Talk:A Scause for Applause

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.

Who is Chris Martin

Who is the Chris Martin that appears in this episode as a Charlie Rose guest/ can someone add a link, please. Medeis (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he's a fictional character that was created for the episode. He's not mentioned in the plot synopsis, so I don't think it matters. Nightscream (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

They don't normally bother to give the names of made-up characters, that they identified him by full name implies he's a real person. Not the Cold Play singer, though. μηδείς (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if he is (and he doesn't appear to be, since I can't find him on WP or Google), again, he isn't mentioned in the article, so I think it's a moot point. Nightscream (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Nike

The current article claims Stan appears in a Nike commercial, while South Park is clearly parodying the Livestrong Nike campaign they do not use the actual Nike Logo. South Park uses a "double V" type logo wherein each "V" even differs from the actual Nike logo (it curves down on the right end). Source: The actual episode, and this IGN article has a nice screenshot that includes the Logo: IGN Scause for Applause review 13:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTG (talk • contribs)

So? Nightscream (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but the secondary source actually uses the brand name "Nike." If you can produce another reliable source which says "Nike-like" or some other qualifier, we can discuss removing it. Until then... BusterD (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The episode itself uses the word "Nike". That's what the endorsement representative tells Stan when he meets him in the 7 Eleven. That's why that name appears in the synopsis. Had it not appeared in the episode, I wouldn't have put in the plot synopsis. Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cultural references

Do not remove sourced information please. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The information was not "sourced". The cited source makes no mention of specific Dr. Seuss characters (a mention of Seuss is already properly incorporated into the plot), nor does it mention Pussy Riot. The accusation of hooliganism in which PR was embroiled is completely irrelevant to the article and the scene in question. You cannot just stick a citation of any old webpage at the end of a passage that claim that it constitutes a proper reference if it doesn't make any mention of the material.

I also notice that you replaced the clear AV Club ref name with a more obscure one, and that you remove the wikilink from the term "The A.V. Club" from the citation template, as well as the word "The" and the two periods that are part of its proper name. Why did you do this? This and the previous blanking of content from the Butterballs article last month strongly carry the appearance of blindly undoing my edits without reading them carefully. Is this what you're doing?

Lastly, regarding your originally naming this section "the boy who cried trivia", I suggest you cease violating WP:Civility and WP:No Personal Attacks, and right now. The next time you attack another editor in this manner, you will be blocked from editing. Nightscream (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that instead of copying and pasting this entire thread to my talk page, you could have simply left a {{talkback}} notice there, right? Anyway, here's my response:

• I reverted because another editor blanked the section, which contained a reference to all three claims, and their edit summary was WP:TRIVIA. Please, by all means, tell me how "the boy who cried trivia" constitutes a personal attack, here or anywhere else. I was referring to editors who are trigger happy to remove other editors' hard work under the guise of "It's trivia and WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Please quit accusing me of personal attacks when I did not, in fact, carry out any. It's actually insulting. Also, per WP:TPO, don't ever alter my edits just because they don't look right to you. That is, unless it's too extreme (like the editor who told me to suck his dick the other day, which made me go straight to ANI.)
• The AV Club reference was duplicated so I removed the clone. That's all. I was a bit in a hurry so I didn't notice all the details.
• You're right, I didn't properly investigate the reference, and for that I apologize. I was a bit too busy getting angry at the removal of sourced content, as I already explained above. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted because another editor blanked the section, which contained a reference to all three claims...

But not a source for them. The cited source, as aforementioned, only mentioned the Armstrong matter, but not the rest. You are correct that Koavf was partially wrong in that he should not have removed all of it, just as you should not have restored all of it. Both of you should've read the material and the source more carefully.

