Talk:South Park: Difference between revisions

Archives
Archive 1: 2003 - June 3, 2006 Archive 2: June 4, 2006 - March 8, 2007 Archive 3: March-July 2007

first sentence

both commas are unnecessary. although the first one could go either way (preference), the second one is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.237.101 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC) south park is a real town by the way it looks somewhat like they have portrayed it except for the movie theater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.164.226 (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Humble folks without temptation" or "Homo folks without temptation"

In the opening song, what is beaing said? Homo folks without temptation makes more sense with the whole south park context.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't

~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's humble. Trust me. нмŵוτнτ 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, definitely "humble". :) Jmlk17 23:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

goofs

get rid of all the goofs from all the epidodes. no legit encylopedia has goofs (or trivia for that matter). also most goofs i have read have been posted by people who do not understand humor, and thus see so many goofs in the episodes. if you dont understand humor dont post south park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.12.135 (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC) i like it in its very interesting

Incited the wrath of the real Jennifer Lopez?

That part of the article is vague, is it referring to the show itself or is it referring to the actual actress getting angry at the south park creators? I am assuming the later (not the first time this has happened with the south park duo) and am trying to identify a source of info if that is true, but some admin here keeps reverting my edit thinking it is vandalism when it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.60.21 (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure where the confusion really stems from. Can it really be construed that the real Lopez was upset? Jmlk17 07:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

South Park Emmy nomination

"Make Love,Not Warcraft" has been nominated for an emmy. Click here: http://www.emmys.tv/awards/2007pt/nominations.php It should be mentioned in the article.--Swellman 18:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Seasons.

A recent edit stated that seasons shouldn't be capitalized. I think this is one of those things that isn't exactly a hardfast rule that must be obeyed at all times. Like the difference between "gray" and "grey", there is some... er... grey area, and consistency is more important than any individual guideline. Months are capitalized. Eras such as the Bronze Age or the Jurassic Period are usually capitalized. Some grammatical conventions allow for capitalized season names. What's important is to apply one rule or the other to all instances of season names in the article. Which of those two rules gets applied is of little consequence. - Ugliness Man 06:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that, since we are talking about a television show, I should clarify for the sake of those who don't want to go look at the edit... when I say "seasons", I'm referring to Spring, Summer, Autumn (Fall), and Winter, not Season 1, Season 2, etc. - Ugliness Man 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Production software...?

Apple's profile page of South Park mentions nothing about CorelDraw.

[1]

Losing to Phil Collins

In awards: "fully expecting to lose, just not to him." [citation needed]

This was said by Trey in the commentary to the episode in the fourth season DVD release.  :) 71.127.95.182 09:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Region 2 dvd releases

The season 5 region 2 dvd set is set to be released later this month as stated on SouthParkstudios. http://www.southparkstudios.com/--Swellman 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

George Clooney

I remember when the original 5 minute short landed on the internet months before the show even started, and the word then was that it was created as a Christmas card for George Clooney, yet this article makes no mention of that and actually states otherwise. Can someone clarify for the record? Fermentor 07:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The history given in the article is the version that I've heard from literally dozens of sources. I never heard the George Clooney story, and as far as I know he had nothing to do with South Park until episode 4. I don't know how much clarification we can provide, I'd suggest you either talk to whoever told you this, or do some Google searches, because at this point it's a completely unverified "I once heard this thing that nobody else seems to remember". - Ugliness Man 08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. I heard it on Undernet when the video first made the rounds. I don't live in a cave anymore, so I don't frequent IRC servers and cannot refer to those who made the claims. But believe me, the George Clooney story definitely made the rounds and I remember it being referenced many times. This was before there was even a show, and well before there was a fourth episode. If you can provide me with a link that says otherwise I will be satisfied, but for now I linger in pop culture limbo. Fermentor 23:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't created for George Clooney. He was somewhat involved though. He helped spread popularity of it, hence why he was later featured in an episode.--Swellman 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Awkward sounding line

"Prior to season four, the main characters of the show were four third grade students (often called "the boys" when as a group for easier reference): Stanley "Stan" Marsh, Kyle Broflovski, Eric Theodore Cartman and Kenneth "Kenny" McCormick. There are many recurring characters on the show, including the boys' families, school staff, other students such as Leopold "Butters" Stotch, Chef, Mr. Hankey, Towelie, Jesus, and Satan. There are also many other minor characters and one-off characters."

