Talk:South Park/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

What the Hell Happened?

A bunch of articles from the South Park page have been deleted! I think we need to have this article locked because of vandalism. -W.A.C. (7/25/06)

Tweek

On wikipedia, they say Tweek is a major character and a minor character. Does he belong in both and if so, shouldn't he be put into the main characters list that's put on the bottom of the page? -W.A.C. (7/20/06)

I dunno how one determines who is a "major" or "minor" character. But I'd say Tweek definitely isn't a major character. Iirc, he was only big in a few episodes four or five seasons ago. Butters isn't really "major" imo, either. 70.66.9.162 01:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Butters currently has a more major role then Kenny currently has so Butters is a major character. -W.A.C. (7/25/06)

That statement is subjective, and the logic is moronic. Kenny was a major character, one of the main four, for a long time. If he happens to be not as important in the current storylines, it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who is featured slightly more than him automatically becomes designated a "major" character. Let's say you have 6 glasses. 4 of them are completely full of water, 2 of them are half full, and 2 of them are a quarter full. If you take one of the full glasses and dump out water so that it's only a quarter full, the two half full glasses are now more full than it was. It doesn't mean that they're completely full, it just means that they're more full than one of the glasses that used to be full. Butters and Tweak are both still half-full glasses, no matter how much water Matt and Trey want to remove from Kenny's glass. - Ugliness Man 10:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

References

Some jerk took out the references so I readded them. -W.A.C. (7/15/06)

Cartman

The article says: He is the epitome of evil. Everything he does is self serving. Every episode in which he appears to be doing something good ends with his true motives being revealed. This is particularly evident in the two part episode Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?.

But that's not really true, there have been a few episodes were Cartman has done some things that weren't self serving, such as the Jackavsaurus (sp?), and Chef's last episode.

Now it calls him a Cockroach? This page has an anti-Cartman bias. RG1985 05:33, 26 July 2006

Yes, and it also calls him stupid, which is not the case. Look at his elaborate scheme in Scott Tenormen Must Die. I also want the word "cockroach" removed. Two many words describing him at the beginning.

What the hell happened to all the pictures on this page?

Every time I go to this page, there are less and less pictures. There used to be over ten, but now all I see is three (including the main picture on the infobox). What's the deal? Is it copyright issues or what? Zone46 02:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Muhammad controversial?

"In 2006, Comedy Central would not allow South Park to show an image of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, likely due to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and fear of similar repercussions."

-No it's because Mohammad is not to be represented visually, and to do so causes great offence to Muslims. Repercussions would indeed be likely, but even if the Dutch cartoon controversy had not happened, a South Park portrayal of Muhammad would have severe consequences anyway. Magic Pickle 00:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

But they still showed Mohammed in the episode Super Best Friends. So I don't see what the big deal is for this. So they can show him in 1 episode, but not another? NetStormer 00:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the episode, but is he easy to spot, is he actually identified as Mohammed? Maybe the Muslim community didn't know he was in it. I'm guessing most devout Muslims don't watch South Park, so it's probably a case of Muslims not knowing he's in it. The Dutch newspaper was obviously seen by a lot of muslims. It's pretty shaky ground either way, and obviously the Dutch controversy opened Comedy central's eyes to the risks they were taking. Magic Pickle 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He has speaking lines and super powers and identifies himself as Mohammad with the power of flame. He breathesor shoots fire out of his hands at one point in the episode. Bjsiders 16:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it's still stupid that they did that... I'm just hoping that they didn't censor it in the DVD version when it's released, which will probably be the case. NetStormer 07:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

But why didnt muslims close embassies and riot when Muhammed was shown being 'super' friends with Jesus, Moses, Joseph Smith, 'Semen', Buddha and so forth? And if Muslims don't watch South Park, why edit the scene, if Muslims don't watch it?

Guess we should ask the Muslims. But maybe Comedy Central weren't willing to risk the possibility of more Muslims seeing the re-run in case they did go rioting.

Muslims riot to the danish cartoon because, if you haven't seen it, it is offensive on the actions he is depicted, in Super Best Friends they didn't make fun of the profets, neither insult them. Muslims did the same that catholic church did with "The last temptation of Christ".

There are so many holes in your babbling, I don't know where to start... the Catholics protested and generally made themselves look foolish, just like they've done more recently regarding The DaVinci Code. The Muslims protesting the Danish cartoons rioted. There's a difference between holding up picket signs while spewing biblical nonsense and perpetuating mandated violence. The Catholics didn't want people to go see the movie, the Muslims wanted people to die. Also, the fact that the Danish cartoons supposedly mocked or defamed Mohammad and the SBF episode didn't is irrelevant. In the midst of the Danish cartoon controversy it was made apparant that any depiction of the prophet is objectionable. Sure they didn't bother doing anything about the SBF episode when it aired, but after the Danish kerfuffle Comedy Central refused to allow Mohammed to be depicted on screen at all. In the original uncensored version of Cartoon Wars Part II, all that Mohammed does is pass a helmet to Peter. The scene is intentionally dull and completely non-offensive. The fact that Comedy Central chose to censor it proves the point that now they're afraid to air any depiction of the prophet, no matter how he's protrayed. - Ugliness Man 11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep things civil here, eh? In the future please don't make sweeping, hyperbolic statements such as "the Muslims wanted people to die". Yes, there was a pretty violent response in some regions to the Danish cartoons, but by using those words you seem to imply that all members of the Muslim faith are murderers. I'm sure that's not what you meant but things can get easily misconstrued sometimes. And more to the point, not ALL muslims rioted, or even protested. I know that many Muslims had no problem with the cartoons, just as many catholics have no problem with the Da Vinci Code. My dad's a catholic, and a fan of both the Da Vinci Code AND South Park. They don't all "spew biblical nonsense", you know. Nuge talk 14:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is being missed - even a positive depiction of Muhammed is not allowed. Sure, if he is portrayed negatively it will cause even more offence - but it causes some offence to portray him at all. This is to prevent idolatry.

First of all, (Uglinessman) its because of people like you that the whole controversy started in even the first place. Writing letters, essays and recommendations were obviously not going to stop those cartoons from being printed, since the cartoonists were trying to piss people off. I don't necessarily agree with the riots, but how were the muslims supposed to stop the blasphemy of their faith. I guess stopping Danish imports was the only way for them to take any real action against this. Its interesting how a swastika appearing anywhere in Europe is considered racist but when the cartoon controversy took place it was justified as being freedom of speech. This is really no different from the different portrayals of Jesus Christ on the show (sometimes even with a gun no less), its wrong because its just hurtful to those who believe in these figures.

The point is that ultimately you're NOT supposed to be able to stop them being printed. You can get upset, you can boycott and complain, but ultimately it is up to the company who makes the newspaper or TV show whether they want to lampoon a religious icon or not. Same with swastikas - people can get offended and complain all they like, but if a newspaper wants to print one then nobody should be able to stop them. BobThePirate 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Like BobThePirate said, your recourse against something which offends you is to express your offense, and don't watch or support the show. Expecthing them to bow down to religious dogma is ridiculous. If you say that they're not allowed to use certain religion's prophets, it's no great stretch to make a looooooooong list of other things they're not allowed to portray. Really, the way that Kyle explained it in the actual show is pretty dead-on. If you pick and choose what's fair game and what isn't, it's completely arbitrary, and means throwing artistic integrity out the window to satisfy special interest groups. I hardly see how it's because of "people like me" that the controversy started. The people supporting freedom of expression aren't the problem, it's the people who want to limit and regulate and eventually elimintate these freedoms who are at the forefront of the whole kerfuffle. The next time you want to pin the blame on me, please explain what I did to cause anything. I don't recall killing any artsts, I haven't bombed any buildings lately, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't holding up picket signs calling for the muder of anyone who believes in a different invisible man in the sky than I do. But, please, by all means, enlighten me on what I've done lately to spark such controversy. - Ugliness Man 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Same with swastikas - people can get offended and complain all they like, but if a newspaper wants to print one then nobody should be able to stop them. " BobThePirate That entirely depends on the individual country. In the UK and also Germany it would be illegal if a newspaper printed a swastika and a pro-nazi article. As for the issue of whether or not Muslims are right to riot over cartoons or whatever, it's a moot point: the fact is that they do. Consequently, what Stone and Parker fail to realise is that when they create something which could arouse the anger of Muslims, they are asking all those involved in the production and broadcast of the cartoon to face that severe anger along with them. They are willing to risk the consequences: fine. But is it fair they should expect others at Comedy Central to, when the consequences might very well go beyond protest and picket, to something worse.Magic Pickle 01:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is, the Islamic faith seriously need to adapt to the modern world. They need to change their position on the depiction of Mohammad because in today's world many countries have freedom of speech, press, and expression. Sure, it might have made sense 1500 years ago, but it just doesn't work today. Having your extremists riot over the depiction of your prophet is ridiculous. It would be like the England still allowing people to be stoned to death as punishment for their crimes because hey, it use to happen in our faith. All major religions used to be batshit crazy. Christianity with the crusades and genocide (the Americas), Islam with Jihads, etcetera etcetera. Then people and religions policies changed, and Islam needs to catch up As people have already stated, Mohammad was already depicted in the Super Best Friends episode and nothing happens. Also he appears in the crowd at the beginning sequence of each show. Allowing your own fear to change a show to meet the demands of others is called terrorism.Anonymous

Nothing happened after the South Park portrayal of Mohammed, it did not cause riots etc - but - it easily could have. Is it fair to expect the staff of Comedy Central to possibly risk their lives for the sake of a stupid cartoon? I don't think so. If Parker and Stone want to upset Islamists: fine, but maybe they should do it on their own website or a private DVD release. In the real world, many of the staff at CC won't want to risk the danger - and fair enough - I know I wouldn't risk my life to protect an episode of South Park of all things. Magic Pickle 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The staff of Comedy Central would never be at risk - even if they showed Muhammad pooping over the Koran. The riots that might occur because of it would happen in distinctly Muslim countries. The bottom line is that any depiction of Muhammad is offensive to Muslims. Look, :) <- if I said that that smily guy is Muhammad, it would be offensive to Muslims. If I said that "this talk page, and all the words in it, is a physical depiction of Muhammad" it would offend Muslims. The point those two South Park episodes were trying to make is that it's not anyone's problem except their's, and everyone should be able to say whatever they want - and that it is sometimes necessary to fight for that right instead of giving in to terrorism. --Desire Campbell 24.222.232.225 13:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Never be at risk, eh? Ever heard of Salman Rushdie? I'm not debating whether it is right or wrong for Muslims to riot/threaten whatever - I'm saying that since certain sections of that faith do (and have done in the West as well) - it comes down to whether you want to take the risk of angering them (and that anger can go beyond mere protest). Stone and Parker do - fine. But it is perfectly understandable if the people at the network get nervous. You can call it giving in to terrorism etc - but at the end of the day it's only South Park and I certainly would understand any network's decision to refuse to take the risk and refuse to air the episode. They are in the business of making entertaining television not 'fighting terrorism'. Magic Pickle 00:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the prophet Mohammed, is forbidden in Islam to be drawn or depicted visually. This might be connected to the "no graven images" commandment in the Old Testament, since the OT is a holy book to Muslims as well. Any depiction is against the rules, although as (is it Kyle?) points out, the rules are for Muslims. I'm not sure of the Quran's stance on getting all upset about other people depicting him. Presumably it's at the risk of the depictor's own soul.

Islam isn't really any more violent or silly than any other of the Abrahamic religions, it just suffers a lot more extremism than they do. Though then again, if the Christian fundamentalists in the USA got the same media coverage, perhaps we'd see them on TV every other day, ranting and rabbling in crowds. Fr*d Ph*lps pickets -funerals-, for god's sake.

• We need someone with Quran knowledge to tell us - but I'm guessing that other people depicting the prophet would be considered acceptable grounds for action under the Quran. Could be wrong entirely. 'Kyle' is possibly looking at Islam from his Western viewpoint (probably a libertarian viewpoint) and the two don't always fit. Magic Pickle 10:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why I failed this article

• I didn't award this article "Good article" status because of the way it is written. The narritive is often rambling and unfocused; it is often very repetitive, and the Trivia and Running Gags section are punishingly long. Someone who knows the show very well could likely clean it up in a few days and have it ready to become a good article. TheImpossibleMan 10:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Just gave it a full read, needs to be cut back by a good 20-25%. Running Gags- as written- could probably get snipped altogether. Saint Mahone 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Doubly Agreed. The character section and celebrity appearances could use their own articles as wellJruffatto 17:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that I might be up for the challenge of re-writing the article. If I can find some time, I'll give it a shot... I've read quite a bit of the article, and it's all over the place. It needs some BIG reorganization, and a lot of content isn't necessary. honestly, do we really need to know that after the woman voicing Wendy offed herself (no offense) her husband started up a foundation in her name? Many things are also repeated quite a few times. I'll see what I can do over the next week or so, but I'm giving no guarantees. NetStormer 20:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* I'm sorry to everyone, but I've just not enough time to be doing an overhaul at the moment. I'm very busy with work and my home life and things are a bit unorganized... sorry once again, and I'll attempt at some small edits here and there. NetStormer 07:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

All right then. Perhaps I can pick up the baton...given that I don't get extremely busy either. I've been watching over this article for a long time, since I don't recall seeing an animated series on either the "Good Article" or "Featured Article" lists and I see this as the best bet (though perhaps The Simpsons is a very good pick too). For the recurring gags section, should that be put up as a separate article, or has much of my work already been done? Ron Stoppable 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the picture of Kenny getting electrocuted?

It disappeared recently and I was just curious as to were it went. Zone46 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hidden Code in Goobacks

Think I found a hidden code in the 'Goobacks' episode. See the 'Goobacks' talk page for details. Well I looked at the goobacks talk page and all i saw was something about terminator:3--Yowiki 06:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

South Park Discussion Vandalized

I noticed that the last person to edit the page [*cough*SCIENTOLOGIST*cough*] deleted the entire thing. I threw it back up for you all.

Do you have evidence it was a scientologist? --Quirex 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncategorized comments

The political section tagged get me rewrite blows primarily because it reifies existing political categories while the show itself is primarily anti-Fascist.

The show itself is Adorno's "nightmare of childhood".

It is filled with adult characters out of Adorno's NOC in Minima Moralia.

---

"For example, in the episode where Cartman joins the association NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love association) is actually a real group of people."

There's a few things wrong with that sentence. I've changed it to:

"For example, in episode #406, "Cartman Joins NAMBLA", NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) is an actual organization."

I also felt that the opening wording, "South park is a comedy animated series" was really awkward and changed it to "an animated comedy series" and removed the (unnecessary IMO) wiki links.