Please, by all means, tell me how "the boy who cried trivia" constitutes a personal attack

Characterizing other editors as boys who are crying is clearly pejorative. You have a history of being warned for addressing or speaking of other editors in this manner. If you don't believe me, ask others if being characterized as such for attempting to fulfil policy is not uncivil. Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

When you quote me, please don't remove Wikilinks, as this one holds the key to your confusion: I was referencing "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". As described in the linked article, "[f]rom [this expression] is derived the English idiom to cry wolf, meaning to give a false alarm" (referring to at least partially falsely calling the material "trivia"). Therefore, your personal attack accusation stands no grounds whatsoever. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Who cares what you were referencing? Are you arguing that when you characterize another editor as a "boy" who "cried", it cannot be perceived as insulting simply because it references an Aesop fable? This is a non-sequitur. Characterizing someone in this manner, esp in the heading of a discussion thread, is indeed pejorative, regardless of where the phrase comes from. Again, if you doubt this, select some other editors to poll, and ask them if they think this would not be considered insulting, simply because of its literary pedigree. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you're obviously incapable of even considering this, I've requested Third Opinion. Nightscream (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. You are obviously incapable of perceiving the concept of idioms. Not a single person with a reasonable command of the English language (at least enough to be a competent editor) can mistake "the boy who cried wolf" for "he called me a crying boy"... unless that person's goal is to flex their muscles. Needless to say, the word "boy", as an inseparable part of that idiom, was not in reference to Koavf, whose gender I do not even know. Had I told someone that they're flogging a dead horse, would you think I'm accusing that person of animal cruelty? As someone who just recently suffered from excessive personal attacks, I find this accusation preposterous and offensive... but I already stated that, didn't I? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, I am responding here to a request at WP:3O. Both 3O and this talk page are intended for discussion of article content, not editor behavior. Frankly, the exchange above reflects poorly on both of you and I suggest you stand down and focus future discussion on article content instead of each other. Since Pussy Riot and Seuss are mentioned in the plot section, additional mention in the trivia section could be considered overcoverage, and in any case their inclusion in the trivia section is an editorial decision that is a reasonable topic for discussion here on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Since Pussy Riot and Seuss are mentioned in the plot section, additional mention in the trivia section could be considered overcoverage... Thanks for completing missing the point of dispute in this discussion, which has no longer has anything to do with the Pussy Riot reference. The issue was Hearfourmewesique's characterization of another editor, as my notification at 3O made explicitly clear (though apparently not explicitly enough for you). It is perfectly reasonable to discus that here, since this is where that behavior took place. If you wanted to move the discussion to another talk page, you could have. Or could've created a subheading. Instead, you decided to discuss a completely different topic, one that, while initially the topic of this section, has already been resolved. Bravo.

You are obviously incapable of perceiving the concept of idioms. I am indeed aware of that idiom. I'm simply saying that it's irrelevant, as is Koavf's gender. Characterizing someone as "the boy who cried trivia" could be seen as pejorative. Period. Your refusal to even consider this as a possibility is simply another example in your documented history of violating WP:CIV. One more time: Polls other editors and ask them if they would perceive that behavior insulting. Ask them. Nightscream (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for completing [sic] missing the point of dispute in this discussion... yes Nightscream, thank you for completely ignoring my reply and continuing your nonexistent witch hunt.