It seems as if butters, Chef, Towelie et al. are students at the school. What's the best way to fix this? Arthurian Legend 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think I got it, how about instead of saying "including the boys' families, school staff, other students", we omit that and just say "there are many recurring characters on the show, such as" and then list them? They all link to minor characters anyway. SpartanMurph117 20:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Company inserting advertisement in 'History'?

I fail to see why the fact that South Park is being dubbed into Irish is worthy of its own mention in the History section - as it is currently seen in several non-English speaking countries at the least ('Common Rating' sidebar notes Germany and Japan among others) the addition of Irish is not unique enough to merit its own mention. Perhaps a section on South Park non-English versions might be worthwhile, but the mention of the Irish dub as well as the company name seems very much out of place. I'm removing it. -UB 71.119.253.53 08:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree here. Jmlk17 08:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 'Irish' is even the right term. Is it 'Gaelic'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roscoestl (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons of SP controversy

I'm reading the article and it's quite funny in making South Park look like being written by someone like Voltaire. There's so much fuss about SP's "statements" on gay rights, religion, racism... censorship... environment... and with all these remarks, how dealing with these themes annoy the bad, conservative, closed-minded people in America. For someone who's never seen this cartoon it seems like every episode is a miniature essay. It should be mentioned somewhere, that one of the reasons of South Park controversy is its constant and vulgar depiction of stools and vomiting (with varying size, source and constitution), exploding heads and other fatal injuries and of course the neverending attributions to menstruation, anal sex and dildos with numerous graphical examples. Ay?

The article is extremely biased... Llnoba 13:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget... be bold and try and help fix it :). Jmlk17 07:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. He is clearly a South Park fan. 69.18.107.231 (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to say that Matt Stone and Trey Parker draw controversie's for publicity. Please comment. 69.18.107.48 (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised. Jmlk17 10:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But we can't say that without citing a reliable source. -- Donald Albury 18:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well theres not realy a unbiased source to rely on, I mean its not like theyre going to come out and admit to it, but in my opinion, I just cant see them as artist's. Theyre more like exploitation directors. Please Comment. 69.18.107.85 (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please keep with the spirit of the notice at the top of the page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Park article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." This page is not a forum or blog for expressing personal opinions about the motives of the directors. -- Donald Albury 14:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Contract extension to 15 seasons

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/business/media/27south.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

From the New York Times:

"The deal, signed Friday, begins with a three-year extension of the show and its creators’ contracts through a 15th season, in the year 2011, and gives Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker sizable raises, both in their salaries and in their guaranteed advances against back-end profits from DVDs, merchandising, syndication and international sales."--Swellman 03:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That link asks for a login however. Jmlk17 03:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Click on it. You don't have to log in. I'm able to see it and I don't have an account there...EDIT: Nevermind. It was working like 10 minutes ago. I don't know what's wrong...--Swellman 04:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All good. It'll be out elsewhere. Jmlk17 06:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Music Section

Mention is made of Cartman singing "I Don't Want to Wait" by Paula Cole, and that it is an anti-war song. Is it? The link to the article on "I Don't Want to Wait" doesn't mention it being anti-war, and I wasn't aware that it was, either. Should this line be edited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.139.9 (talk) 04:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC) No response, and no other means easily discovered on Wiki or Google of her song being anti-war, so the words "anti-war" were deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.139.9 (talk) 01:03, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Emmy Win

"Make Love, Not Warcraft", announced yesterday, has won the Emmy for outstanding animated pogram. [2] Just to let everyone know. --Swellman 11:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice... Jmlk17 07:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mormon bashing?

