Talk:Ginger Cow

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.

Sage94's edits

Sage94, you need to stop insisting on your poorly-written edits, because they're not improving the article. Your grammar and spelling is poor, as is your attention to proofreading, you focus too much on trivia, you added redundant repeats of information already in the synopsis, your choice of wording is not more accurate, and in at least one case, you described something that it not indicated in the episode. Do you want a want a breakdown of why each portion of your edit represents a poor writing choice? Let's start with the argument in your edit summary:

"People" did complain about him. I remember Craig being the FIRST to complain about Kyle."

A plot synopsis is a summarization of the salient information in a written work, and not a detailed blow-by-blow of every bit of minutiae. The central point of the plot that is being described is that Kyle becomes self-righteous, and Stan, being his best friend and one of the main characters, confronts him about it. Specifying which people have come to observe this behavior in Kyle is unimportant, especially given the way I composed the passage on Stan's confrontation. See my third line of response to the following quoted passage:

"...and preach about his endurance for mankind. However, this only leads to people losing even more respect for Kyle, believing he has become self-righteous."

First of all, Kyle does not "preach", because his statement about his reasons for doing what he's doing are stated to Stan only, and not in public, which is what it means to preach.

Second, the phrase "even more respect" for Kyle implies that people had already lost some to begin with. Aside from the aforementioned comment by Craig, there is no indication of this in the episode, so all this does is place undue emphasis on something that isn't necessary.

Third, and most important, your addition, is redundant, because the paragraph already mentions Stan's perception that Kyle has become self-righteous, right after the portion that you added:

Stan becomes critical of Kyle, telling him that while publicly claiming to like Cartman's farts is his prerogative, the self-righteous manner that he has adopted when doing so is not, and just makes him a "dick". Kyle is unmoved, and Stan, noting that Kyle's odd behavior began with the peace in the Middle East, seeks to investigate.

How could you not have seen that? How can you not see that all you're doing is repeating the information?

"...in which Stan attempts to expose the truth about Cartman's red cow."

Stan intends to expose the truth, but ends up not attempting to do so, because Kyle convinces him not to. For this reason, "will expose truth" or better yet, "intends to expose the truth" is more accurate.

"...however, this changes the entire crowd's view of the situation and leads to even more was in the Middle East."

Another redundancy, another bit of bad writing, and another falsehood. It's false, because there is no indication in the episode that there are now "more" wars then there were before. This is a sheer fabrication on your part.

It's bad writing, because you also spelled wars as "was". Twice. Don't proofread your edits much?

It's redundant, because you once again added information that is already given. Again, if you bothered to read the synopsis, you'd see this passage:

Since the prophecy stated that a fat child with a small penis would disguise a cow to look ginger, and not that one would just miraculously fall from the sky, the short-lived peace among the three religions falls apart.

As you can see, this already conveys the information in question. Why present it twice?

"Cartman refuses to corroborate this, saying that he now understands the damage done by small lies (as he believes it he has a "huge" penis)."

As "he believes it he"? Again, did you actually look at that before saving it? Why would you add the word "it"? How is Cartman an "it"? Did you actually look at the grammar in that passage, and say to yourself, "Yep. That looks good!"? Twice?

Second, how do you know that Cartman actually believes that he has a small big penis, and not that that's just a lie on his part, especially given the events of the episode "T.M.I."?

Lastly, if Cartman really "believes" that he has a huge penis, then it's not really a lie, then is it? So how does that parenthetical logically flow from what precedes it?

"Kyle, realizing that the prophecy really has occurred..."

This is arguably the one portion of your edit that may actually clarify the passage, so I'm leaving it in. However, the word occurred has two "r's" in it. Again, can you not use SpellCheck? Or at least notice the red line that appears under misspelled words in the edit field?

"The episode ends with Cartman farting in his hand, spraying whip cream on it, and smearing it across Kyle's face."

This is arguably trivia, but it's not a big deal, so I'll keep it. I even tweaked it a bit to incorporate it better into the relevant aspects of the plot.

If you want to contribute to an encyclopedia, then you're going to have to improve your reading and writing skills. If you do not accept this, let me know, and I'll call together other editors to have a consensus discussion, in which the community can decide if your edits should remain. But please do not revert the passage again. If you do, you'll be blocked for both disruptive editing and edit warring. Nightscream (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this incredibly detailed post explaining yourself, now, allow me to point out where your wrong.

Okay, I understand your argument that it shouldn't state that more than one person found Kyle self-righteous, but it's a minor detail added to the page. It really shouldn't be considered a big deal. Also, he DID state his goals in public. He stated them in front of the entire school. I'm sorry if you have a different definition of "preach", so if you want, I'll leave that tiny detail out.

"Stan intends to expose the truth, but ends up not attempting to do so, because Kyle convinces him not to. For this reason, "will expose truth" or better yet, "intends to expose the truth" is more accurate."

