Talk:South Park: Joining the Panderverse

Labor disputes

How was this episode about the Hollywood Labor Disputes? They weren’t mention or alluded to in any way 2601:801:201:10D0:E0D5:235:2033:4B3D (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There are people literally picketing at a country ciub holding protest signs while Randy Marsh says “Meanwhile there's these billionaires that have all the control. Did you know if just one of these billionaires spread their wealth it would mean thousands to every person (here)". AKA a direct reference to factual quotes that have been made about the wealthy CEO's who could end the strike instantly if they chose to donate a minor portion of their huge salaries. 90.203.120.101 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

How is this specific to the Hollywood Labor Disputes? Do you have any source that mentions the Hollywood Labor Disputes? 2601:801:201:10D0:5DC8:1ADD:E234:EA26 (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Source Reliability: Bounding Into Comics and Midnight's Edge

Youtubers such as Midnight's Edge are not normally reliable sources for an encyclopedia. Bounding Into Comics repeating it does not make it reliable, "Midnight’s Edge reported on rumors" and WP:RUMORs are not supposed to be in an encyclopedia. -- 109.76.135.251 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

removed dubious rumors[1] -- 109.76.139.56 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"Bounding Into Comics repeating it does not make it reliable..."

Actually, I've had prior discussions with other editors on this question years ago (sorry, I neglected to bookmark it), and it was indicated that if a reliable source repeats material, it may be included as reliable.

Moreover, Midnight's Edge did not indicate that what they reported was "rumor". It could simply be that they had anonymous sources.

And there is no prohibition on citing YouTube channels, if it is considered reliable, or if used in conjuction with other reliable sources, as described above. I've restored the material, but I've sent an email to Andre Einherjar asking him if he had an actual anonymous source with credible inside info on Disney, or it was indeed just rumors. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@ImadHinar: Okay, I just noticed this edit summary. Why do you believe that BiC is not reliable? What aspect of WP:SOURCE precludes it? Its About page seems to indicate that it maintains editorial control over its content, which is a combination of reviews of media and news. What's wrong with it? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

First I do not think the reliability of Bounding is the main problem in this specific case. But having read Bounding it is quite often sensationalist in its content. At best it might be considered "marginally reliable" for subject matter specific topics, but I estimate it below the likes of Screenrant and We Got This Covered. -- 109.79.165.120 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bounding Into Comics article uses the word "rumor" to describe the Midnight Edge video: "Following the release of the episode, Midnight’s Edge reported on rumors they heard about what the reactions at Disney were like."

To me, this is a clear case of "relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion." (WP:QS) 2603:6000:D901:28DC:FCE5:594A:9669:21A2 (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think it is reliable? WP:BURDEN
The YouTuber is saying they heard WP:RUMORs and Bounding is also saying that a YouTuber heard rumours (but incongruously inserting the word "reporting" in front of it), without making any effort to corroborate or say they also heard the same rumors from other sources (you know, actual reporting), they are merely repeating what is still rumor and fully attributing only to the aforementioned Youtuber. It is clear from the rules that rumors should not be included in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I am very surprised that Nightscream thought it was appropriate to restore this. I do not believe rumors should be restored unless much stronger sources become available. -- 109.79.165.120 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I remain surprised that User:Nightscream thinks it is appropriate for editors of this _encyclopedia_ to do original research and directly contact Youtubers instead of relying on reliable sources. (diff) I have spoken to Andre Einherjar of Midnight's Edge, who confirmed that he spoke to a specific (albeit anonymous) source with knowledge of the goings-on at Disney, so he was not repeating a "rumor", contracting to the wording used by Bounding. You can confirm this yourself by contacting him at <andre at midnightsedge.me You can confirm this yourself? This looks like a classic original research and overreach to me. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. -- 109.76.202.80 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Contacting a YouTuber is not what original research is. All I did was clarify that the material reported by Midnight's Edge, which was mentioned by Bounding Into Comics, was not based on a "rumor", but on an anonymous source, thus establishing that BiC's reference to the information as "rumor" was incorrect. Clarifying a point by contacting a source is not was "original research" is. Nightscream (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I may not know exactly which rule this is violating (I dunno WP:SELFPUB maybe?) but attributing information to a Youtuber and basically saying "trust me bro" is not at all what I expect from a so called encyclopedia. I will be amazed if this low quality source stands up to scrutiny and stays in the article long term. I find it bizarre that people are accepting such dubious sources while at the same time objecting to a review from Erik Kain, the regular television critic at Forbes.com. (Note: Erik Kain is the single solitary review of this episodes that manages to pass the low bar of being listed at Rotten Tomatoes.) The inconsistency is baffling. -- 109.77.197.48 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The material is not attributed to a YouTuber. It's attributed to Bounding Into Comics, a news and entertainment website that exercises editorial control over its content, and which reported on what the YouTuber in question said, which means it finds that channel to be credible. So no, it does not violate WP:SELFPUB.