I don't remember seeing this in the opening paragraph. The line where it says South Park frequently makes fun of mormons, though Stone and Parker may be Mormons themselves. First, if that IS true, then it should be under reception or controversy. Second, the ONLY episode I can think of that soley deals with the Mormon religion is the aptly titled "All About Mormons". Did I miss something? SpartanMurph117 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, they're too controvertial to be mormon, they've only ever done the one episode ripping on Mormons and finally, their political views are too contrasting to the views generally encouraged by the CoLDS, as Stone is a Libertarian and Parker is unannounced other than that he "hates libertarians". I found that a funny announcement, in light of Stone. So, no, I don't think they are. Despite the irony of the weight of how heretical as their work is, it wouldn't surprise me if they were Christians. There's just something that suggests it. I know they're not Scientologists, that's for sure. Who knows? I don't think they're atheists, after the absolute serving they gave Atheists and Richard Dawkins in the Wii double episode. --lincalinca 13:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Those episodes (and others) gave me the impression that they are atheists, they just don't preach it like Dawkins does. They hate evangelicals of any religious/political belief, I think. Artiste-extraordinaire 14:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To parody and hate something are two different things, but thisn't isn't the palce for this discussion, really. --lincalinca 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt is Jewish, thus Kyle is also Jewish. Not sure on Trey's affiliation, but I believe that he is a "Non-practicing Christian". Tweeks Coffee 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

They've stated that they "believe there is a God".---- Orthologist (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

is this really worth arguing about? they're religous views have nothing to do with the show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.145.175 (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Trey Parker said he believed in God in an interview. Matt Stone said he believed in God also but somewhat reluctantly, as if he wasn't sure. There is no evidence of what religion they practice, if any, they could be Muslim for all we know (though unlikely). We do know that Matt Stone is half-Jewish by ethnicity but there is no evidence that he is a practicing Jew. As for Mormon bashing, while they did do their fair share of it in the "All about the Mormons" episode, but the final message was bashing people thathave a sense of superiority of others with opposing religious beliefs. (this could be directed at anyone, including atheists) I believe the quote went something like "All I wanted to be was your friend, but you were so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion, you have a lot of growing up to do buddy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That was kind of blunted since the character said it after, IIRC, pushing his religion or mentioning it all the time. It's kind of hard to look past something which someone is constantly pushing into your face. - Denimadept (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Trey Parker and Matt Stone said in an interview, that despite religion's silliness, that they love many religions and aren't anti-religion at all. The bashing aimed at the Mormons was basically towards some of their ridiculous historical beliefs, but they were also portrayed as having strong family values, and were fairly upstanding citizens (wanting to help out). (for the record, I'm not Mormon, but this is how I interpreted the script) This is futhur elaborated at the Mormon kid's speech at the end, ("we may have silly beliefs, but I have a loving family, and I have my religion to thank for that) and lets face it, it was obvious that the final scene was meant to portray Stan as a pr*ck for judging him based on his religion. (it definitely wasn't to show how angry the Mormon kid was) Stan hated the kid towards the end because of his warmped view of history and because he thought he was acting fake to get people to convert (when in fact that wasn't the case, remember the scene after Stan blew them off? that was who he and his family were) but the final message was that was a petty reason to hate anybody. Anyone can see that. Most of the time. South Park's formula is to portray the final message at around the last 2 minutes anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Rewrite

Just thought I'd let everyone know that I plan on completely rewriting this article, since I feel that it is in heavy need of it. It has gaps of un-notable info and gaps of notable info that seems to be absent. I will also be adding much-needed references to back up claims in the article. The edit(s) will be happening throughout the day, so please don't revert why i'm still in the process of editing. Any changes/suggestions you'd like to discuss, discuss here.--Swellman 13:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to add the {{inuse}} template. Other than that, go for it. The article needs it. Good luck. --lincalinca 13:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't get as far as I thought I would. I've gotten about halfway done, but am unable to find sources for about 90% of the claims. I've copy/pasted and saved my progress as a word document, and will continue to rewrite in wiki format over the next couple of days. I will also do some major web-browsing to find the proper citations I need. So, the rewrite won't come today, but it will come, mark my words.--Swellman 15:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider them marks. But again, make sure you list that the page is in use. It's frustrating for editors who edit something, only to have the edit ignored by someone doing a re-write. You're right, though, it's hard finding sources for everything listed in the page, and lots of the really important stuff is neglected and strangely can be difficult to find. Good luck. --lincalinca 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

