Talk:Pause (The Boondocks)

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 June 2010. The result of the discussion was Keep.

	Cartoon Network portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Animation: American / Television Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Low-importance).

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Fix the plot

The same thing that's happening with The Fundraiser episode of the Boondocks is happening here. Tman7776 (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfterElton.com

It's not a reliable source, it's a blog. The two are essentially incompatible. Claritas § 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE is used as a source in 250 articles. Blogs can be reliable sources if they otherwise meet the criteria as laid out at WP:RS. AE is not some random guy at his PC in Nebraska going "LOLZ the new Transformers movie is cool LOLZ". It has a reputation for quality reportage and has won prestigious awards including a recent GLAAD Award. Posts from contributing staff are subject to editorial oversight prior to publication. Declaring it not a reliable source based on nothing other than "it's a blog" is an unacceptably kneejerk response. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is really that the opinion of "snickes" on the Television Program is of no real import to the article. Claritas § 13:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only currently published opinion of a gay writer on an episode of interest to the gay community is of no import? Hardly so. But I appreciate your tacit acknowledgment of the reliability of AE as a source. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it couldn't be used as a reliable source to support any claims concerning the episode, but it's only being used as an example of a review. To be honest, I don't think being a "gay writer" gives Snikes a particular authority on the subject. If I published something about it on my blog, I doubt it would be worth writing about on Wikipedia, even if it was the "only currently published opinion of a gay writer on an episode of interest to the gay community". I don't think AE is anything other than an opinion website. Claritas § 13:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your blog was part of an award-winning website which exercises editorial control over its contents then your blog would be just as reliable as a source. AE publishes both news and opinion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kool-aid

Absent a reliable source, speculation on the mention of Kool-aid in the episode is original research and should not be added to the article. There have been two theories advanced as to its meaning, the Jonestown massacre and the supposed heavy consumption of Kool-aid in the African American community. Source it or don't add it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS

Re: [1] Key words "About themselves" - If the episode shows Johnny walking through the door, we can say that "Johnny walked through the door". We CANNOT say that "Johnny walked through the door as John Wayne did in Cowboys by Moonlight". That selecting and comparing TWO items for analysis is WRONG WRONG WRONG WP:OR. The source must fully state the full claim in the article. WP:SYN. Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And particularly when the article content claims "parody" - are you sure it is not mockery? or an homage? or just plain plagurisim? Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From PSTS: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a song performed by a character dressed like Frank-N-Furter a RHPS parody does not require "specialist knowledge". Saying that a scene in which a character is shown auditioning for roles on movie and television in which lines from the movie or TV series in question are quoted is showing the character auditioning for those roles is not "specialist knowledge". Not unless we distort the meaning of "specialist knowledge" to mean "has watched a movie". The only thing on that list which might be considered OR is the Peanuts reference, and while working on the article I actually found a reliable source which made the comparison but haven't been able to locate it again (which is why I tagged it). Drawing a distinction between "parody" and "homage" and "plaigurisim" [sic] is faintly ridiculous. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It requires more than watching the episode of "The Pause" - it requires a comparison by someone who has ALSO watched Rocky Horror - therefore taking knowledge from multiple sources and combining them in a way that is not in any of the original sources - textbook example of WP:SYN. Active Banana ( bananaphone 15:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook example of nonsense. Material from primary sources is allowed if it does not require "specialist knowledge" and watching a movie is not specialist knowledge by any possible reasonable understanding of the term. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion - is comparison to other films WP:SYN and therefore requires third party sources to make claims?

Is comparison to other films such as the content re-added in this edit [2] WP:SYN and therefore requires third party sources to make claims? Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: I think this is an issue of trivia. Having a section of "cultural references" seems to be a cover for what is essentially a trivia section, and probably shouldn't be included. If any of those references have a larger significance and it could be sourced, then we could discuss its inclusion elsewhere, but I don't really see that happening. Now having said that, I think there is a certain amount of original research involved when you take two primary sources (i.e. the episode and another movie) and draw a connection between the two that's not actually there. It may not be synthesis per se as you're not drawing some new third conclusion, but the connection itself is OR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_obvious_II as saying that we can say "Johnny walked through the door as John Wayne did in Cowboys by Moonlight". If it's something that's super apparently obviously like many of the pop reference gags in movies like Shaun of the Dead. Jikybebna (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]