---

I changed the reason for Stan not vomiting anymore when Wendy speaks to him. The original words suggested that this ended with the Raisins episode (7.14) because the voice actor providing her voice had died. This is incorrect, and is confusing the suicide of Mary Kay Bergman in 1999 with the departure of Eliza Schneider in 2003 (both of whom voiced Wendy). So far as I can tell, Ms. Schneider is still very much alive and working on other projects. Martin Blank 23:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

With regards to the "he's like Keanu Reeves" mention in the "Best Friends Forever" episode, surely this is a reference to his character in the "Matrix" series of movies, rather than constantine? Nervie 21:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It's more likely a composite of several of his movies, just like "Asspen" was a parody of many 80's skiing movies and not just one. So it could be both.

---

It should be noted in the Music section that Trey Parker (and maybe Matt Stone; I'm not sure) was previously a music major at his university in Colorado before dropping out to film Cannibal! the Musical.

---

I changed "Token Williams" to "Token Black" as he has been called more than once in the show. Most recently in the episode involving the Chinese mafia. - Kugamazog

But isn't "Token Black" used to describe the fact that he is infact the "token black" in town, much like Chef? Sean WI 04:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it is also his last name. That's why it's funny. Sometimes they get the names mixed up apparently, like Butters' father is sometimes Chris and sometimes Steven. But I think "Black" is his real last name.

---

There are a few things here which I think needs to be proved with facts. Did Comedy Central really decide to stop showing South Park during summer? Also, did they actually digitally take Blame Canada out of the movie and replace it with O Canada? I'm not ignorant about the show, and I think I would have heard about this stuff had it actually been done. Kaishin 14:27 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Dunno about the former, but the latter is definitely false: I own the Canadian DVD and Blame Canada's intact. (I've fixed the page.) JoeNotCharles

I removed

Blame Canada was chosen for an Academy Award nomination because it was one of the few songs that had a title without profane language

Who claims this? And does this make sense as an explanation? Does the Academy have an explicit profanity-avoidance policy? --Ryguasu 22:00 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)

It does make sense. Best Song nominees are performed live on the television broadcast of the Academy Awards ceremony. The Academy would therefore be loathe to nominate songs whose very titles cannot be spoken without censorship problems: they will gladly bowdlerize lyrics in order to perform them, but they can hardly do that when they are reading the nominees names ("For Best Song, the nominees are Uncle Bleeper...???) -- Someone else

It makes sense, but is it a known fact? I mean, I don't think the person who made that claim knew for a fact that that was the reason they chose the song, and is therefore a conjecture, or an opinion at the worst, and doesn't have a place in an objective enyclopedia of facts.

Better phrasing would be, "Blame Canada was nominated for an Oscar for best song, perhaps because it was one of the few songs in the movie without profanity and therefore suitable for broadcast.

Tommertron 03:55 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Holy God, check out the What Links Here page. Gnome appears eight times. What's that all about? -Branddobbe 04:50, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

---

Moses is described here as a 'fiery dreidel,' yet his appearance is actually that of the Master Control Program from the movie TRON.

---

I question deleting the line about South Park not being cancelled. If someone is reading the article, they might NOT know that it was still on the air. --rp

The awkward sense of double negative in the sentence was what justified its demise. The positive sentiment of the sentence being, "South Park is still going (or going strong) as of 2004," the sentence would have to be phrased in that sort of straightforward fashion to survive successive WP editing. --Gary D 19:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am editing this comment in the "Trivia" section:

Prior to South Park's genesis, Stone and Parker collaborated on the movie Cannibal! The Musical, a Western satire similar to South Park. In addition, they have released two other feature-length films: Baseketball and Orgazmo.

They did not "release" any feature films. They merely starred in BASEketball, written & directed by others. --Feitclub 19:03, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

They released Orgazmo:

Directed by, Written by, Starring, Produced by, Music composed by, and Edited by Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

I'd say that qualifies. Oh, and same deal with "Team America".

---

The whole politics of South Park is a somewhat rediculous notion. I would contend that as many liberals watch and enjoy the show as do conservatives. There is no evidence supporting this and the term South Park Republican is not widely accepted (evidence: [1]). The author argues that the term is not inherant to the show South Park. Libertarian bias does exist in the show, but not republican bias. The idea of South Park Republicans is mentioned almost exclusively by Republicans. If this is not modified I support a notice of bias on this article. Flying Hamster 00:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree - although I am quite liberal and love southpark, I do notice that they are more conservative than liberal. There is no point in getting into a left vs right vs liberterian argument here, but assumming that liberterian is independant of left/right (becuase SP is clearly liberterian). My reasons lie in the fact that they mock liberal values much, much, more than conservative values. They show liberals to be idiots who are wrong. They show conservatives to be rednecks, but not wrong. I am not saying that they back Bush (I don't know anything about this) but judging from the show alone, I refuse to believe that they are anything left of center. 69.136.234.155

I'm going to go ahead and delete both liberal and conservative as "spokespersons" seems to say enough without showing bias toward one side or the other.

I would agree that the show is libertarian. Libertarians may not like the disctinction between left and right - but libertarianism clearly is more allied to the right because it abhors nearly all state or collective interference in the affairs of the individual. Generally the left believes in the power of the state to help achieve goals and assist wider society. The show is certainly more conservative in terms of 'freedom at any cost' thinking. Magic Pickle 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Regarding the whole 'liberal' vs. 'conservative' debate, I just don't see it and I'd suggest that this section be toned down significantly because it's just a lot of speculation. I'd agree that in its current state, the article is biased (although perhaps unintentionally so). Even the show's own creators are on the record saying the show doesn't lean one way or the other. I think that people on one side or the other of this topic usually tend to see their own side as taking the brunt of the satire because they are more sensitive to their own views roasting on the BBQ. As a case in point, when JibJab's "This Land is Your Land" parody came out liberal people I knew said it was too hard on Kerry and conservatives equally said it was too hard on Bush. It seems that each side interprets criticism of it's own views as more severe than criticism of the other side (because it's only "correct" to criticise the other side as wrong, I guess). I'd suggest we all just accept that trying to interpret a political bent in the humor of the show in the absence of clear, irrefutable evidence of a trend (or a statement from the creators) is inherently error prone due to observer bias.

If anything, I'd say the creators are contrarian since they tend to highlight things that may be a relatively accepted view (such as Alcoholics Anon being a good thing) and show an alternate perspective. Just about any large, well-known movement is lampooned in some way (except for those that are disliked by most people, which are then shown in an unexpected good light (ie tobacco company)). Confounding expectation and playing against type are just mechanisms of humor. I would agree that the creators seem to be generally anti-big group, pro individualism, pro self-expression and anti-self-importance but I don't think that those views can be said to map onto the conservative/liberal spectrum.

My vote is that this section be rewritten in a much minimized form that mentions that some people on each side believe that the show creators generally support their viewpoints and that some on each side say the show creators are opposed to their viewpoint. The creators themselves say there is no fixed viewpoint. The section could conclude with the general thought that "there isn't enough evidence to conclude one way or the other. Southpark satires many views leaving sensibilities across the spectrum offended at various times and the creators seem to be proud of that."

I think the creators of the show would think little of all of you trying to determine their politics. Just watch the show and enjoy it for what it is.

---

I'm deleting the statement about the show only being aired once a day; there are at least a couple of nights a week when two episodes air, and first-run episodes fall into the block of programming that Comedy Central reruns two hours later on the same night. Not to mention the conflict the frequent showings of the movie would have with this "rule."

I have high doubts about the "no South Park in summer" statement, although it would be interesting if it were true. -Hedgey42 17:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

If PBS shows it, it'll definitely be TV-Y7 FV. -- Anonymous

---

I'm deleting the statement that says that Chef is used less frequently because Isaac Hayes was offended by the Scientology episode. The reason for this is that the Scientology episode was the 12th episode of the most recent season. Chef has not been in an episode since much before that.

---

This article is missing mentions of Mr. Hanky (recurring character) and David Hasselhoff. -- G3, 03:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hankey is mentioned in the first paragraph of "Minor characters and celebrities", so the debate would be whether he's a recurring character or a minor character. I would support changing him to a recurring character, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to make the move myself (on average he appears less than once per season, so it's a fine line). And David Hasselhoff doesn't actually "appear" in the show, impersonated or otherwise. His likeness replaces Mr. Garrison's usual face when he gets cosmetic surgery, but Hasselhoff himself doesn't visit town or anything like that. Keep in mind that the mention of characters is a part of this main article, there's also separate articles Recurring South Park characters and List of celebrities on South Park. Hasselhoff is mentioned in the second one.

(by the way, this section is a mess, I hope a WikiFairy finds it and cleans it up...) - Ugliness Man 08:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus vs. Frosty

The link at Jesus vs. Frosty leads to a page that describes it identically to "The Spirit of Christmas", and doesn't match the description on the page. I don't know which is right, so I'll leave the edit to someone else, and also drop a note on the other page.

Are the creators Republicans? If its not well confirmed maybe it shudn't be part of the encyclopedia. I have little idea as I live far far away in India. But my objective is to bring to notice that part of the article to others who can more objectively analyse and judge.

The confusion is most likely do to the fact that there were two shorts titled "The Spirit of Christmas" with Jesus going up against Frosty in the first one and against Santa in the better-known christmas card one.Apofisu 20:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Braniff

What exactly is the deal with the Braniff logo at the end??? Lee M 01:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very good question! :) Cburnett 01:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

[2] says it's the name of their production company and the jingle is from Cannibal the Musical Cburnett 01:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

[3] says (under April 23, 2001) that they needed a logo for the end of the show, so they used Braniff since they were out of business and no one probably needed it. Cburnett 01:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. Possibly worth mentioning it in both the South Park and Braniff articles. Lee M 01:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

South Park Studios answered this in their FAQs page on Nov. 9th:

Q. - Why is there a Braniff Airlines ad at the end of every episode?
A. - Matt and Trey choose Braniff as the name for their production company when they began South Park. They have the right to use the logo on South Park but do not have any other rights to it. It continues to make them laugh.

James MSC 01:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I edited the entry about the Braniff logo. It said the song was "The sky is blue and the trees are green. The sun is hot like a baked potato". While those are the first two lines of that song, the actual name of it is "Shpadoinkle". Nehle 07:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

uncle jimbo

We should add characters uncle jimbo and his friend who speaks with the artificial voicebox... i'll do it later if i have time 64.59.209.89 14:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Towlie's profile seriously needs cleaned up whetstone

Picture of South Park Characters

This is a question for anyone who knows the answer. For a pictureof the four main characters, the description says that is how they appear in eight of nine seasons. What season did they appear different? What did they look like? Chaz 16:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is because Kenny wasn't a main character during 6th season: "Leopold "Butters" Stotch (replaced Kenny as a main character during the first part of the 6th season, though Kenny was brought back for the 7th season; has been prominent ever since)" and "Tweek (replaced Kenny during the second part of the 6th season, though Kenny was brought back for the 7th season)" (cited from South_Park#Major_characters). -Fred Bradstadt 16:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Accually, it is because in the first season they all looked slightly different (nothing major, but still significant). Also, does anybody have a better pic for Tweak or Timmy? The ones in the Main character section are not that great. JQF 17:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo and the PSP

Just a query: What on earth does the PSP have to do with Terri Schiavo?

In real life, nothing. But in the epsiode "Best Friends Forever," which parodies the Schiavo controversy, a lot.

Kenny dies after he gets run over while playing a PSP. In his will, Kenny left his PSP to Cartman. After Kenny got a feeding tube, Cartman led the fight to have it removed, claiming Kenny wouldn't have wanted to be on life support. Of course, the truth is, Cartman just wanted Kenny dead so that Cartman could keep the PSP. Meanwhile, Kenny uses a PSP in heaven to control God's armies in their battle against Satan.

Hey, you asked. Kirchherr 18:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Who are the Harrisons?

I don't recall anyone in South Park with the surname of "Harrison". Brittany 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

They're in the All About the Mormons? episode. KeithD (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Chef Aid

Currently the Chef Aid article is a redirect to the Chewbacca Defence. Would it be possible to create a stub for Chef Aid keeping the links to the preceding and successive episode. Thanks for your help. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Done! Now I leave it to someone else to fill in the stub and merge/separate Chef Aid and Chewbacca Defense as appropriate. Taiichi 2 02:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Killdozer

Why has South Park not done a parody of the Killdozer? It is perfect material as 1) nobody was killed or injured (except Marvin), 2) it happened in a small Colorado town, 3) the real mayor sounds as corrupt as the mayor from South Park, and 4) the method is so outrageous it lends itself to satire.--RPlunk 16:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why they haven't, RPlunk, but this isn't really the right place to ask. This talk page is supposed to be for discussion about the article, not about your thoughts on the show. Therefore, discussing something that has not happened, and speculating about things that have not occurred, probably isn't going to get anyone to respond to you. Except for me, and i'm telling you that you should ask these sorts of questions elswhere. cheers — Fudoreaper 09:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Animal sexuality

Is this really a recurring theme in South Park? --DrBat 23:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Re FT2; South Park does not have bestiality as a recurring theme, and South Park itself is not connected to bestiality. Almost all of the stuff seemed taken out of context. If you asked Trey and Matt, they would probably also say bestiality is not a recurring theme in the show. Furthermore, the question on if it was relevant was put into talk when I removed the bit. No one else has commented on it or reverted it until you came. If actual SP fans didn't feel it was meant to be in the article, and they left it alone, I don't see how it would be vandalism. Do you even watch the show? --DrBat 13:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the question was in regards to the sexual orientation of animals -- such as Stan's dog being gay -- and not "beastiality".

Bestiality was linked in the article (it was linked as Another recurring theme includes [*[zoophilia|sexual activity with animals]*]) which also mentioned how Stan masturbated to his dog and how Mr.Garrison had sex with a pig. And the sexual orientation of animals (like Stan's dog being gay) is not a recurring theme --DrBat 13:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Stan did not masturbate to his dog. He gave his dog a hand job (he thought he was milking it.)Apofisu 20:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright; I was just referring to what the article said (masturbating to the dog). And as for the milking part; that's another example how the article took things out of context (Anyway, having sex with animals or animal sexuality in general is not a recurring theme in the show. Hency the removal of the section).--DrBat 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that animal sexuality should be a recurring theme either. When I think of reccurring themes themes on the show, I think of things like Kenny's death, Chef's songs about sex, Cartman's conservatism, Kyle's liberalism, poking fun at celebrities, religion, etc. These are all more prominent themes than animal sexuality. Animal sexuality is a major plot point in only 3 episodes: Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride, An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig, and Chickenlover, while there are minor references to it in at least 7 others: Cat Orgy, Hooked on Monkey Phonics (masturbating monkey), Scott Tenorman Must Die (pony performing fellatio on a hot dog), Proper Condom Use (the aforementioned scene with Stan's dog), The Death Camp of Tolerance (Lemmiwinks), Douche and Turd (with PETA), and Woodland Critter Christmas (porcupine is pregnant). Are ten mentions of animal sexuality in 140 episodes enough to make it a "recurring theme"? Maybe, but I just think there are better "recurring themes" out there. I just don't think of animal sexuality when I think of South Park. -- Yoberalf 15:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Bloody Mary, alien

In the episode Bloody Mary, about two thirds of the way thru the episode, when Randy is in the truck, talking to Stan, you can briefly see one of the aliens from Cartman Gets an Anal Probe on the right side of the screen. Anyone know if there's any significance to this appearance?

