/Matt and Trey decision, since I think each owns a portion of the show. Bignole 01:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Good points. Smee 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
  • "...get permission to use them in this manner on the project" is a violation of the GFDL and is likely to be deleted under CSD#I3. Michaelas¹⁰ 10:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Right, right. Maybe CC-A or GFDL on the nifty Rolling Stone image at some point. Wishful thinking... Smee 10:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
• Perhaps we could have at least one fair use image in the plot summary section? Smee 11:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
  • That's still a violation of "one fair use image per episode". Frankly, I'm fully behind the proposal to remove all fair use content from Wikipedia. Michaelas¹⁰ 11:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Interesting, and okay. However, there are a few featured articles on episodes of similar series with more fair use images... Smee 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Since it's a television episode article, I think that what gets put in the infobox (since they don't have posters for every episode) should be the best illustration of the episode itself. Bignole 16:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am not certain then, that if we are only having one image from the episode itself, that the current infobox image is the best illustration of the episode itself. Perhaps an image relating to the title of the episode? Smee 10:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

No no, I wasn't saying that what was there was the best, just that what should go there should be the best illustration. Bignole 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing ref?

• Ref number 12 looks like it used to point to Rolling Stone, but the cite is now gone, any ideas? Smee 09:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Fixed. Michaelas¹⁰ 10:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Smee 10:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Arp reference?

I'm confused by the sentence describing the comparison in the Robert Arp book. The synopsis presented here says that the Mormon episode and the Scientology episode both used the "This is what ___ actually believe" device, and uses this to demonstrate Comedy Central's inconsistency? I'm suspecting this is a typo, and that the caption was absent from the Mormon episode. Can anybody verify? Poobslag 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3