Okay then. No big deal.

"Another redundancy, another bit of bad writing, and another falsehood. It's false, because there is no indication in the episode that there are now "more" wars then there were before. This is a sheer fabrication on your part."

Yes, I'll admit that was terrible writing. I don't know what I was thinking to be honest.

"As "he believes it he"? Again, did you actually look at that before saving it? Why would you add the word "it"? How is Cartman an "it"? Did you actually look at the grammar in that passage, and say to yourself, "Yep. That looks good!"? Twice?"

Wow, you know, you could have fixed the error if it was so terrible through your view. I edited it on VisualEditor, which is why it all came out so bad. The Visual Editor makes my computer run slower, so sorry AGAIN.

"Second, how do you know that Cartman actually believes that he has a small penis, and not that that's just a lie on his part, especially given the events of the episode "T.M.I."? Lastly, if Cartman really "believes" that he has a huge penis, then it's not really a lie, then is it? So how does that parenthetical logically flow from what precedes it?"

Okay, 1.) I never stated Cartman believed he had a small penis. I typed that he believed he had a huge penis. 2.) I clearly put that Cartman would not continue with what he believed to be a lie, as he believes he had a small penis. Are you reading correctly?

"If you want to contribute to an encyclopedia, then you're going to have to improve your reading and writing skills. If you do not accept this, let me know, and I'll call together other editors to have a consensus discussion, in which the community can decide if your edits should remain. But please do not revert the passage again. If you do, you'll be blocked for both disruptive editing and edit warring."

Wow, I hope this whole argument made you feel better. Thanks for insulting my reading and writing skills and continuing to threaten me with your admins. Dude, I'm sorry my computer lagged while I wrote the article, but I'll have you know that I am an admin on four well functioning wikias. I know the rules and regulations. I wont do anything if that makes you happy. I truly hope you don't treat every casual editor like this.--Sage94 (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I did fix your errors, by removing them. You responded by restoring them again.

"I edited it on VisualEditor, which is why it all came out so bad. The Visual Editor makes my computer run slower..." Ah, there it is. The vaunted Excuse. Visual Editor doesn't make you edit a page, and then cause you to refuse to look at it after saving it to make sure it came out okay. It was your choice not to do so. Twice.

As for your statement " I clearly put that Cartman would not continue with what he believed to be a lie, as he believes he had a small penis.", that is not what you wrote.

As for your complaint, in your message on my talk page, about my "condescending tone", I didn't exhibit any condescension, much less any "insult". I exhibited a critical tone. It is only because you're arrogant in the face of legitimate criticism that you feign a sense of victimhood by regarding any criticism condescension or insult, as your kind typically does. Learn the difference.

The fact remains that you are a lousy writer, and have no business contributing to an ENCYCLOPEDIA with such poor abilities, and such a poorer attitude, and I will most certainly say so to every editor who comes onto this project with either of those things. The fact that you're blind to this, and to the lousy writing that occurs as a result of this, either on this wiki or on others, does not change this, and the fact that someone actually thought you'd be a decent admin on other wikis is merely testament to the overall spotty quality of other wikis that I've seen, and the likelihood that those who granted you this status probably share your low level of literacy. But what happens on other wikis is ultimately of no concern of them. Learn to compose a coherent sentence, and how to write proper synopses, or stay off this wiki. Nightscream (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Lousy writer? Dude, I've been contributing to wikipedia since I was 13, don't get it twisted. If you want me to tell you you made valid points, then you made valid points. I mean, I have no problem when it comes to learning where i screw up. I think it's best you don't act like you know everything about me based on one small incident. That's a very childish thing to do. Also, visual editor makes my computer run slower. I know you want to put off everything I'm saying as a crying scapegoat, but it's true.

Also, what do you mean by "poor attitude"? I admitted you were right. You're showing me a poor attitude by coming here with your condescending tone trying to pass assumptions on my life based on a wikipedia article. Learn to stop acting like a child, okay? I really don't care if you want this article one way and I want it the other, but I'm going to keep contributing what i believe to be useful information. Anyways, I truly do hope you are not this arrogant and argumentative in real life.--Sage94 (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Homeland reference

I can't believe no one mentioned Homeland alusion at all. The Ginger in title even spells it out that the episode is a parody of ginger Brody (who ends up being hanged in Tehran)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.144.21 (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any reliable, secondary sources for this? Nightscream (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not an obvious parody like with Game of Thrones (which is indeed a treasure trove of medieval fantasy nonsense to poke fun at), but there are enough elements (other than emphasis on 'ginger'), like that ping-pong of action that flips the outcome back and forth on another continent in matter of seconds over cell-phone that links this episode fairly closely to Showtime's Homeland. I think these allusions shouldn't be totally ignored. Plus beside his last (intercontinental) action, there were at least 3-4 situations in Homeland where Brody was on cell-phone while in action dealing with life-and-death situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.144.21 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)