Yes there is a significance as in every episode of the series these aliens have cropped up in one way or the other...

Weird edit

Sorry folks. I posted two edits to this article by accident. My intent was to revert one edit, but it looks like somehow I also managed to revert a chopped off text on the political controversy as a 2nd revert. If that one's wrong or anything feel free to fix it. Thanks FT2 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

About the major characters

I think that Tweek should be removed of the major characters section. He had some important time in the 6th season as the 4th friend, but it only was for three or four chapters. After that he never had a relevant role. And there is a lot of characters that could be there such as Wendy or Chef, that always made important appearances. Even Jesus or Saddam have more major time than Tweek.--Bauta 22:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Total Dispute and lack of sources

Hi all. Okay this article needs to be worked on. First of all nobody uses sources during the text and there is no references at the end of the article. Everybody must point out, during the text, where they took their information. There are a lot of dates, "facts" and all that in the text but nothing says to me it is true. Also, a lot of information is mainly opinions about how the show has what conservative point of view or not and if it displaying a view satirical view that is close to reality. These are opinions and not only are they opinions from the writers of this article, the writers backed their opinions with ONE exemple each time. Who says this isn't an exception you picked to make us all believe it was right ? Also the the article is big it could probable be reduced. Let's get to work people ! Bragador 03:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I'll start the editing. Let's see... For the intro what we could actually keep is:

South Park is an animated series created by Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Distributed by and airing on Comedy Central since 1997 and syndicated through Tribune Entertainment starting autumn 2005. It follows the surreal adventures of four young boys who live in the small town of South Park, Colorado. South Park satirizes many aspects of American culture and current events, and challenges deepset convictions and taboos, usually using parody and black humor.

So that's for the first paragraph. Now for the second one.

The show is noted for its characteristically blunt handling of current events. The episode "Best Friends Forever" illustrates an example of such blunt handling by having satirized both the PSP and the Terri Schiavo case as well as the movie Constantine.

That would be a nice second part though we should add a link for the episode to back our claims. Also a link to a critic's site would be nice to back the "blunt handling of current events". Now for the 3rd.

Various instances relate Kenny's role in the episode as reminiscent of Keanu Reeves, which has also been speculated as a referral to Reeves' role as Neo (the One or savior) in The Matrix. In this episode, the town is at odds over the removal of a feeding tube from Kenny. The episode was recorded one week after the PSP was released and, coincidentally, was originally aired the night of March 30, 2005, less than twelve hours before Schiavo died. South Park won its first Emmy Award for that episode.

This is totally out of place. It should be in an article about the episode itself. Now for the 4th.

New episodes for the show's ninth season continued on October 19, 2005 after being on hiatus since April 2005. Recent seasons have aired in two parts; for example, half of the episodes from the eighth season were put on hiatus for Team America: World Police, another Stone and Parker production. The show has been syndicated through Tribune Entertainment starting the autumn of 2005.

ok. in place of the whole thing I would say

Recent seasons have aired in two parts since 2004.

As for the "Tribune Entertainment" i added it in the first paragraph. Now for the 5th.

Despite its reputation for toilet humor and outlandishness, many of the topics the creators take on are presented in realistic and unexaggerated yet absurd ways. For example, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) in episode #406, "Cartman Joins NAMBLA", is a real-life organization. Other targets, such as Scientology and Michael Jackson, have been satirized while portrayed mostly true to real life.

This is totally opinionated ! We need at least one source for the reputation and one for the "presented in realistic and unexagerated yet absurd ways". For now it has no place in the article. As for the nambla, scientology and jackson stuff who says it has really been portrayed "mostly true to real life" ? We need links to critics !

Bragador 14:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone-somewhere has reduced the {totaldispute} down to {disputed} and I don't see any further talk of inaccurate facts so I am going to delete the factual inaccuracy tag. Thane Eichenauer 08:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bloody Mary vs Christian League

In the past week the Catholic League have managed to get the episode Bloody Mary cancelled from Comedy Central's lineup: https://www.defamer.com/hollywood/south-park/bloody-mary-episode-ensures-south-park-guys-a-bungalow-in-hell-145774.php

The League have issued a press release regarding the yanking: https://www.catholicleague.org/05press_releases/quarter%204/051230_Southpark_pulled.htm

Perhaps they forgot to read: https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html

• You can say whatever you want to, it's up to the corportations if it's worth it to distribute that speech or not. --Mercury1 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's ironic that Tray and Matt are the victims of corporate censorship.

Screenshots

Where do you guys get most of your episode screen shots from. I like to include a screen shot from their "Free Willzyx", but that is not included in Wikipedia yet. Thanks. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

southparkstudios.com normally but im pretty sure theres a Free Willzyx screenshot in by now. Discordance 18:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Kenny death image

Just a little nitpick, but the image on the article is wrong. It says one of the many deaths of Kenny from the episode Rainforest Schmainforest, though he doesn't actually die in the episode.

---

Actually, he does die. He is resusicitated, however, but still, had Kelly not been there he would have remained permanently dead. Hurricanehink 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I disagree. He didn't die because if he was dead he would have been permanently dead, you cant bring someone back from the dead, unless their body is still functioning. Once it shuts down, thats it, you're dead. Kenny's body must still have been functioning for him to be brought back to conciousness.

"Once it [a living body] shuts down, thats it, you're dead." What TV show are you talking about!?!?! Kenny dies and comes back to life in the next episode all the time, why wouldn't he be able to die and come back to life in the same episode? And the show violates known facts about biology all the time (such as people learning to eliminate waste through their mouth, hybid clonings etc. etc.).207.69.137.23 01:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats because South park makes fun of things and the show dosen't have to be logical.--Yowiki 06:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Matt Stone's supposed agnosticism

I don't know where this comes from. I've read the Stone was RAISED agnostic, but I don't know if this means he IS agnostic. If this comes from an interview or something, a reference would be appreciated. Corbmobile

Episode cancelled in UK!

This is from imdb.com

Tom Cruise has reportedly stopped an episode of South Park that mocks him from being aired in Britain. The show, in which Nicole Kidman and Cruise's fellow Scientologist John Travolta are depicted attempting to coax an animated version of the actor out of a closet caused controversy when broadcast in the US. The cartoon Kidman tells Cruise, "Don't you think this has gone on long enough? It's time for you to come out of the closet. You're not fooling anyone." - referring to allegations about Cruise's sexuality. According to TheRegister.co.uk, Paramount has agreed not to show the episode again, after Cruise complained. A source tells the site, "Tom is famously very litigious and will go to great lengths to protect his reputation. Tom was said not to like the episode and Paramount just didn't dare risk showing it again. It's a shame that UK audiences will never see it because it's very funny."

This episode is legally available free to all at the Operation Clambake website (www.xenu.net), which is a site critical of Scientology. Of note is that the episode is credited to having been created by numerous John & Jane Smiths, perhaps as a defence against Scientology's known love of litigation (in fact the episode ends with "I'm not scared ... sue me!")

So... being gay is summat so bad that you need to send your lawyers out and try to cancel a show WORLD WIDE? It must be a sore spot for Mr Cruise (I beg of you, put my name here and a note saying how I didn't sign it)

Episode deleted from Wiki?

Is it just me being paranoid or there used to be an article about episode 12 (season 8), "Stupid Spoiled Whore..."? You know, about that Hilton creature. Looks kind of weird: every single episode has a separate article, only that one is in red. --Bicycle repairman 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset (South Park) --Billdorr 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Series History edit

"This was meant as a satire on a NYPD Blue episode released shortly before this episode where one of the main characters said the phrase "shit happens" without being censored, and the American public discussed this for weeks. "

Actually, the series that used the phrase was the CBS hospital drama "Chicago Hope", not NYPD Blue.

Origins of Butters

I can't say for sure, but it seems to me that the first major appearance of Butters indicated that he was Mr. Mackey's son. The episode was one third of the "Meteor Shower" trilogy, the episode with the party at Mr. Mackey's house. I was under the assumption that the reason he was at the party (and had to hang in the basement with the other kids) was because he lived there and Mackey couldn't find a babysitter (like the other parents). The way he talks is almost like a child version of Mackey's voice, although a little more energetic, and I think he even shared the "mm'kay" in that early episode.

Since I don't have the DVDs of that season, I'm hoping someone can review this episode for me. If I'm right, I think it's worth noting in the article.

- Ugliness Man 17:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The episode to which you are referring is episode 308. I watched it again and did not catch any references or indications of a relationship between Butters and Mr. Mackey.

Lemmiwinks

Does Anybody happen to have any informatoin regarding the new lemmiwinks episode?

- Mr_Farenheit

According to the FAQ on the South Park site, Lemmiwinks is promised to return one day, although nobody knows when.

https://www.southparkstudios.com/show/display_faq_search.php?section=2&id=34946&tab=10

Hello, children

Under running gags, in the part about Chef talking to the kids, it says 'Curiously, Chef always refers to even one child as "children".' I think some verification is needed on this, because I think the only time Chef ever did this was in episode 113 "Cartman's Mom is a Dirty Slut", when Cartman went to Chef's house thinking Chef was his dad. It seems to me that the joke is that because Cartman is so fat, Chef refer to him in plural terms, but as far as I know, it was only Cartman, and only that episode. I'll leave it for awhile, but if nobody can site another episode as an example, I'm going to change the text. - Ugliness Man 18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Be bold when you're editing - this is only really a minor thing which doesn't really warrant talk page discussion. Go ahead and edit it! If anyone disagrees, then head for talk. Thenugga 03:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason I left it up in the air was that I haven't seen all of the episodes, I'm still in the middle of season 6, so I thought there might be episodes I haven't seen where Chef refers to someone other than Cartman as "children". I'll go ahead and edit it, but while I'm catching up on the series, I'll keep an eye out for any other examples. - Ugliness Man 07:45, 27 February 2006

I dont remember myself and trying not to drop any spoilers but pay close attention to the end of season 6, he may say it there. Discordance 18:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I just finished watching to the end of season 6 on Sunday, and when Chef took Cartman to Scotland, he refers to him as "children", but I didn't notice any other incident where he used the term for a single boy. - Ugliness Man 11:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

For obvious reasons in that episode. Discordance 15:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

72.192.153.126 anonymously changed the text to once again indicate that Chef does this for any child, but nobody has been able to verify this by citing an episode in which he does this to someone other than Cartman. I've reverted the edit, if someone wishes to change it back, please cite the episode in which it occured, and which child Chef is speaking to when he does this. - Ugliness Man 12:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In "Are You Up There God?", Chef refers to Stan as children1028 20:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In episode 302 "Spontaneous Combustion", Chef refers to Cartman as "children".

POV, POV, everywhere and not a View worthwhile...

Well, not everywhere. I have made some minor NPOV edits which I doubt anyone will think are unwarranted. My main worry is in "Political Controversy" section which apart from being POV and unsourced needs major cleanup. I personally have little opinion on the show, though I tend to like some episodes more than others. It needs cleanup because it repeats itself a little. It needs cleanup because it repeats itself a little. Views such as it being conservative need to be sourced as coming from someone, it's not enough just to say it, you also cannot out-and-out say it is conservative, you need to say that "some say" that it's conservative and reference who says it. There is plenty of criticism from the Parents Television Council to be referred to. It needs rewriting so I'm tagging it. No offense dudes. Angrynight 03:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. My minor NPOV edits may have made wording slightly awkward. Fell free to fix that without reverting it. Angrynight 03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me reading that section through its all over the place. Needs completely reorganising for a start rewriting and then sourcing. I was thinking something like.

• Matt and Treys opinion
• conservative aspects
• liberal aspects
• citicism from political groups and PTC etc

Then it needs merging with censorship and possibly recurring themes. Actually ill group the appropiate sections now before a rewrite starts. Discordance 15:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The way the article is currently written suggests a "fair and balanced" pattern of parody that just isn't reflected in the more recent seasons in particular. The show has clearly developed an oversimplified right-wing slant in its treatment of political issues. 129.22.247.117 15:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with 129.22.247.117. The article seems biased and my own personal opinion is that it is ludicrous to suggest that the it is conservative. However, in the interests of fairness and to be unbiased, I agree with Discordance in the way that it should be set out with the different sections. Ben Dando 11:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Chef says 'children' while reffering to a single person for several times in different episodes of some of the first seasons, or at least this is how I recall it. Unfortunately, I can't remember which episodes this happens, but I'll try to find out ...sorry guys...

Alleged legal action over Trapped in the Closet episode

The current edit of this article says: In January of 2006, Comedy Central's United Kingdom affiliate removed the episode "Trapped in the Closet" from its broadcast schedule, reportedly in order to avoid legal action by actor Tom Cruise, considering Matt and Trey just signed with Paramount who also happens to employ Cruise. That episode was screened on February 20 on SBS in Australia. SBS has since been threatened with Legal Action.

The alleged legal action filed against SBS needs to be sourced. I am familiar with the station in question, and I know that no legal threats have either been made or followed through on. I realise "original research" has no validity, but if the legal action reference is to stand it needs to be sourced properly. Using the Fairfax newspaper library in Australia (which has a record of every article published in Australian newspapers) I have been unable to find any published reference in the Australian media of such a legal threat. (Whoby 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

If a source cant be found for controversal statements WP policy is you can remove it on sight if you want and it shouldnt be readded till someone can source it. Discordance 20:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I will leave the paragraph, but remove the "has since been threatened" sentence. (Whoby 00:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Christopher Reeve and Stem Cell Research

Someone deleted a previous edit without explanation. The creators of the show are obviously against stem cell research as shown in "Krazy Kripples", and so it at least deserves being mentioned. Do not delete it again.