South Park Vandalism

someone vandalized the South Park page, so i took out this act of vandalism, but copied it before i took it out so you know what it said about South Park

"SOUTH PARK IS EVIL! DO NOT WATCH SOUTH PARK. THEY SAY BAD WORDS, ONS THAT SHOULD NEVER BE SAID BY ANYONE. ANYWHERE. ANYTIME. PERIOD. IF YOU WATCH SOUTH PARK YOU WILL BE KIDDED AND WIL GO TO HELL AND BURN!"

sounds like some immature reglious nut job who hates South Park did this. plus the person can't spell one and killed. find the person who did this and have trhat person banned from Wikipedia. thank you --Boutitbenza 69 9 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, one act of vandalism is really not that big of a deal in the end. A simple warning will often be enough. :) Jmlk17 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT?

Why is this article under the scope of LGBT? They don't hate gay people. They mock them, but they're not special: everybody gets mocked on South Park. Religion and politics come first, general stupidity comes next and sexuality (hetero or homo) comes after that. I don't see it as being relevant. --lincalinca 13:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just give it it's own section? Perhaps focusing on Mr/Mrs. Garrison constant sexuality switching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.52.16 (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The show regularly has GLBT related themes and content. нмŵוτнτ 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, so the show is under the theme, are there any actuall editors who are monitoring this...or did they just slap the label and move on. oh, and its LGBTQ now...hehe! a south park junkie gave a lesson in Political Correctness.

Joking aside, I think the show not only has LGBTQ themes, but they actually show them in a great light.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose... Jmlk17 07:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Music Section -- Omitted Information

I am not a registered user so I cannot make this edit (due to the way the page has been put under protection), but in the Music section of the article where it lists Kenny's muffled line in each of the versions of the theme, shouldn't there be a mention of the Season 6 version where, because Kenny was absent, Timmy sings "Timmy Timmy, Timmy Timmy, Timmy Timmy, Livin'a lie Timmy!"? 71.251.40.161 (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is an important addition. But I see the other ones are cited. Is a citation really necessary for this one? I mean, what he says is clearly audible during the song. 71.251.40.161 (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Kenny's lines as a main character are more notable than Timmy's. Jmlk17 03:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, they are, but that doesn't make it less mentionable here. After all, the point of the section is to describe the different music used in "South Park," and if we are describing the changes in the theme song over the years, does it make sense to completely skip mentioning one of the versions? I don't think so. 71.255.94.129 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OH! Man, I had a brain fart or something lol. I was thinking of that Timmy 2000 episode for some reason. I think the page is due to be unprotected soon, but if not, I may go ahead and unprotect it and see what you can do! :) Jmlk17 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done... have at it! :) Jmlk17 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jmlk17! I made the necessary edits, so the information about the show's theme song is now morre accurate. However, although I don't have the time to make this change now, the third paragraph in the music section is about the general unintelligibility of Kenny's lines throughout the show, which does not seem to pertain to the "Music" section at all. I suggest that it should be moved to a different, more appropriate section; maybe I'll do it myself, but right now I don't have the time. 71.255.94.129 (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Very welcome! Keep up the good work! :) Jmlk17 06:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actors & Guests

Erm, I'm pretty sure Richard Dawkins shouldn't be in there - it wasn't actually him lending his voice. Which, given what he gets up to in the episodes his character appears in, is hardly surprising...

UK debut

Does anyone know when the show made it's debut in the UK? I know it was shown sometime in 1998 on Channel 4, but does anyone have the specific date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.31.175 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology for Timmy's disability

I'd like to point out that "the mentally handicapped Timmy" is unacceptable for two reasons: one, the term "handicapped" is demeaning, as the root of the word comes from the act of begging by holding one's cap in one's hand for money; and two, the person should always come before the disability. The appropriate term would be "Timmy, who has a cognitive disability." I fixed this but it was changed back. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.39.95 (talk)