I don't have a firm opinion on Erik Kain one way or the other. Another editor, Wikibenboy94, was the one who had removed that review, and after I restored the Bounding Into Comics/Midnight's Edge material, I realized that I had inadverdently restored the Erik Kain review. I undid that restoration just to maintain the previous editor's edit. But if a consensus discussion determines that Kain's review is acceptable, I have no opposition to it.

Addenum: I just noticed now that another editor, SanAnMan, disagreed with Wikibenboy94, and restored that review earlier today. Nightscream (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Bounding Into Comics is certified unreliable at WP:VG/S, regardless of how sincere their statement and credentials might appear, so they shouldn't have been cited in the first place. They're also the sort of sites to report on information, whether hearsay or substantiated, from such YouTubers due to their aligning political leanings. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_29#Bounding_Into_Comics That discussion is more harsh than I expected, not one defense of Bounding as a source. I expected complaints about bias (WP:BIASED a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context), and maybe suggestions that it could be used selectively but that discussion (specifically about game related articles) unequivocally rejected using Bounding as a source. FWIW Boundingintocomics.com is only used in about 75 articles (search query) -- 109.77.193.78 (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me clarify why I re-added the Forbes critical article. First of all, there is nothing in WP:FORBESCON that mentions anything about critical reviews. Secondly, since this is solely a critical review and not being used as a reliable source of any other information it seems to pass the bar of notability. It should also be noted that FORBESCON is noted as "generally unreliable" mostly for third-party claims and not for critical reviews. Also per MOS:TVRECEPTION, "Reviews should preferably come from global media outlets...and major entertainment publications", and I don't think anyone can argue that Forbes is a global media outlet. Plus, in the end, there's always WP:NORULES. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:RSOPINION would seem to suggest that film and tv reviews are allowed so long as they are clearly attributed (but that hasn't stopped editors deleting reviews from reliable film critics because they despise publications like the Daily Mail). More importantly people keep misunderstanding the context that resulted in the rule WP:FORBESCON, because at the time there was a clear split between the main Forbes.com the crapflood of third party contributors they were publishing with very little oversight. Erik Kain is their regular television critic, he is published in the magazine, he's not some rando contributor with little or no oversight that the guideline was intended to exclude.

For the record I want to thank Nightscream who is clearly trying very hard to make this a better encyclopedia article. My objection was a general one about the general use of dubious sources in this encyclopedia. It would be great if there was some other way to support the additions to the article. -- 109.77.193.78 (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Thanks for providing that link. I've removed the material sourced to BiC.

@109.77.193.78: Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Really, much (if not all) of the "Industry reaction" subsection needs excising, both for WP:DUE reasons and because most of the sources used are dubious at best. I recommend referencing WP:RSP and WP:VG/S to familiarise yourself on what is seen as reliable. SFFGazette appears to be just another pop-culture website with a very small following, and would definitely be seen as unreliable. CBR.com is seen as generally unreliable for content post-2016 (the same source is also used in both Reaction subsections). The only source seen as (marginally) reliable is Bleeding Cool. Additionally, the whole paragraph about Carano is currently cited with her own tweet, and the only (again, marginally) reliable source I can find who reported on her statement is Screen Rant. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Please refer to WP:RSOPINION (also discussed above) in regards to your removal of critical review from Cracked. Per guideline: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." - SanAnMan (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

If there were more reliable sources of television reviews from regular tv critics available for this special then Cracked would be low on my list of choices. (In terms of wiki rules I would give more WP:WEIGHT to other sources.) Given the limited sources available, and that the review is clearly an opinion from a comedy website and very clearly attributed, and used cautiously to provide an insight not available from other sources, I would hate to see it excluded from the article. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Jesus, now CBR isn't reliable? They're one of the most commonly cited sources in comics articles. Shit. Does the conclusion at VG/s also apply to comics content? And btw, how was it determined that they're not reliable? Any idea of the reason for this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, it really doesn't matter if CBR is or isn't reliable, in the end WP:RSOPINION wins out. Statements credited to an author's opinion that are clearly identified as opinion and attributed to the author are acceptable. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Lmao, just stop including content farm nonsense in Wikipedia articles. It really isn't that hard. Insisting on including a Cracked.com review from 2023 in a Wikipedia article is an extremely odd hill to die on, really. Cjhard (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Get off your high horse. You don’t get to decide which reviews are worthwhile and which are “content farming”. MOS:TVRECEPTION makes no difference in the critical reviews as long as they are reliably sourced. SanAnMan (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. They are not reliable sources. And exactly what part of MOS:TVRECEPTION do you think supports inclusion of Cracked.com and a Forbes contributor? Cjhard (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the edits based on the above discussion, with at least 2 editors against inclusion and only 1 editor stonewalling the discussion. The consensus has been established and the user arguing for the inclusion of Forbes and Cracked will need to seek agreement from other editors. Cjhard (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

2 editors versus 1 does not in any way make a "consensus" except for you. Plus there's also the support for keeping Forbes and others from Nightscream. I suggest we take this to another forum and get an ACTUAL consensus from other editors. SanAnMan (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I have opened up a dispute resolution [2] to request further input on this issue. - SanAnMan (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)