If you're going to start ordering people around, there are three things you should do. First, get an account and stop doing your crap anonymously. Second, sign your comments (it's not hard, four tildes is fairly simple). Third, watch the fucking show. Episode 513 showed an extremely (and not at all ambiguous) pro stem cell research stance. Don't start assigning your morailty to the show's creators if you're going to be too gutless to even set up an account. - Ugliness Man 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep it civil please. As is often the case with matt and trey theyve gone for balance the show rarely displays favour to either side of controversys, I do agree with ugly man and any assertions like this will be deleted on sight. However it is something to discuss in the political issues section (although that section still needs a cleanup) but only when both sides are covered with christopher reeve being shown as an evil supervillian powered by dead fetus, whilst stem cell research develops a cure for kennys illness in 513 albeit too late and then cartman makes a mockery of things. Discordance 20:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So Mr. ügliness Man" has demonstrated his hypocrisy by accusing someone else of inserting their own opinion on stem cell research onto a television show. What is the point anyways, whether or not South Park endorses or condemns a controversial point doesn't mean you are right/wrong. What is your point "Ugliness Man" and the poster above him? Anonymous 8:13:20, 3 March 2007 (PST)

I wasn't inserting my opinion into a show, I said what I believed to be the position expressed in one specific episode. The Gutless Wonderkook said that the show's creators were obviously supporting one view on the matter (coincidentally, the view shared by said kook), and I cited an episode which expressed the other view, to show that you can't arbitrarily assign either standpoint to the entire series. And the reason for my nasty tone (which I am not retracting at this moment, by the way) was because someone without an account anonymously stepped in and decided to tell the rest of us that we shouldn't delete the edit (apparantly not wanting to allow for the possibility of another viewpoint even existing). If you think I'm a hypocrite for showing that both sides of an issue are valid, so be it, but I've been on this planet long enough to learn that everyone's a hypocrite in one way or the other, so your little jab doesn't hurt me. And for the record, there's no umulat in my screen name. - Ugliness Man 11:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Meow ! Magic Pickle 02:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Hayes quits South Park

13 MARCH 2006 - Issac Hays today quit the show, citing his displeasure with it's "bigotry" regarding religion. He claimed that people's religion is sacred, and that the show has "crossed the line".

I wonder where he was when the line got crossed with regards to Catholics (several times), Mormons, Jews, and Muslims (the ORIGINAL Muhammad cartoon). Now that Scientology got its serving, a line has been crossed. Pathetic.

I think it's amusing that South Park fans automatically believe what the creators say about this. He quits after an extremely controversial episode involving the Virgin Mary and the Pope, and you all assume his reasons are all in relation to Scientology??? It's kind of dangerous to follow everything the creators tell you. I'm sure some of you also believe that second hand smoking isn't a health risk, or that the rainforests should be destroyed, or that global warming doesn't exist, etc. ... plenty of odd things that a lot of people buy from this show. Peoplesunionpro 02:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember Isaac Hayes having no problem with the scientology episode that Matt and Trey had made. So much so that they were even aware that it might piss off Hayes, yet Hayes still said that he wouldn't be. Does anyone else share this memory? 71.112.5.94 23:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't "automatically" believe it because it came from Trey or Matt; I believe it because I never heard one negative public comment about the show from Hayes until after Scientology got hit. It is true they hit the Catholic church again a few weeks after that, but if that was what pushed him over the edge, why did he participate in the episode that ridiculed the Catholic Church for the sex abuse scandal? Or the one where the boys catch priest Maxi screwing a woman in the confessional? Those weren't controversial??? He continued working with them YEARS after that, as well as long after Mohammed appeard in "SuperBestFriends", he was silent when they suggested that Mormons are gullible and "dumb, dumb, dumb", silent when they ridiculed Native Americans spirituality and culture...He appreciated their religious satire for a long time without comment; why is the show suddenly so offensive that he can no longer be involved? Of two "contoversial" episodes in the tenth season, one ridiculed his faith; the other ridiculed a group they had hit many times before. Which do you think is more likely to have been the reason?

I just read that Issac Hays had a stroke January 17th. https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188463,00.html

Agreed, it's long standing assmunption that it was beause of scientology. The show has constantly ridiculed Christianity multiple times (Jesus is living having a talk show... fights satan. In the movie Satan and sadaam get together) as well as Mormon, Jewish, and other belief systems, however the only other time they've even touched on scientology is a long time ago around season 3 in a small skit not on the show (and I don't believe Hayes was involved). It definatly has to do with the Scientology issue, the show has always been on the edge, the fact it's about Hayes religion is what set him off

South Park Sells Out?

Following Issac Hayes publicized leaving of the show because of the "insensitive" parody of Scientology, the airing of the episode in question "Trapped in the Closet" was pulled, and replaced with an older episode. I'd hate to jump to conclusions, but why is it not aired. It's still being advertised as the episode is not played on the Comedy Central Website at 10:09.

That change MAY have been because they wanted to generate attention for Chef: both of the episodes tonight were Chef-intensive (Chef Aid and Salty Chocolate Balls), so they might be trying to show us a lot of Chef-related episodes to illustrate what we won't see anymore. (POST SCRIPT: THIS WAS THE "OFFICIAL" REASON GIVEN BY COMEDY CENTRAL, ALTHOUGH IT SMELLS FISHY...)

You're all reading maybe a wee bit too much into this. Wait until new episodes start airing again (which is soon) to see how they address it. Bobak 21:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Hollywood, Interrupted the ep was pulled by Viacom after Tom Cruise threatened to pull out of publicity for MI:3. --Billdorr 23:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Matt and Trey respond https://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/matt_and_trey_f.html

Yeah its to bad Chef is gone. But they might enter a new character to replace him. Wonder who? --Cartmandoo 19:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

DERP!!! - Ugliness Man 15:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Chef's not gone! He lives! He's Darth Chef now! Hats off to Matt & Trey for completely ripping Scientology [again]! Can't wait to see Tom Cruise's reaction,... the man apparently has no sense of humor whatsoever! Dr. Cash 06:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Woo-Hoo! In the words of Kinny. Yeah I agree --Cartmandoo 05:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

SOuth park would never sell out.23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Censorship->Response section should possibly be removed

The "Response" subsection of the "Censorship" section is almost nothing but a discussion of the 10th-season premiere where Chef is killed off. This material is already covered in the "Chef" entry in "Recurring Characters." It seems better to take the Response section out because of the duplicated information; in my opinion, this info fits better in the "Recurring Characters" section.

South park would never sell out 02:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Diversity in the Workplace

In April of 2001, at my last job, when I was given my orientation, I was made to sit through a 30-minute film about diversity in the workplace. It was allegedly made by Trey and Matt. Matt acted in it, although I did not see Trey anywhere. It involved singing and dancing as the workers showed their employer that you need to look at diversity not just in terms of color or ethnicity, but in terms of age, experience, educational background, and values. Otherwise, "diversity" is nothing more than a superficial crock. Steve Landesberg, formerly "Barry" of the comedy series Barney Miller, was in it.

I was wondering if anybody else saw this video?

South Park DVD's

Does anyone know why South Park has never been released from Season 5 onwards in the UK? Play.com had Season 5 as 'available soon' for about 2 years before giving up. Douglasnicol 23:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Chef

The part about religion claims that Chef wants to give anal sex to little kids and then goes to hell is... from what I recall, not true. As far as the hell thing goes, anyway. --Discharger12 02:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely true that the Chef character (as a result of being brainwashed) did want to molest the children. As for going to hell, I don't see where it's mentioned in the article, but if it is mentioned, it's incorrect as you say, considering that he didn't actually die. - Ugliness Man 11:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Peabody Award

I saw an ad on Comedy Central congratulating them on the win. I looked for verification and found it. Got lazy and decided not to cite the page, but if someone has the urge... Also, perhaps we should add a section regarding awards the show has won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.46.22 (talk • contribs)

I agree, and I just wanted to note that if we add an Awards section, we should also fix up the movie's article. Currently the only Awards mention I can find on that article is something called "Wings TEC Critics Awards" (which I've never heard of. Aside from the infamous Oscar nomination (and Robin Williams performance) of "Blame Canada", I seem to remember "Uncle Fucka" winning something on one of MTV's awards shows. - Ugliness Man 08:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

They one the Best Original Song from the MTV awards

R. Kelly's a Scientologist?

Is R. Kelly really a Scientologist as it says in the "Scientology Scuffle" section's "Origins" paragraph?

• No, he merely attempted to get Tom Cruise etc. out of the closet and thereafter entered the closet himself.JTFryman 00:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

They were just trying to make fun of his song Trapped in the Closet in the scientology episode, i guess people assumed hes a scientologist.

He's a scientologist. or at least the church of scientology claim he is. it's on his wikipedia article. check the article if you want to know something. wouldn't that be the logical thing? If asking a question on an encyclepedia, check the encylepedia.

Bleeping?

From the article:

In the episode "It Hits the Fan", South Park broke the swearing record by usingen the word "shit" a total of 162 times, unbleeped.

Are there bleeped instances of the word in the same episode? Otherwise, the dangling attribute seems superfluous. In the interest of informativeness... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was no bleeping of the word shit in the entire episode. As the "Cop Drama" shit was about 2 to 3 minutes into the episode. The residents of south park also were saying shit from the beginning of the episode. NetStormer 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning the fact that there was no bleeping is not superfluous, because it is in comparison to previous episodes, in which the word was always bleeped. I don't know whether or not I'm repeating information that NetStormer provided since I can't quite decipher exactly what he's saying. - Ugliness Man 10:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "Fag" was the one beeing censored when a straight guy said it, thats why when Mr. Garrison said it (and Jimbo, as a gag....?) it wasnt censored. Obviously because he "came out" about a season before the episode. Jgarzafe 08:57, 20 April 2006 (GMT-6)

I fail to see what that has to do with the discussion at hand. We're talking about when the word "shit" is bleeped or left unbleeped. - Ugliness Man 04:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No the question was "Are there bleeped instances of the word in the same episode". So the answer has everything to do with the discussikon at hand, for the question was the begining of the discussion and the answer the end of it.

Islamic Prophet Muhammad

Someone has written the following under religious humor: "In 2006 Comedy Central banned South Park from showing an image of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. In retaliation, South Park aired a 2 part episode culminating in President Bush, Jesus Christ, and various other Americans defecating on each other and the American flag. (This episode originally aired during Holy Week for Christians.)" I think the author meant easter since Christmas 2006 has not yet arrived.

The Christian faith in general doesn't designate any specific week as "Holy Week" (I don't know if the term is used in any individual denominations), so the point is moot. Whether Easter or Christmas is more "important" is completely subjective. Christmas is obviously more universal and more secularized/commercialized, but there are some Christians who put more importance on the Easter weekend since the death and resurrection of Christ were the fullfillment of his destiny, and the primary act that "saved" the world's believers. I'm not a Christiam myself, I'm just explaining the perspective. The underlying point of your original comment, however, is somewhat valid, since "Holy Week" is unofficial and therefore ambiguous. I've changed the phrasing in the article, take a look and see if you like the new version any better. - Ugliness Man 10:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic faith does indeed designate a week as "Holy Week". It is the week that contains Ash Wednesday. Why dont you try to research something before you make any claims about it...-PuckSR 1:25, 8 May 2006

One thing the article seems to be ignorant of is that Muhammad is not to be physically depicted in any form, it doesn't matter how he is portrayed. "though at the time there was no pre-existing controversy over depicting Muhammed." - Depicting Muhammad is always controversial within Islam., that's the problem. Magic Pickle 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

But Trey Parker and Matt Stone aren't Muslim, on the contrary Stone is a Jew

Of course- but if they portray Mohammed they will offend Muslims. Do they care? Probably not. Will the staff of Comedy Central or the broadcaster care about the possibility of Muslims rioting/or taking extreme action because they are offended? yes.

When Oh When to watch the movie?

I remember watching the movie a bit before, (I've been watching the show South Park start to finish as of late) and am wondering when I'm supposed to watch the movie. I noticed that during the movie Devil had stopped having gay sex with Saddam due to telling him off and in later episodes of the show he was indeed with someone else. And another reference as to when we should watch the movie is Stan and Wendy. He always puked whenever Wendy came like inches from him like he does in the movie but later in season 4 I think he gets over that puking business. So when exactly do we watch the South Park movie for all of us who are curious?

Continuity was never a major concern for Matt and Trey, although some continuity has become part of the series over the years. However, if you're going to watch the entire series starting at season 1, I'd recommend watching the movie between seasons 2 and 3 for a close approximation of "continuity". - Ugliness Man 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I've been looking all over the place on the NET as to when to watch the movie and not anyone not even SPStudio.com has even posted the movie etc. Thanks for the input. You should change the Episode listing to have the movie inbetween Season 2 and 3. That way people know from now on.

It actually belongs between Tweek vs. Craig and Sexual Harassment Panda it was released July 4th, 1999. However as long as you watch it before Season 6 as that's when Kenny's character changes. In addition, Most main characters in the movie have been properly developed by episode 1 of Season 2 (namly the Satan+Sadaam relationship). As stated, continuity is not important in the show and you can ignore it for the most part. But those are the important factors for when you watch. --Kinglink 16:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Timmy

Why is he noted as a main character when in several episodes he isnt a main recurring character and often only noted for gags and small jokes and in recent episodes non occuring. Also if you state that he is supposed to be a main character then why does his link at the bottom link to recurring characters page with his mini bio there? - avalean 17.april

Trivia

The trivia section is way too long, in my opinion. Any ideas on how to trim it down? M2K e 19:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia of South Park Page could be made. However a large amount of this information is overly wordy and duplicate (it take two paragraphs to meantion how in the first five seasons kenny dies almost once an episode and then they say 'you killed kenny" "You bastards"? I just did it in a sentance. Explaining the special features of it can be held til each instance of the special features (first christmas episode he lives) Info about the production company or Matt and Trey's personal life or problems with Moore could be placed elsewhere. It definatly is too wordy, and the list of running gags and such as needless as well as much of the trivia. Trivia of South Park is probably best but getting rid of half the trivia should be easy.--Kinglink 16:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pip was never a main character

Whoever added Pip in the "Main character" section seems to be in denial that Pip was never a main character or simply has his information wrong. Pip had very few speaking lines per episode in the early episodes, and by the later seasons he's barelly in the backround anymore. He had a slight roll in the Dodgeball episode, One episode to himself ( which most people hate ), and a minor roll in the Meteor shower episode ( and was upstaged highly by Butters ) and that's about it. He was never was, and never meant to be a main character. Nor was he popular. Pip simply shouldn't be up there. If any kid should be up there, it should be Jimmy who's starred in several episodes and on the cover of a DVD boxset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercyfulfate666 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"major characters"

Token Black is as "major", if not more, as Pip.

Mr. Garrison

In the article the following is said in reference to Mr. Garrison's homosexuality: "At the beginning of the series, Mr. Garrison was a chronic gay basher and until confronted by his "Gay Side," had gay fantasies which he always denied having. Mr. Garrison also had a hand puppet, named Mr. Hat, which he explained was gay to a therapist in one episode. The therapist told Mr. Garrison that he expressed his repressed homosexuality through Mr. Hat. This eventually led him to admit he was gay and proud of it." I feel that this is misleading in that the episode being referenced with the therapist ("Summer Sucks") doesn't really lead to Garrison accepting anything about his homosexuality. Rather, the episode "4th Grade," where Mrs. Choksondik seeks out Mr. Garrison in the mountains and impresses upon him that he must come to terms with who he is is moreso why he accepts his homosexuality. Blinutne 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

South Park Criticism

I keep making a small section on the South Park page about how some people Critisize South Park, and people keep reverting it, what is the problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Park&diff=56852774&oldid=56852519 I think this is a perfectly fine section of it. People need to know about these kinds of things, and I am staying 100% neutral with my opinions, im just laying down the FACTS of what other people believe.