The supposed origin of the word handicap is a complete myth [3] and there is no rule that a person's name should come first any more than it is somehow incorrect to say "The Italian poet Dante" rather than "Dante, the Italian poet". Paul B 13:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For more information on why this is the appropriate terminolgy along with possible origins of the word "handicap," you can visit http://www.disabilityisnatural.com/peoplefirstlanguage.htm. The Dante analogy is false because Dante is a poet, whereas a person is not a disability; a person has a disability, and therein lies the reasoning for person-first language. In any case, the problem has been fixed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.39.95 (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The cite you give quite clearly says that you are wrong. You said that "the root of the word comes from the act of begging by holding one's cap in one's hand for money". As the website you refer to states, this is "legendary". The real meaning comes from the game "handycap", which has nothing to do with begging. However, the website you quote even misrepresents the meaning of the game, which has nothing to do with having a disadvantage if you have your hand in the cap, as the other cite I gave demonstrated. The analogy with Dante is precisely relevant. He has an attribute (being a poet and being Italian) that's all. Being disabled is just an attribute. You are the one making it "different" by insisting on treating it as something that has to be kept at bay rather than treated like any other attribute. This is also a matter of clarity. "The blind poet Milton" is clearer and more concise than "Milton the poet who was blind", or "Beethoven the composer who was deaf". Paul B 13:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that this discussion is occurring here, as South Park is most certainly not politically correct in what it calls things. Political correctness is about substituting a euphemism for an 'offensive' term. Every euphemism for an 'offensive' term sooner or later is either laughed away or becomes 'offensive' in its own right. After all, 'mentally handicapped' started out as a polite euphemism for terms such as 'moron' and 'idiot', which were once used to scientifically label levels of 'mental deficiency'. So don't be too proud of your political correctness; the euphemism 'cognitive disability' will have to be discarded in its turn someday and a new euphemism found. -- Donald Albury 12:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he probably has a cognitive disability, however he is referred to as a handicapped person on many sites that are affiliated with South Park, thus it is a correct phrase to use in wikipedia...otherwise you are in danger of employing WP:SYNTH. So here is my suggestion, I have citable sources that state that Timmy is Handicapped...however if you have a source that states that "Timmy has a Cognitive disability" I will have no problem with you using that one instead.Coffeepusher 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul- Clearly, there are many hypotheses as to the origin of the word "handicap." Even if the site you mentioned is correct, it still notes that this origin can still be offensive as "It implies that disabled people should be trying to "overcome" their handicaps in the same way that heavily weighted horses do." The difference between the attribute of being a poet and the attribute of having a disability is that saying that Dante is a poet legitimately defines him; however, saying that someone is handicapped is not a definition of that person. As you say, having a disability is simply an attribute of that person and nothing more. Being careful about the way we speak about topics that can offend - especially ones that already have stigmata surrouding them - is important because, as George Orwell said, "If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." Donald- First of all, the offensive terms used in South Park are satiric. Second, I am not concerned about the terms used in South Park, but the terms used on Wikipedia. Third: Yes, you are absolutely right. Languages evolve. Word meanings change. Yes, terms that are currently considered "politically correct" will very possibly become offensive. However, they are currently not offensive, and terms that once were not offensive now are. The preferable term will always be whichever is not offensive. Coffeepusher- I didn't say that the word "handicapped" is never used; clearly, it is. I only said that the use of the word is inappropriate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.39.95 (talk)