The issue was Hearfourmewesique's characterization of another editor... no, the issue is that I was not characterizing an editor. I already explained it twice. I used an idiom (the boy who cried wolf) to describe a situation (being trigger happy on envoking trivia, when it is not always trivia, as a "cry wolf"). There was not even a shadow of a hint towards name calling or referring to anyone as anything. You have chosen to detach the idiom from its meaning and turn it around to try and pin preposterous accusations on me out of the clear blue sky. Please refer to everything I said in my previous reply and then we can continue. This insanity stops now. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"The Boy Who Cried Wolf", is a term used to describe a situation in which a person is perceived to have given false alarm. The idiom cannot be used without some reference being made to an actual person in the situation. You yourself admit that it refers to someone "being trigger happy on [in]voking trivia". The fact that you omit the "someone" part doesn't change this, regardless of how many times you "explain" it. (Why you imply that I haven't referenced your words here, I don't know, since I've been responding directly to everything you've said.) The fact remains that when you stated someone was a "boy who cried trivia", you were making a reference to the person who deleted the content in question. The fact that you do so in somewhat oblique manner, by omitting the name of the editor or even addressing him in your original message, does not change this. So stop being dishonest. Even if we were to entertain, as a possibility, that you did not intend to characterize someone as such (which I give little credence to), the possibility remains that that editor--or others in general--might understand it as such. If you can provide reasoning or some argument that falsifies this, even as a possibility, then do so. If you want, you can poll other editors to ask them this--something that I've stated repeatedly, but which you've consistently refused to respond to. Otherwise, stop dismissing legitimate criticism. You were caught violating WP:CIV once again, and I'm tired of having to warn you about it, as I'm sure other editors are as well. Stop violating that policy, and stop playing innocent, or go elsewhere for your Web hobbies. Nightscream (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess in some kind of parallel universe, you could actually make sense. It would probably be the same universe, in which "the boy who cried wolf" merits a block threat, but "go elsewhere for your Web hobbies" is legitimate. I suggest you chill out quickly, as this is plain harassment. Next time I'll refer to something as a "minor issue", and you'll accuse me of calling the editor a pedophile. This is the exact reason I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of your witch hunt. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Side note: the best part of this entire charade is that Koavf, the editor whom you so adamantly insist I "insulted" (while openly claiming that I did so intentionally, which is civil how exactly???) is not even an active part of it. Somehow, you have managed to get so greatly offended on their behalf that they didn't even find this remotely important to leave a comment... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the target of incivility may not be aware of a given discussion or choose not to participate in it has no bearing on the adherence to that policy. Nightscream (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The only incivility here is your ongoing bad faith towards me. Everything else has already been stated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Reception

I have not enough experience in english Wikipedia and language skills to edit the article. Please add next information:

After this episode Vladimir Dengin (Russian: Владимир Деньгин) who is a member of LDPR and deputy of State Duma suggested to ban translation of South Park in Russia because of image of Christ supporting Pussy Riot. He also think that this episode humiliate Russian Orthodox Church . Poletniy 07:48, November 12, 2012

Welcome to the English Wikipedia, Poletniy! Just so you know, new discussions should be placed at the bottom of the page, not the top. Also, please make sure you sign your talk page posts, which makes it easier for everyone to know who they're addressing. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Poletniy (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Citing additional cultural references

Can anyone help source these claims (respecting WP:OR)?

• that P.F. Pityef spoofs Sylvester McMonkey McBean from The Sneeches
• that the "applause" in the episode's title alludes to the 2011 clapping protests in Belarus

Would be sweet to have these accurately reflected in the article. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 07:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Satire about slacktivism?

Could this be a discussion, I think that's an underlying theme of the episode.. supporting causes without actually doing anything173.50.89.185 (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Pope

Why does the Pope speak Spanish?--89.14.76.87 (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Does your question have something to do with improvement of the article? Nightscream (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to know why and look for the answer in the article. But there's nothing about that, somehow indicating that no one cares. There should be a trivia section as the Pope usually speaks Italian although he's Argentinian. Moreover, I doubt the protesters were speaking Belarussian. This is damn racist and has never occurred to anyone as if it were the most normal thing?--2.245.134.165 (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not employ trivia sections, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. Nightscream (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Scause for Applause. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CHDEoo7W?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standard.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fpussy-riot-pair-separated-and-sent-to-gulags-8222575.html to http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/pussy-riot-pair-separated-and-sent-to-gulags-8222575.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Scause for Applause. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105042021/http://www.bfm.ru/articles/2012/11/02/juzhnyj-park-mogut-zapretit-v-rossii.html to http://www.bfm.ru/articles/2012/11/02/juzhnyj-park-mogut-zapretit-v-rossii.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)