WHAT is the problem this time?! User:Igotsomeapples

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Exploding Boy 17:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I signed it, now can someone tell me what im doing wrong?

Igotsomeapples 18:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't very well written or even spell-checked, just for starters. St. Jimmy 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. You misunderstood: you should sign your posts on talk pages, not your contributions to articles.

Ok, so here's the paragraph:

Some people believe that South Park is nothing but "Foul Language and Toilet Humor", which it was criticized alot in its first season. In response to that, Matt Stone and Trey Parker made "Terrence and Phillip" to show people what a REAL "Foul Language and Potty Humor" show was. Many long time fans have critised as well that the show's quality has been dropping since Season 9, that they're focusing more on proving a point than being funny. Many parents think its ok for their kids to watch South Park at first because it looks like a kids cartoon, but later they find out its not, and accuse South Park for "Corrupting the youth". Artists such as John Kricfalusi, maker of Ren & Stimpy believe that the show is overrated due to the one factor that its easy to draw, and animate an episode, and an episode would take less than a week to be made. Obviously South Park receives alot of criticism from the targets that they make fun of, especially religion. This lead to Issac Hayes to leave before the 10th Season started, because he is a scientologist, and they made fun of scientology.

The way I see it, there are several problems with this paragraph. First, the content is covered elsewhere in the article already. Second, it's simply not very well written. Third, it doesn't follow Wikipedia's manual of style (for example, there are few instances where it's acceptable to use ALL CAPS in an article). Fourth, it contains unverified and unsourced claims. Exploding Boy 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's got too many Katie Courics. "Some people think..." "Many have claimed that..." "You've been accused of..." "Some critics note that...." "Parents are angered by..." Identify these people. Quote the critics. Cite their statements. Bjsiders 15:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, avoid weasel words. Nuge talk 18:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by NotGonnaTellYouMyName

It's a blasphemetic, racist, and pointlessly profane program. Especially the blasphemetic part. I can't even type what stopped me from watching another second. I suggest you do the same and try to go to heaven. The creators are either atheists or Satanists.

Inaccuracy

"South Park is an American animated television comedy series about four fourth grade school boys who live in the small town of South Park, Colorado." FWIW, the four were in third grade in seasons one, two and three. Perhaps, this could be clarified somehow. 67.168.45.34 07:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I am Most definately wrong, but under the Vulgarity subsection of the controversy section, it states that the episode "It hits the Fan" poked fun at an incident where the word "Shit" was spoken uncensored on an episode of Chicago Hope which aired "shortly before this episode". A quick search of wikipedia reveals that "It hits the fan" was aired in 2001, whereas Chicago Hope went off the air in 2000, making it impossible for said episode of chicago hope to have aired "shortly before" the south park episode was created. Also the usage of the word on chicago hope wasn't really that big of a deal, as this article would have you believe.

Another problem is that in the "Animation Style" section it states: "Construction paper cut-outs were used in the original pilot animation and in the first episode made for Comedy Central. Subsequent episodes have been produced by computer animation that provides the same look..." This statement seems to give the impression that construction paper cut-outs were used in the pilot, and then used again in a seperate episode, which was the first to air on comedy central. It also gives the impression that computer animation was not used on the first episode. The truth of the matter is that the pilot was an early version of episode 101, and the first episode which comedy central aired was an edited version of the pilot, which retained much of the footage from the pilot (which was created entirely using construction paper), however it also included several new or reworked scenes created using computer animation. Wheras this point may seem moot, accuracy is very important on wikipedia, and i feel that the statement i originally quoted is very inaccurate and should be altered.68.255.184.57 08:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed a potential inaccuracy under "Religion" in "Recurring Themes". The text currently states that Kyle's father dresses in Hasidic Jewish garb. He actually just dresses in a suit and a kippah. Though the kippah identifies him as jewish, his outfit is not really Hasidic jewish attire. Ilyana145 09:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Spouth Park" ripps on all religions and races and other things. They mostly pick on Jews, African American's, and man many others.

Deleted 82.69.40.37

Environment

I don't consider them anti-environmental at all. Rather, they're anti-advocacy groups. They tend to rip on anyone that sits at the extreme of the spectrum on matters. They support people using common sense, rather than jumping on a fanatical bandwagon or using sensationalism. --CBrewster 20:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Southpark has gotten more and more anti envirnomental. Which I don't have a problem with if they wrote better plots with stronger arguments. But their recent epsidoes have been pretty weak..

I disagree with this statement. There is satirization of environmentalists at times but to say that it is anti environment is factually incorrect. Please take a look at the "rainforest...is not anti-environmental" section further down this talk page. Ben Dando 11:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the episode 'Smug Alert' perfectly summarises their views on environmentalists which is not anti-environmental.82.69.40.37

And I think that assigning a pro- or anti- label to the show in general or Matt and Trey specifically is pointless, especially if you base it on any one particular episode. With a lot of these issues, they will often indicate a subtle lean towards one side or the other, but they avoid blatantly saying that either side is 100% "right" and the other is 100% "wrong". While it's true that they do deal with a lot of heavy politicial and social stuff, they still maintain that their primary function is to entertain, and they do that through parody, satire, and absurdism. Because these three elements are paramount in their delivery, all we can really derive from each episode is the opinions and positions of the characters. Since the vast majority of the characters are somewhat reprehensible and/or just not that smart, it would be foolish to cite any of their positions as an indication of what Matt and Trey think.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that usually it's left intentionally ambiguous, and it would be an endless ping-pong game to try and pin it down. Episode X "obviously" shows that they think one way, while episode Y "obviously" shows the opposite. It's pointless and tiresome. I'm sure that Matt and Trey like the fact that their silly little show sparks discussion and debate, but it should be about what we think, not our speculations on what they think. When they have a definite and unambiguous position on an issue that they want us to hear, they will tell us outright, not hint at it through their characters. - Ugliness Man 11:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Trey Parker is a confirmed libertarian, you need to watch the content of shows with this in mind. You then see the SP arguments tend to lean towards libertarianism, and probably why Stone says they 'really hate liberals' - because the left is more likely to use state intervention than the right, which is the deadly sin for libertarians. Magic Pickle 03:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting some cleanup & splitting

• The controversial/political aspects could be reasonably merged with South Park Republican as South Park (Politics) or something thereof.
• Recurring characters and articles should be checked for stubbing and merged in Recurring_South_Park_characters as needed.

Cwolfsheep 02:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Done: Subject_matter_in_South_Park Cwolfsheep 05:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• There is a paragraph about kenny not talking in the music section that should be moved into the kenny section where it is already discussed.

• In the animation style section, there is a comment about Trey Parker and Matt Stone's appreciation of Terry Gilliam's animation style and a reference to it. There should be another reference to the short animation they did for Monty Pythons documentary "Life of Python" that was re-released on DVD*

• At the end of the first section ("Evolution") someone has added "Cartman likes to eat his own poopie on his birthday". This looks like vandalism to me and should be removed.

Hidden Visitors

Is there anyone out there who knows of all the "Hidden Visitor" sightings? If so, would you be willing to create a section informing us of those sightings in each episode? --Salvax 23:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If there was a section that showed EVERY visitor for EVERY episode it would be waaay to long. Possibly an article?

Ah, I thought there was a "Hidden Visitor" in the episodes only a few weeks ago, nice to know I wasn't seeing things. A partial list is availabe here; https://www.spscriptorium.com/Sightings/Sightings.htm Alastairward 12:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion section

In the religion section, the one sentence i have a problem with is "This is ironic because in one episode they blatently call Mormonism a complete hoax made up by a guy who was obviously lying." They definitely do strongly imply it's a hoax, it's just not blatant.--Charibdis 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it was pretty blatant. While they never said it outright, they implied it heavily enough through all of the jokes that it is "an elaborate hoax" and such.

It was extremely blatant and not just with the general storyline. During the whole creation of Mormonism story, the background song was "Dumb, dumb, dumb, etc" after everything that happened. When someone finally questioned what Smith was doing and saying, the song immediately switched to "Smart, smart, smart, etc" and then straight back to the "dumb, dumb, etc" after. --pIrish 19:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation of that episode is questionable. Yes, the back story did mock the story of the book of mormon, and it did imply that Joseph Smith lied. But it was emphatically NOT an attack on Mormons themselves. If it was, think of all the stuff they could have ripped! No caffeine, special underwear etc. Instead, Gary (the little Mormon kid) criticises Stan for worrying emphatically about those stories (as the episode itself had). He was shown to be wise, arguing that, fair enough it was a shitty story, but look what good Mormonism does. Thats a pretty fair message from where I'm standing. --frogemporer 22:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

..umm, what good does Mormonism do? Magic Pickle 03:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor little detail: under the section about Satan, the description says that he hosts Luaus, when he in fact hosts Hukilaus.

Digitally Altered Voices

Well, I didn't read the article in full, but I did do a few searches, and there seems to be no mention of how the children's voices are done. In this official faq link the faq maintainer say that the children's voices are done by adjusting pitch. Someone even readjusted the pitch of two scenes in the movie so you can hear what they sound like here (Mr. Garrison teaches math) and here (What Would Brain Boitano Do?. If you know what Matt and Trey sound like, then you can hear them easily in the boys' voices.

Surely this deserves a mention in at least the trivia section. I watched the entire series as of now, and the movie, and always just assumed Matt and Trey were incredible at mimicking young boys.70.66.9.162 07:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and apparantly (official faq) Satan's voice is pitch-shifted down.70.66.9.162 07:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Here's a video of Trey Parker in real time doing a quick Cartman (see 1:15 or so) and it really sounds like crap compared to the voices we hear in finished episodes. Definitely tweaked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok1ChgLORIs

In an interview for CBS w/ Matt and Trey, there was a shot of the guys in the booth recording dialogue for the episode Free Willzyx(sp). Kyle (Matt Stone) asks the whale "What do you want to talk about?" and the whale (Trey Parker) responds, "Let's talk about rocketships!" Stone's voice while reading the line sounded much different from Kyle's voice like you would hear in a finished episode. Unfortunately I just searched YouTube and can't find that particular video anymore.

As for this article...isn't it common for pitchshifting to be done in cartoons? I'm not sure it really needs to be mentioned unless there's a lot of confusion/contention about it.

"Rainforest Schmainforest" isn't actually anti-environmental

I see from reading this entry...

In the 1999 episode "Rainforest Schmainforest," an environmental activist, voiced by Jennifer Aniston, made a harrowing trip to the rainforest of Costa Rica with the children, and the experience caused her to conclude that the rainforest "sucks ass."

...that the person who wrote it doesn't understand Satire. It is obviously not meant to be taken literally, I mean Parker and Stone are not putting across the message that we should cut down the Rainforests. It may seem that way if you take it literally, but its really the same as the episode Red Man's Greed, this is not actually saying Native Americans are evil, IT'S SATIRICAL! In-fact it can be argued that they are actually saying exactly the opposite of what is portrayed in the episode. I mean come on do you really think that it is portraying Logging companies as the good guys and the natives as Evil savages?, it's obviously Satire.

Also in broader terms, although certainly some episodes of South Park have what could be called anti-environmental themes, there are also several episodes with what could be called pro-environmental themes. Such as that episode where they parody hunters as trying to "thin out the number" of animals in order to "help them" etc. (and well, Jimbo is a running criticism about Redneck hunter types). I think it was in this episode Volcano (South Park episode), with Scuzzlebutt and all that.

--Hibernian 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I am glad someone else noticed this. The episodes in question even make it clear that it is not actually the environment they are mocking. I did an edit of the environment section to address this problem, although it was reverted because it was claimed to be a POV. I have re-reverted it. Please take a look and give me your opinion. It still seems slightly like a POV and may need cleaning up. It could be argued that there is no need for the section at all? Ben Dando 08:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think your edits were very good, and made the section more accurate and NPOV. I suppose the section (or a similar one) should probably still be there, as many people do think the show is "anti-environmental", so if it's deleted it would just be put back. Better perhaps, to put both interpretations forward. It's true that South Park mainly makes fun of people not causes, and I think it's the case here. Also, the article should mention the apparently "pro-environmental" episodes. --Hibernian 21:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Matt Stone and Trey Parker are great, superb satirists and it is a darn shame that many of the show's detractors don't realize that. However, the episode in question may not be anti-environmental it was mocking environmentalists. Matt and Trey have stated on several occasions that they truly hate the rainforest, including on the DVD commentary for this very episode. The message of this episode is that most rainforest supporters call the rainforest a beautiful place, but as middle class Americans dependent on common luxuries they would be badly-adjusted if ever in the rainforest and would probably hate it. In fact, before season three started either Matt or Trey went to Costa Rica expecting the rainforest to be beautiful, hated it, and made this episode in retaliation.

• Eh? A great white shark is an impressive beast, worth protecting, but I wouldn't want to swim with one. Still worth saving, though. Magic Pickle 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Matt Stone is not co-writer

Trey Parker writes the episodes alone and sometimes he's supported by the "advisors". Matt's name is not in the credits, i thought it really would suck if he didn't collaborate writting the cartoon he co-created but he really doesn't, as you can check on the oficial site, if he did though, it WOULD be in the credits, i've never seen his name in none (but it could still be some kind of internal joke), so you have to alter LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTS of articles like this one, matt stone's, terrance and philip: behind the blow ("there are some rumours...") and so on. That sucksass but he fun thing is that the show express Trey's and Matt's points of view, so i guess this means that Parker knows pretty well his friend.

The ideas for the episodes come from a writting staff(Trey and Matt are part of this writting staff)and then Trey writes the final script for the episodes.Matt wrote and directed episodes from several seasons himself.User:alfredosolis

Matt has not had a writing credit on the show since the Season 4 premiere, The Tooth Fairy Tats 2000. Trey has been credited as sole writer for every episode since. - Zone46 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad on front page

Not to nag, but could someone please remove the picture of Muhammad on the page. I respect the right to free speech, but the picture of Muhammad makes it seem like this show is overly insensitive. I have no objection to keeping it on the episode it was in, but right now people might read this, see Muhammad, and get spooked. I don't think political correctness goes too far when it protects the honor and integrity of a group of people. Gorgo7h3 01:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, how much the image would scare people away is debatable. The image is completely justified considering the text next to it. If someone is reading the article just for the pictures, and then goes on to make a grand assumption about the show because of one picture, I'm not really sure they're worth having here. Looking at the image itself, if it didn't have a caption or related text next to it, I seriously doubt anyone would correspond it to Muhammad; for one thing he's wielding fireballs, and for another the physical man is over a thousand years dead. It could just as easily be assumed it's some random guy with a turban that's wielding fire. Sorry if this was all confusing; it's late and I'm not making much effort to make my point clear.--Charibdis 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How stupid can one page get!?

Sub-heading Animal Sexuality? Sure, that's the point. Animal sexuality. sheesh. Non-encyclopaedia-like.

"Scientology (which the creators consider a cult)". What use do the parentheses serve? Most people who have ever heard of it consider it a cult. I'm sure the wiki page makes that abundantly clear. Even the phrase "multiple episodes have tackled the shaky logical foundations of cults" is non-professional. I agree with it, but it's opinion, conjecture.

It's "Kyle's Mom's a Bitch", no 'is'.

The heading "Music" also basically recounts several episodes. It's dumb. Have a sub-heading "episode content" if you must. How was Kyles' Mom's a Bitch popular? Did it race up the rap charts?

I would say: good try, but this page needs to be shorter, with less unreadable blurb

Child abuse and neglect? Come on. You can't put a heading for every subject that every show's covered. 'It's a recurring theme'. Yeah, well farts are a recurring theme, famously, but the word fart doesn't appear once.

'Catholocism' is under 'controversy', but there is a heading 'religious humor' too.

Usually employing [..] black comedy? I don't agree with that.

Again, good effort, but there's so much, it's hard to navigate, and there's a good bit of tidying up to do.

It's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness. If you feel strongly about these things, go ahead and edit them yourself, that's what makes Wikipedia so great, you can do that. And in the future, please sign your comments on these Talk pages, it's not really a big deal to hit four tildes. - Ugliness Man 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hello everyone, I am User:Mr. Garrison. I have been contributing many articles recently under the username User:Timmay!, unfortunately I lost my password and left a message that this user is going. Well my new home is User:Mr. Garrison. Under both names I have created many articles for characters such as Ms. Choksondik and Shiela Broflovski.

Look on the proposed projects page and go to WikiProject South Park. Have a look at it and see if it interests you. It's aim is to improve and cleanup articles and to arrange articles into better categories to make it look better and easier to navigate. If you like it, add your name. Once there are about 10 names the project will start running. Please join and help make South Park better on Wikipedia.

Mr. Garrison 18:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Transphobia section very POV

Just a suggestion, the entire section on Transphobia, featuring commentary on the EP "Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina" reads entirely as POV. It begs to be edited or re-written so that it doesn't come off as one person's opinion.

Actually, just delete it. It brings nothing to the table since it is written entirely POV.

This section is very POV. In "Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina", most of the characters do not seem to act in a "transphobic" way. In fact the boys seem to be rather matter-of-fact about it, and immidately start treating Mr. Garrison as Mrs. Garrison. The only character that could be percieved that way is the Doctor who tells Mrs. Garrison that he isn't really a woman (just a man with a horribly mutilated penis). Perhaps this section needs to be transformed into a human sexuality (or sexual diversity) section.

POV in "Cartman"

There are too many words that describe Cartman. Clearly it has been written by a cartman hater. Not only that, but it makes out that cartman isn't a good character when this is not true. Cartman is a hilarius character who the writers love to write for. there isn't enough reference to his popularity.

As far as I can tell, that section is merely a synopsis of each character; popularity doesn't apply. Everything in the article is true though; examples can be found in various episodes for each of the adjectives used to describe him. These characteristics are what make him a "hilarius character who the writers love to write for;" it's not something you often see in television (or in movies, for that matter). I do agree with you, though, that the list may be a bit too long. The entire section is written somewhat unprofessionally for that matter. Definitely something to be rewritten.--Charibdis 05:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at cleaning up this section, still needs quite a bit of work though. --MutantMonkey (talk | work) 17:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I just made the section say: Cartman is portrayed as.... This is clearly NPOV, as in the show he is portrayed all these thing, and, yet, it doesn't sound critical.--Orthologist 15:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dvorak Sound Effect Trivia

Fifty-one seconds into the following youtube clip is a sound effect commonly used in South Park: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09_5T8UmQQI . The descending string, timpani stroke, wind outburst is from the first movement of Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák). Its at the end of the brief adagio introduction and part of the segue to the main allegro portion of the movement. Does anyone have a better reference for this effect? I know I've heard it watching South Park many times before. DavidRF 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights

Matt and Trey do support gay rights.Tey were even nominated for a GLAAD award for the Big gay Al episode. Also in Follow that egg Stan and Kyle don't break the egg but Cartman and his girl partner break their egg,this was a reference to gay couples beign better parents that some hetorosexual couples.

The Gay Rights section ought to be rewritten. Currently, it seems to mistake several of the attacks on anti-gay rights as being anti-gay rights themselves. The article misses the general South Park style and takes it as Matt and Trey's actual opinion as opposed to what they're trying to attack.

What are you talking about? Each anti-gay statement is qualified as follows:

1. "deemed "too offensive" to people with religious values"
2. "homophobia is portrayed sarcastically when Mr. Garrison says to Stan when he asks what a homosexual is"

If there's anything else I missed that gives the impression of anti-gay rights then go ahead and write it so it can be corrected. Right now, I think the section is pretty good and accurately shows what Matt and Trey believe and what they mock. Gdo01 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Although Parker and Stone are presumed to be libertarian, the show has not explicitly supported gay rights" gives the impression from the start that it's ambiguious which way a lot of their satire is leaning. It's not. It's quite obvious what they intend.

". In the episode "Follow That Egg!", gay marriage is deemed "too offensive" to people with religious values and it's suggested it should be re-designated as something else. In the end of this episode however, gays are shown as capable of raising children, and gay marriage is made legal in South Park."

This also makes it sound like it could lean either way. I just feel like the article is poorly worded in that respect and gives a poor representation of the actual feelings of Stone and Parker.

Using a word like "obvious" doesn't make it so. People see and hear what they want to, whether it be an opinion which agrees with their own so they feel justified, or an opinion which disagrees with their own so they can feel righteous in objecting. Matt and Trey intentionall stradle the fence on issues constantly, and people can interpret them the way they wish, but just because you think that it's "obvious" doesn't mean that everyone else is going to see it the same way. I've encountered people who think that it's "obvious" from the lyrics of They Might Be Giants that they're Christian, which is total bullshit (whether or not they're Christian, it's not an "obvious" factor in their lyrics). The article might be poorly worded, but I'd say you're too biased to be the one to "fix" it. Matt and Trey don't need you putting words in their mouths. - Ugliness Man 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

They definitely don't support transgender rights though, do they? Magic Pickle 03:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Population

Southpark seems to have around 4388 residents (see Chef goes nanners). Maybe that info can be crammed somewhere in.

Merging

I suggest that the following characters be merged. These characters are very minor and only appear in one or two episodes:

• Bart Simpson
• Big Gay Al
• Chef's Parents
• Crab People
• Damien
• Gobbles
• God
• Goth Kids
• Jesus
• Kyle Schwartz
• Mr. Derp
• Mr. Hankey
• Mrs. Claridge
• Ms. Ellen
• Saddam Hussein
• Santa Claus
• Satan
• Scott Tenorman
• Scott the Dick
• Skyler
• Starvin' Marvin
• Timmy's Parents
• Ugly Bob
• Visitors

Any comments/objections?--TBCTaLk?!? 17:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, no, but Mr.Hankey is a popular character and appeared in atleast 4 episodes. Jesus has also appeared in almost every episode of the first season, and hasen't been seen in a few seasons but he's definitly recurring. Saddam Hussein and Satan were two stars of the movie, which is pretty significant in my opinion.

there are so many more much oftener recurring characters--Lygophile 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mr. Conspiracy. Most of those characters only appear for a few seconds in one episode. --(trogga) 00:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but with a few exceptions. Mr. Hankey, Big Gay Al, and Starvin' Marvin are big enough characters to have their own pages. --DevilSavior 01:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Major Character Section Editing

A lot of the material presented for Cartman, Kenny, and to a lesser extent Butters, seems to be repetitive and superfluous. It seems even more unnecessary when you take in to account that each of these characters has their own article where most (if not all) of the information is presented again. How would you all feel about trimming down Cartman, Kenny, and Butter's sections to the size of Stan and Kyle's? Mapache 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page has gotten really long, so I'm archiving it.--TBCTaLk?!? 17:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Page needs a cleanup

There is a lot of redundant info here. There are a lot of lists and the whole article's quality degenerates as it goes on. It's weird how people worked hard to make list of South Park episodes a featured list (and a damn good one, too), but the main show's article is a mess. Just my opinion. - Zone46 01:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed - I think that the Controversies and Recurring Themes sections could be shorted to a few sentences about each topic. We don't need to explain whole episode plots (the pages about those episodes have that. Unless anyone has a reason why I shouldn't (or unless someone does it before I do), I will cut down the sections on vulgarity, Scientology, Catholicism, Islam, Political Issues, Gay Rights, Child Abuse, Animal Sexuality, Religion and Environment. Instead of rehashing whole episodes, I will have links to the pages on each episode. Hopefully, we could have a decent page, since for such a popular show, this page really sucks. WU03 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You are removing entire sections, not just trimming them down. That's not what you said you would be doing. CovenantD 04:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Top 100

"In March 2005, South Park hit the number three spot in the 100 Greatest Cartoons,"

An impressive feat, so I followed the reference and it cited "Channel 4". This seems very weak. I am new here -- brand new -- so new that my carpet still has that formaldehyde smell -- so I don't know how to do anything else but type in this here comment.

Channel 4 is a British TV channel that surveyed the British public for this poll.

North Park?

Is there a...North Park? I think it was mentioned somewhere....

It was mentioned in Summer Sucks I believe. --MutantMonkey (talk | work) 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Political bent of South Park

South Park's political bent seems not to be moderation or libertarianism, but nihilism; nothing really matters. That's why the show mocks liberals (and to a lesser extent, conservatives- especially religious conservatives), especially celebrities; the creators seem to believe there is nothing earnestly worth caring about, and those that do care passionately about anything are rubes or simpletons that can be taken apart by three children.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.249.136 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a suggestion for the article? This is not a discussion forum about the show. CovenantD 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Subject matter in South Park covers this. Cwolfsheep 04:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Conservatives, gay rights

"South Park Conservatives who hold ideas from extreme ends of the political spectrum, believing, for instance, that global warming is a myth while supporting gay rights."

In the recurring themes->political issues subsection, it says this. South Park _does_ support gay rights, so... AFAICS this should be changed, but I'm not sure to what... Anyway, you can check out "Follow the egg", for example... $Insertformulahere$

Colored photorealistic photo?

Yea, is the "photorealistic picture" supposed to be in color? I'm gonna leave it for now, but I'm pretty sure it never was in color before...71.192.228.21 19:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it was never in colour on the show, it was colourized by fans, there's probably a few different versions, varying in quality. - Ugliness Man 15:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

"The show is often regarded as a subtle politically right perspective of American culture and society, eventually influencing the novel South Park Conservatives, while also spawning the phrase South Park Republican". I'm not sure if this is too NPOV, also, "often regarded" is so inappropiate for such a controversial show. I'm not sure if I should revert it. Any opinions? -- Amenzix 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I support your revert. Key words: "OFTEN REGARDED" and "SUBTLE". These alone already spark NPOV concerns.--WaltCip 20:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Emmy Awards

Would it be too difficult to list the specific episodes nominated for Emmy awards on the main page?--MythicFox 09:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but the following episodes have been nominated: Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride, Chinpokomon, Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants, It's Christmas in Canada, Best Friends Forever, Trapped in the Closet. Watch37264 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah-hah. Well, there we go, then... that should be all of them.--MythicFox 07:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1st trivia entry

Shouldn't it be implimented in the Origins section? Moshe Gordon 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Irwin controversy removed?

I don't see anything about it on here. It was just deleted out of the blue. Seems a bit random. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.185.42 (talk • contribs)

It was deleted without reason by an IP user but at the same time the section was poorly written. The controversy section in Hell on Earth 2006 is concise and semi-cited. I would suggest transplanting that here or rewriting it somewhat and putting it here. Gdo01 23:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere is a cite given that anyone in Australia gives a monkey's about this. I'll kill the latest reference to this.Greglocock 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Canada

Someone NEEDS to put the flamming of Canada in the controversies section!

But it's not that controversial. I am a Canadian, and I don't know a single Canadian who has been actually offended, since it's all done in very obvious good fun.

What Kenny Says

There's a bit under the heading 'Music' that lists what Kenny, apparently, says. It says that 'With the exception of the latest line, all of these lines have been proven official in an interview with the creators', then it links to a source that appears to be just a fan site. Is this source really reliable?--Jcvamp 04:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Note that Wikipedia isn't a place for wild speculation; so you're right. --Orthologist 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bush Vs. Clinton

I changed the section where it said that Bush was ridiculed less frequently than Clinton. Clinton, by my count, appears twice- once in the Red Badge of Gayness and once in Bigger Longer & Uncut. George Bush is ridiculed about eight times in the series. I would argue that the creators spend more time on liberal/conservative issues rather than the presidents.

Also, in the same section, I removed a quote of Stone saying he hates conservatives but really hates liberals. I did this because the citation reffers to a biased story that does not cite its original source for the quote which means that it is a third party reference and taken out of context.

In retrospect, Clinton actually appears three times, counting the episode where Cartman's mom sleeps with him. I'm not a member, so could somebody make that change?

Opening song list

With so many people editing this article every day, I don't want to just go ahead and delete something like this for fear of pissing some people off, so I'll "open it for discussion". I think that the list of what Kenny "actually" says in the opening song should probably be trashed. For one thing, unless someone can link to an unambiguous confirmation from Matt & Trey, it's fan speculation. This is the case with pretty much every thing Kenny ever says on the show, I've seen countless fan-based websites with moronic "translations" of Kenny's dialogue, but it's all speculation, and I hardly see how such garbage belongs in this article. Second, I'm pretty damn sure that Timmy doesn't say "live a lie". He's a spazz with a speech impediment, and I don't think that part is actually words, it's probably just an exclamation of some sort half-way between "yeah yeah" and "la la". Not only does "live a lie" not make very much sense (unless you're a conspiracy theorist/nutjob), but it's just not something that Timmy would say. So maybe we should take votes on this or something... should the list be deleted, and if not, should Timmy's part be edited to something that resembles reality? - Ugliness Man 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed

In the theme song Kenny actually says:

Season 1 to 2 (Original Theme): "I like girls with big fat titties, I like girls with big vaginas."

Season 3 to 5 (Season 3 Re-Recorded Theme & Fourth Grade Theme): "I have got a 10-inch penis. Use your mouth to help me clean it".

Season 6: (Note: Kenny has been replaced by Timmy) "Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, live a lie Timmy!"

Season 7 to Season 10A and syndication: "Someday I'll be old enough to stick my dick up Britney's butt".

Season 10B : "I would like to smell your pussy, clean it with my finger for you". Backwards: "Suck my penis, Suck my penis, Suck my penis, Suck my penis".

With the exception of the latest line, all of these lines have been proven official in an interview with the creators.

Please provide a better reference i couldnt find anything their (Gnevin 13:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Just see here: https://www.spscriptorium.com/SPinfo/OCsecrets.htm Seb662 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

One fan site would harldy pass WP:Source or WP:Cite need something more main stream (Gnevin 19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Lower East Side?

I removed the following text from the character descriptions for Kenny:

"Kenny comes from a poverty-stricken family in South Park's equivalent of New York City's pre-gentrified Lower East Side."

I don't think there's any evidence that indicates "the poor part of South Park" is supposed to be modeled after the Lower East side, I honestly don't know where idea comes from, but it's gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.167.106.88 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Jew is more of a nationality, not race

In: "He hates Cartman because of his constant ridiculing of his faith and race and..." changed race to nationality since Jew is not a description of race. European Jews are white, Ethiopian Jews are black and so on. Nationality isn't the best word, either since American Jews are "American" by nationality but still better than race.

RV as per [4] are a race (Gnevin 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

As a Jew myself, I consider Judaism to be more of a culture than a race. It is definitely NOT a nationality. American, Canadian, British, French, etc, are nationalities. The closest thing to a Jewish nationality would be Israeli. Race isn't a bad classification. It just depends on how you define race...

Judaism is a religion, that's it. Israeli is a nationality. Kyle's race would be caucasian (white), so Cartman can't hate Kyle for his race unless he hates his own race. TJ Spyke 07:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Judaism is actually very complicated. Traditionally Jews are expected to see Judaism as a race. By the original Jewish customs, you are considered Jewish specifically if your mother is Jewish. It is also for this reason that Judaism is not proselytized. However, some denominations of Judaism allow for conversion, treating Judaism more as a religion. The more orthodox conversion rites are intended to make the convert a member of the race, the more liberal rites more geared toward a religious conversion. Thus, to define Judaism rigidly as only race, only religion or only culture would be equally incorrect.

Equally incorrect would be to state unequivocally that Judaism is not a race. -Gdewar 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, caucasian refers to someone from the Caucasus region, using it to mean "white" people is an American misuse. Cheers. L0b0t 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated categories should be removed

Namely, "Black comedy" and "LGBT-related television programs". Neither of the two fit under this article. --66.227.194.89 05:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Albums

I'm not finding it in the article, but didn't South Park generate some albums early on? I recall buying Chef Aid and that Christmas album sometime around the 1999-2001 time period. Shouldn't there be a list of noteworthy spinoff media, or a mention of the most significant releases? -Timvasquez 04:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the "criticism" section?

Title

Different screencap for intro screen?

The current one has Mohammed in a red box. I know it's not very visible in the article, but to preserve formalities and prevent it from looking gaudy, methinks it should be replaced. Maybe I'm just being a prude about this, but it's just irking me a bit. eszett^talk 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First sentance

The opening sentance of the article "Southpark is about four -foul mouthed- fourth grade school boys" struck me as needing adjustment, in the form of the "foul mouthed" section being removed. I would argue that referring to the characters as foul-mouthed in the opening sentance is superfluous, considering that a good deal of the rest of the article is devoted to analyzing the vulgarity of the show (and additionally, the vulgarity of the central characters is not by any means atypical for boys in that age group). In addition, are the characters really fourth-graders? IIRC, they're supposed to be 8 years old, Mr. Garrison was identified as a teacher of third grade, and fourth graders are typically 9-10 years of age. I could be wrong though, on that point, so I didn't change it.

-wgw2024

The characters are in the third grade up until season 4 episode 11. From then on the boys are in the forth grade.80.47.111.117 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Gay vs. Transgender (vs. Transsexual)

These are two completely different things. Right now, the transgender episode is just tossed into the middle of the gay episodes. Not only are they totally different identities, Matt and Trey seem to be in full support of gay rights and completely against transgender rights. In any case, I'm taking the transgender sentence out and giving it its own heading.Rglong 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm actually it would be more accurate to say transsexual rights, rather than transgender, because the episode in question specifically deals with people altering their sex through surgery (transsexual), whereas the word transgender is more of an umbrella term for anyone who transcends traditional gender norms, and could include drag queens and heterosexual cross dressers.Rglong 05:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

List of celebrities spoofed in South Park or Category: Celebrities spoofed in South Park

This would be an interesting article, listing the celebrities who have been spoofed in the show, the episode they were spoofed in and maybe their voice actors. Do you think it would be important? YuckieDuck 18:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, and the article would probably be deleted. TJ Spyke 07:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the show criticizes antitheistic views far more intensively than atheist. I can't remember an episode which mocks atheists, and Go God Go and Red Hot Catholic Love express disdain for antitheistic views, such as the belief that the world would be better without religion. Being an atheist, and not an antitheist, myself, I have never been opposed to any form of religious belief, and I know that South Park doesn't rip on anyone's opinions, unless there's an aparent reason. --Orthologist 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Science fiction

I had put the article in the Science fiction television series category, but this has been contested. This series is as much Science Fiction as it is satire - time travel, extra-terrestrials, space travel, talking animals, frequent trips to hell/heaven/the underworld, outlandish science and inventions, and many more staples of conventional science fiction all frequently form the center of many of the episode's stories. As such, it should be categorized as science fiction. Discuss. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - the series satirizes countless genres and convetions, that doesn't put it in any of those categories. Sure, sci-fi has been lampooned quite often, but that's because it is a very broad genre and has hundreds of potential targets. The musical satirist Weird Al has performed over a half-dozen different rap songs, but he doesn't belong in any rap category. - Ugliness Man 07:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that South Park has not lampooned scifi - science fiction story elements have played a major aspect of many of the stories from episode one. And the Weird Al analogy doesn't work - proportionally South Park has had more science fiction based episodes (and more pivotal ones at that) than Weird Al has had rap songs. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

All analogies are flawed because you're comparing two different things, I was simply using it to illustrate a point. Yes, South Park has had many sci-fi elements in many episodes, but there have also been many episodes without any sci-fi elements at all, episodes where it's simply kids in a Colorado hick town trying to get by, with no aliens or time-travel or monsters or anything else like that, and "proportion" does not cancel that out. The episodes with sci-fi elements don't make it a sci-fi show any more than than the many humorous episodes of DS9 make that show a comedy (another inherently flawed analogy that you will no doubt nitpick). And whether or not sci-fi elements "have played a major aspect" in the plots of a handful of specific episodes does not mean that "South Park has not lampooned scifi". It has, many times. - Ugliness Man 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian Holiday season?

"The group claimed a victory when Comedy Central voluntarily canceled a scheduled airing of the episode which coincided with the Christian holiday season" - What does this mean? what is the "christian holidya season? - There are dozens and dozens of holy-days in the Christian calender? Does it mean christmas? - if so, then it should say as such, as it is not referred to as "holidays" anywhere outside of the united states, and to refer to it as "holidays" is innaccurate if not incorrect.

Musical section

The musical section could use some cleanup, maybe converting the broken paragraph and sentences into a list of episodes with cartman singing? Shad0w 06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

First sentance

The opening sentance of the article "Southpark is about four fourth grade school boys" struck me as needing adjustment, in the form of the "foul mouthed" section being removed. I would argue that referring to the characters as foul-mouthed in the opening sentance is superfluous, considering that a good deal of the rest of the article is devoted to analyzing the vulgarity of the show (and additionally, the vulgarity of the central characters is not by any means atypical for boys in that age group). In addition, are the characters really fourth-graders? IIRC, they're supposed to be 8 years old, Mr. Garrison was identified as a teacher of third grade, and fourth graders are typically 9-10 years of age. I could be wrong though, on that point, so I didn't change it.

-wgw2024

The characters are in the third grade up until season 4 episode 11. From then on the boys are in the forth grade.80.47.111.117 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

So, I know of this website where you can watch any SP episode ever made. You can even watch the movie and lots of bonus stuff. Would it be appropriate to add it into the external links section? I'm not sure. Irish rover 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be an obvious copyright violation, very much not appropriate. - Ugliness Man 07:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually the site that he's probably referring to doesn't actually host the files, they just link to them. It's not illegal, at least i don't think there has been any legal case about that. (Just like i never heard about any Bittorent tracker being shut down in the USA by court). But sure, since everything is controlled by the media anyway, not adding the link would probably be the right choice. Ran4 01:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The site consists of many youtube, myspace video, and many other video hosting sites. Irish rover 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt Stone and Trey Parker have said that they don't care if their episodes are viewed on the Internet. However, it would be best if we didn't link to it.--Orthologist 09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Too Serious

The author(s) of this article have completely missed the point of South Park and all of Parker/Stone's work: To make fun of as many people, cultures, and societies as possible in as many ways as possible. It should be fairly obvious to any viewer of South Park that Matt and Trey are not trying to make statements about society or express their religious beliefs (as if they have any.) These guys are all about the humor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.166.94.171 (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

There are many problems with this statement, but I'll break it down into the two that immediately come to mind:

• First of all, you are stating an opinion, your personal interpretation of their intentions. You can use the word "obvious", but what that really means is that that's how you interpret it, and you think that anyone who feels differently is "wrong". That's not how it works in the real world. If you want to debate a point of fact, please do, but one lone voice opposing general consensus isn't going to make much of an impression, especially when that lone voice can't spell "serious".
• Second, your position has been contradicted by statements made by Matt and Trey themselves. It's true that they've expressed concern that some of their material is taken more seriously than intended, but they have also confirmed a variety of political and religious views they hold personally, and also confirmed the influence these views have had on their stories, as well as the resulting discussion they hoped would come from people reacting to the episodes.

If you have a citeable source that says that Matt and Trey have plainly stated that none of their subject matter is to be taken seriously, please cite it. However, your personal opinion is not a citeable source, and at this point should have no direct effect on this article. - Ugliness Man 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"To make fun of as many people, cultures, and societies as possible in as many ways as possible." - Actually, they say the exact opposite of this statement in the "Going Down To South Park" special that airs from time to time. - Whoa2000 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is I agree too serious and fucking retarded. It's the kind of in depth analysis a loser cunt university student would give a program. You've focussed on the shit issues of south park like scientology and how they make fun of religion and the word "satire" has no place on this page.

First off, hostility and attacks are not needed whatsoever here. Secondly, take the program with a grain of salt; it's not the real world. It's meant to be entertaining and fun. When you can't get beyond that, you've got to step back a little bit and recognize what's wrong. Jmlk17 09:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Freedom

I think that we could include the fact that the children in the show have a large amount of freedom in travelling. They seem to be able to go wherever thay want, in episodes such as Cartoon Wars and The Passion of the Jew, without any interference by their parents. This is quite different from neglect, as, even though the kids care for the children more or less, the kids never seem to ask them for permission to go to another town or city and the parents never seem to prohibit them to do it or even know about it.--Orthologist 19:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The parents in South Park are incompetent half of the time. I bet that they don't even know their kids are gone half the time.Kritish5951 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Orthologist, you, uh, do realize that this is a cartoon, right? Why then should anyone include the fact that these characters can travel freely without interference from their parents?

It is a cartoon, but in most adult cartoons, children characters don't have this ability; they're constantly supervised by their parents (The Simpsons). Also, please sign your comments.--Orthologist 09:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is simply a cartoon. The creators have stated time and time again that they aren't too concerned with the tiny details of the cartoon; they just want to entertain. Jmlk17 08:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresenting Catholics

Repeatedly, the area documenting South Park's misrepresentation of Roman Catholic views on Evolution has been altered. Claiming that the reference was to show the views "of several Catholics" is not supported by fact and is not NPOV. The Catholic Church has an official position, which is documented, the show's transcript, which is also a matter of provable fact, contradicts it. The show could have used a character from a Bible-literalist denomination. It did not.

24.215.145.136 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has accused South Park of being a documentary. Its entertainment and an adult cartoon. It has no responsibility to the Catholic Church, or any other church for that matter. Dman727 14:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you go back and read the same area, it has been pointed out that Matt and Trey make a very big deal about the accuracy of their portrayls of religious beliefs. That generally would lead most people to believe that their portayals of all religions are accurate parody. Ask any ten avid South Park fans where they learned most of what they know about Mormonism and Scientology. Nine will say - "South Park"

Btw, one thing I wish I could write in the article but it is in no way NPOV. The recent portrayal of Bill Donohue of the Catholic League was dead on 100% true. Bill Donohue constantly shows up on news programs representing the whole Catholic Church, when in fact, he is NOT in step with most Catholics and often not even the Pope. So right there is an example where South Park is closer to reality that the "serious" media.24.215.145.136 09:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, however its not really relevant. It's still an adult cartoon and not a documentary. While the film makers may choose to be as accurate as possible, their first priority if they wish to continue is to entertain. No serious person who wants to learn about any religion turns to South Park first as their primary source. Sure many may first learn about a religion through a show like this (i.e. Scientolgy), its incidental to the entertainment aspect. Dman727

The show is meant for entertainment purposes only...anyone trying to learn about religion or any aspect of it should probably research elsewhere. Jmlk17 21:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

whats

whats the leaders of the 6 grades name

hamburger dan

Are you asking what the name of the little 6th grader gang is? Jmlk17 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism and Judaism

I don't think that in the controversy section, Mormonism and Judaism should be grouped together. Mormons were devoted only one episode that mocked them(and were actually given a quite flattering representation in another), while as Jews are lampooned (even if it is just a throw-away comment by Cartman) in every single episode. Also, how is it considered controversy if the churches have not even issued statements?Kman34 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Kman34

A controversy doesn't just become a controversy the moment a church of some religon makes a comment on it. Yes it's true that Kyle is insulted regularily on South Park, but Mormonism is made fun of mulitple times, as everyone is dissapointed and all "aww" when they are told that "the correct religon was...Mormonism" in the episode Do the Handicapped Go to Hell? and Mormonism is also portrayed in the episodes sequel, Probably. In both cases, Mormonists are sort of ridiculed as being the "only" way to God and being overly friendly and polite, so you can't just say that they were only mocked in one episode when they weren't.

On a side note and also partially in answer to the claim that "South Park shouldn't be taken as anything more than shock and/or potty humor", Trey Parker and Matt Stone make fun of celebrities or famous people that piss them off all the time on South Park. Princess Diana and Gandhi are in Hell, Phil Collins is portrayed as being as being manipulative and talentless, etc, etc. Basically they find a fault in everyone and rip on it, that's what South Park is about. I quote an extended interview with Trey from the PBS program The Charlie Rose Show, in which a section of the interview was given in the book "South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today" as edited by Robert Arp. Trey was on the show with Matt, and he proclaimed "What we say with the show is not anything new, but I think it's something that is great to put out there. It is that the people screaming on this side and the people screaming on that side are the same people, and it's OK to be someone in the middle, laughing at both of them." Captain N 1:44 PM, April 12th, 2007 (EST)

I Agree with you that "a controversy doesn't just become a controversy the moment a church of some religion makes a comment on it", but the problem is, there was NO controversy at all with All About Mormons (most Mormons love the depiction, as it is hilariously true). Unless your definition of controversy is that it hurt one member of the Church's feelings, no controversy has occured as a result. No one ever protested it, there was no public outcry, etc., and so including it in this section is just plain stupid. Perhaps it would fit into a "Religions parodied in South Park" category, but it certainly does not fit here. Enlighten me with your rationale for including it in said section, perhaps you can shed some light.Kman3406:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The section on Judaism seriously needs splitting from Mormonism and expanding. Anti-semitic jokes are a big part of South Park and this needs discussion about how it can be interpreted in a satirical sense and what the creators have said about this - and they have commented, e.g. on the DVD. Matt Stone mother was also Jewish which gives an insight into the jokes. If you do not think there has been a large controversy over this (I doubt it, but...), as per Kman above, then it can be taken out of the controversy section, but IMHO it must be discussed. Thanks. Singhyuk 05:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it really? I mean I am not fully convinced that the Jewish issue in South Park is truly a controversy. I realize the Scientology and Mormon episodes were big, but that's because they completely made fun hardcore of those respective religions, while the Jewish jokes are often just limited to one-liners. Jmlk17 07:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Scientology episode was a big deal because it upset the Scientologist community (i.e. departure of Isaac Hayes, Tom Cruise refusing to promote MI:III if it was shown again in re-runs, etc.). The Mormon episode was NOT big because reaction was extremely mellow and was actually quite well received by the LDS community. This is because Trapped in the Closet showed all Scientologists as crazy or greedy, and CLEARLY stated that Scientology is a "big, fat, global scam." All about Mormons depicted all of the odder Mormon beliefs in a humorous context, but also showed Mormons as good, nice people (albeit a little too nice sometimes) with strong family ties. This is why there was no controversy. All of this, however is just more reason as to why Judaism and Mormonism should not be grouped together. If Mormonism is to be grouped with anything in this section (I personally feel that it does not belong in this section at all), it should be Scientology, because the episode and satire format is similar, as is somewhat stated by Jmlk17 above. 72.8.113.144 22:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Kman34

Two more seasons?!?

Uh, some guy put "TWO more seasons are planned, with an option of renewal at the end of season 12." I'll fix this... Jay B. 22:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this was before the 11th season started. Jmlk17 21:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Child abuse and neglect

odd, i see no mention of Ike and his teacher in here yet...· Lygophile has spoken 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would you? Or am I missing something here...Jmlk17 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy features Ike having a relationship with his teacher. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk &#149; Contribs)} 11:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand and know the episode, but the show is satire; I don't think child abuse and neglect play a big issue. Jmlk17 23:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

even though the rhetoric was purely about sexdiscriminatory mentality about seks, the episode revolves around an obvious case of child abuse. doesnt that require it be added?· Lygophile has spoken 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suppose so :) Jmlk17 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Butters'_Very_Own_Episode is quite full of child abuse, too. ~~

That is very true. Jmlk17 08:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

so does the Return of Chef· Lygophile has spoken 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

and then theres that time when butters was beat up by his parents by cartmens making, whilst he watched from just outside the door with popcorn and soda· Lygophile has spoken 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. There is child abuse in the show, but should it become a section of considerable information or not, that is the question. Jmlk17 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

well as it is (though the section is moved) it does state the very trivial occurence of butters receiving annilingus from his uncle. i think the section needs to say that childabuse is often used for purpose of making a point unrelated to childabuse, such as in Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy and The Return of Chef. and a little note about how frequent referals to childabuse occur in many different episode, such as butters mom trying to kill him, butters getting beat up by his parents, butters being molested by his uncle, the occasional psychological abuse of butters by his parents, butters parents trying to sell him to Paris Hilton (poor butters..), the awesemo incedent with the guy that wants to have sex with cartmen thinking he's a robot, cartmen sucking semen out of a "hose" and giving handjobs to uhm, that acter, the guy that talks to jimmy about his spontanous eractions and wants to make out with him....etc. these 'little' incedents occur so much in the series, it should be mentioned in a paragraph· Lygophile has spoken 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you for pointing out the instances. I want to make it clear that I am not saying we shouldn't have a section for it. What I was previously stating is that I did not believe it was a central theme. It appears that it is a minor theme, more of a random, background issue that occurs at times to certain characters. I mean, I don't believe Stan, nor Kyle have had any episode mention anything of sexual abuse about them in it. I dunno...either way, a small section is probably not a bad idea. Jmlk17 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah agreed. the section allready exists though, it just needs a paragraph in it, instead of only a bit of it being spread out throughout the section. im just too lazy....but ill guess ill give it a go· Lygophile has spoken 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol alright. I'll help out a bit later on. Jmlk17 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Main characters

The page lists the obvious four (Cartmen, Kenny, Kyle and Stan), but it also lists Butters. Now, this is arguably true since Butters was a "fourth friend" after Kenny's season-long death. However, so we Tweek, yet Tweek is not listed. Should Tweek's info be moved to this section? If not, then I think it's fair to remove Butters. Geeky Randy 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to assume that there are only FOUR main characters. Cartman, Kyle, Stan, and Kenny have been the four main since the shows inception. Thus, even though Kenny spent about a season "dead", his return has given him the stature again. Butters is more than a minor characters, but I think he is far from "main". Jmlk17 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I have found a middle ground here. While I can see and partially agree that the MAIN characters should be the original four, Butters is too big to be a secondary character. Instead we should classify characters as MAJOR and MINOR characters. Therefor the original 4 are both major and main charatcers. So I propose we change the title listing from MAIN to Major characters that way it stays true to the nature of the show. (Thrawny 14:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

That would work for me. Tweeks Coffee 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good deal. Jmlk17 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, Editors.

I'm still unsure about the bureacracy of editing pages, but I removed a piece of the article that appears to be nothing more than vandalism. The word "nigger" was randomly inserted as a heading, with absolutely no reference. It was above the section describing minor characters. I may use the rest of my afternoon browsing old versions of the page to find the user who made that change in the first place. --le petite robot 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That was done by the editor before you. A simple act of vandalism, nothing to get too worried about. Tweeks Coffee 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Get used to that around here...far too many random acts of vandalism. Tweeks Coffee is right though" nothing to get all worked up about. That's why we have undo and reverts. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The connection between Cartoon Wars and the Scientology Episode

There is no denying the connection that exists between the Scientology Episode and the two part Cartoon Wars episode. "Trapped in the Closet" aired at the end of season 9 (episode 12). Then episodes 3 and 4 of season 10 were called Cartoon Wars. The episode on Scientology was pulled in from its re-run in the US, and British stations pulled the episode. The entire episode (Cartoon Wars) is devoted to Catman getting an episode of Family Guy pulled because it is too controversial for TV. Alternately, Kyle tries to stop Cartman by arguing that free speech is important and a TV show should leave no topic untouched no matter what. Mohammed's (representing the muslim religion) appearance on Family Guy (on South Park) clearly reflects the controversial view of the scientology religion in Trapped in the Closet. In the same way Family Guy is in this case an allegory for South Park. To call this obvious statement about one episode reflecting the views of the producers toward people that want to remove their show as "nonsense and overall junk" shows ignorance about the history of the show and someone who hasn't watch the two episodes. YOU ARE RETARDED for not seeing this obvious link between reality and these two particular episodes of South Park. Why don't you actually try watching the episodes of South Park before dismissing an obvious fact about the episodes as "nonsense and overall junk". Yes I am talking to you Jmlk17!!! JSP - UOS, TN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.97.130.50 (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Dude, all my issue was is the fact you kept JAMMING it onto the article page where it doesn't belong. And settle down; if you have an issue with me, do it on my talk page, not an article talk page next time. Jmlk17 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A) That's your interpretation, not necessarily the views of Matt and Trey. B) Cartoon wars was about the censoring of Mohammed and the outcry from the Danish cartoons. C) It's best not to call people names and dismiss their opinions because they don't match your views. Tweeks Coffee 12:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tweeks, Coffee, that is great that you know what interpretations are, but it does not help this particular discussion. What I want to know: Do you, Tweeks Coffee, deny all validity of this interpretation? It seems like there is a myriad of valid evidence in the show for this particular interpretation. (i.e. Stan's mention in part to that he was once part of a cult, the family guy episode and the south park episode where both two parts likening them to each other, the use of the idea of freedom of speech within cartoons, and pulling the episode reflects the episode that South Park was forced to pull in real life) And as for the Danish cartoon thing ... Many South Park shows have content that can be used to critique a variety of different things in our post modern era. I think that trying to tie it down to "the outcry from the Danish cartoons" might be a bit short-sighted. What I would like to see, if you dismiss this interpretation, is evidence that it is false. While upholding its validity will not necessarily show that this is an important interpretation of this episode, it will, however show that further steps need to be taken to prove that it indeeds holds some merit. Granted it might take no less then a letter from Matt and Trey themselves to actually convience you, but I would be willing to look into it, if you will.

I provide this excerpt from the Rolling Stone interview: "Stone is the guy who always argues with the network while Parker snickers on the sidelines -- he doesn't like confrontation. They don't argue much with Comedy Central, but the knives came out in April 2006 over a planned episode in the face of worldwide riots sparked by the depiction of the Islamic prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper cartoon, which is considered sacrilegious by Islamic law. Stone and Parker wanted to show the image anyway. "I really felt we had to do this," says Stone. "I know I'm a total pussy living a privileged life on the west side of Los Angeles while soldiers and policemen protect me so I can say things like 'fudge-packing faggot' on my television show, but this was our duty. Comedy Central wussed out because they thought their offices on 57th Street in Manhattan were going to get bombed." Says Comedy Central president Doug Herzog, "The guys were coming at us all week with questions like, 'Can we show some of Mohammed? Can his turban be showing? Can part of his turban be showing?' It was, quite frankly, retarded. But did we overreact by not showing the picture? Absolutely. At the time, nobody was ready to take the chance." You can find the article in it's entirety here. Yes, they made a couple mentions of the Scientology controversy, but that was by no means the focus of the episode. Tweeks Coffee 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your internet/magazine source. It carries a lot of merit, because it has quotes from Matt and Trey. I don't think that it is the whole story, however, and after reading the entire article that you quoted from, it is appearent that "Cartoon Wars" is not the focus of this article. The writer, Vanessa Grigoriadis, probably did not have space in his article to include this theme from the episode. As I did not have a source but merely my own thought on this, I ran a Google search, and this article came up. I am not the only one that thinks this show is related to the scientology episode, and I have emailed the author of this site, Eric Goldman, for further sources (hopefully a more official source) that substanciate his view. Just the way that you criticize my interpretation, your view is also just an interpretation that you support with an article that doesn't even focus on the episode itself. Rather it focuses on Matt and Trey, and it merely references this episode briefly. Using dismissive statement such as, "that was by no means the focus of the episode," when you hardly have a good source yourself is not what wikipedia is about. 152.97.200.81 20:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC) JYW UoS

An interview with Matt and Trey in Rolling Stone magazine isn't credible? What you provided would hardly be called an article. it's a review from a person running a blog on IGN, certainly nothing citable. I'm not categorically denying your claims, but without any sources it's merely speculation. The fact is, this episode made blanket statements about censorship, which does include the censoring of their own show. I don't have to disprove your claims, you have to prove them. I've provided a source for the basis that the Mohammed cartoon controversy was the inspiration, my job is done. Tweeks Coffee 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as my source, Rolling Stone easily fits into the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more info. Tweeks Coffee 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, kind of misread you there. Here's an article specifically talking about the episode and the controversy around it. Tweeks Coffee 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for being so quick to criticize, but you did realize your mistake. Make sure to always read closely. I like the article you just posted. It does make it sound as if there is a seperation between the two events, but as far as I am concerned nothing is settled until I hear back from Eric Goldman. You never know; he might have a really great source that we are not considering. I will continue this discussion at that point. JYW UoS 152.97.200.81 21:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

its so good

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

its so funny

people must see that its absalutly hillarious, mabye not for some but for others, it just cracks me up! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.193.60 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is a great show. Jmlk17 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Online episodes

This should be removed, the websites/links are unofficial and we should not promote free downloading, viewing etc. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

I've deleted it several times, but the user keeps adding the link(s). He was reported to WP:AIV, and is currently blocked, so we shall see what happens after the block expires. Jmlk17 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Season 11 - 2nd Half?

The main article claims the 2nd half of the 11th season will start Wednesday, October 3, 2007, at 8:00 a.m. Does this make sense that it will resume at 8:00am? What's the significance of that time? New episodes typically air at 10:00pm (EST). -David White 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's edited correctly now. Jmlk17 03:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as long

SP was tagged as being long, so I made several sections into subarticles, thus, summarizing them here. hmwithtalk 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good...thank you! Jmlk17 05:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2000?

I've already asked this in the episode list discussion page, but figured I'd have a better chance of getting a response here... has there ever been an official explanation of why the first 4 episodes of season 4 have the year 2000 tagged onto the episode titles? - Ugliness Man 05:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it was already responded to on the other page. Jmlk17 10:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, lol, I may as well answer it here as well. The season started off at the beginning of the year 2000, when everything was "2000" this and "2000" that, and I believe the writers wanted to just add a little subtle joke into the titles of the episodes. Jmlk17 10:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"belies his baser motivations"

say what?· Lygophile has spoken 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, the hell does that mean? 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlk17 (talk • contribs)

my question exactly. its halfway in the section music· Lygophile has spoken 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Animation

There is something very unique about south park.Because of the style of animation, it is actually possible to have an episode of south park in an .svg animation, which is a file format that allows for unlimited up-conversion of images and animation but only in a way of simple shapes,and since south park is already a somewhat brick style animation, you could theoretically up-convert it to high definition using the .svg format and it would look just like that was the normal resolution. Rodrigue 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Also, computer episodes can readily be made available in smaller size files (such as .rm), instead of the much-larger .mpg, .avi, or .mpeg. I think that's a big reason the show has garnered such a cult following on the internet. Jmlk17 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Turd Ferguson

This is from the Characters section. I don't recall this at all.

One of the most popular recent additions to the show's offbeat cast of characters is a Humpty-Dumpty inspired, big-headed drug addict named Turd Ferguson. In the season finale of the 11th season he stuffed Kenny into a crack pipe and smoked him with Towelie. Turd Ferguson was inspired by Sheri Dunn, who is possibly the devil.

--DMW 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Say what you will, but that is actually pretty funny.

-Terd Ferguson was a name that Burt Reynolds (played by Norm MacDonald) used in a SNL Celebrity Jeopardy skit.

71.71.203.235 01:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Production

I've noticed that their isn't really too much information about the actual production of episodes on the main south park page. So I suggest a "Production" subform (with "animation Style" being part of it). I have a few links to actual info about the production of the show (mainly the writing of the episodes). Though i'm not very good at writing articles yet. So if anybody else thinks this is a good idea, i'd be happy to give you the links, that way somebody else could add the info to the main page. But if nobody is interested I will do so myself, and hopefully it will be edited to perfection.--Swellman 02:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

IKE=.....

Anyone notice that the name "Ike" is similar to the ethnic slur called "kike". Should I add that in triva.

No, even if that were relevant to anything, it isn't trivia. Ike is Canadian, not Jewish. Also, see Wikipedia's policy on trivia. --DMW 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4