well this is a wikipedia article on south park. we need to accuratly report on south park, not angle it to individual (or group) sensitivities. we have rules that require us to cite everything we edit, and not to put A+B=C type references. I not only understand your point, I don't personaly use the phrase handicapped for the reasons you have presented. however you are offended by the use of the word handicapped, someone is upset at the presentation of the word nigger (in referance to a show that gained national attention and was reported as such) and tried to get that removed from this site, the scientologists are upset that the chef article reports that south park calls them a "fruity little club", the american catholics hate the fact that jesus cut their leader in half in a recent episode, the Some Jews have such a beef with the fact that this article shows cartman in hitler regalia, Jesus vs. santa...etc. so since an accurate report on south park can't actually be sensitive to everyone who gets offended at south park doing/saying/killing/making nasty coments about/etc. (insert whatever south park offended you by) without oppening up a flood gate that would cut the show to shreads, I believe that the statement "show us a source that says timmy (himself) has a cognitive disability rather than a handicap" is increadibly reasonable (especialy since it requires you to follow Wiki rules in your edits). Coffeepusher (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, I understand you are trying to work with this, and I appreciate that. However you are making an assumption that Timmy was spacificly noted as having a "cognitive Dissablility" when he may not. that is wp:synth, and needs to be avoided. if the other editors feel I am beeing too anal, than I will gladly work with the consensus of the group, however I do need a source before we start diagnosing Timmy outside of what the show and its creators give us.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made an edit with a reference that I hope we can agree on. I am not making an assumption about Timmy's disability, as he was referred to earlier in the show as "mentally retarded," which means having a cognitive disability, simply in less appropriate terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.39.95 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, i didn't see your talk section so I undid it, thinking you wern't going to discuss it You have my appologies. what you cited was a Wikipedia knockoff, and I don't think it stands as a good reference, however I do like the difference. please find somthing we can use that will stand up to critisism that says the same thing, that way we can get on with other thingsCoffeepusher (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad / Cartoon Wars

The paragraph referring to Muhammad being censored in "Cartoon Wars" needs a citation. There's no indication, that I have seen, that "Cartoon Wars" was censored by Comedy Central, but that it was being used, rather, as irony to make a point in the episode. There is no precedent for Comedy Central censoring part of an episode (other than language) as the paragraph suggests. When an episode is deemed too offensive they will simply not air it the first time or not air it after the first showing. Can someone please give a source about whether or not Comedy Central REALLY DID censor the image of Muhammad? I doubt there is an actual source for this. Liontamarin 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Eric Cartman introducing the Colorado Buffalo starting line-ups.

I just read through a reliable source that Eric Cartman did the introductions for Colorado Buffaloes during their 2007 rivalry game with Nebraska. You can see clips here (offense) and here (defense, which mentions why Parker/Stone did it). Is there a place for this? In Cartman's article? --Bobak (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Chef Goes Nanners Trivia Section

yall have these 2 lines in there

• This episode is the only one where Wendy is seen without her trademark beret.
• This is one of the times that we see Wendy unhooded.

seems to me that they are the same so one can be deleted

Gezzuzz (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Weight Gain 4000"

It should be noted that in "Weight Gain 4000" cartman first shows his hate for hippes..

Gezzuzz (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? Jmlk17 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

well most articles show info running gags and continuity between episodes.. Gezzuzz (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

south park on line

DavePee just posted the anouncement that south park will be made avalible on line for free by comady central. my question is, this seems like a bigger topic than just a one line post. I know Trey and Matt have both said that they don't mind on line piracy, so can we expand this to a full section?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Free South Park has already been available for a while on sites like www.southparkzone.com, www.allsp.com, and www.allabout-sp.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.39.95 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

All those sites are getting the videos illegally though, the comedy central site will make it legal Cliffhopper (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it legal or not?

Is the free download of Southpark legal? sites like this one http://www.southparkstuff.com/ offer free downloads (direct or P2P). Also MTV Networks too plans to make every clip from every episode available for free. So, is it legal or not?
It's an important thing, you should write something about it in the article. --13:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Find out and let us know. Thanks. - Denimadept (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking not personally. Jmlk17 10:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's legal. The creators of South Park are giving us permission so obviously it's legal. It's just like how many bands have Youtube channels and they post their music videos and concerts. Arogi Ho (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. Saying they don't mind the piracy doesn't make it legal. If anyone's thinking of linking this, should wait until the copyright holder (Comedy Central/Viacom) releases it themselves. Cool Hand Luke 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But what the link is saying is that Comedy Central will put episodes of South Park themselves. That is obviously legal because they own the show and can do whatever they want with it. Arogi Ho (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, once they release it we should be able to link to them, but not before. Cool Hand Luke 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Episodes are now free (streaming) at the official south park website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.133.5 (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A mistake on description

There really ''IS'' a South Park, Colorado so someone needs to change the article. Moxyrox (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)moxyrox

Sorta true (it's more of an area/basin), but the show isn't set in the real town... it's in a fictional aspect of the town. Jmlk17 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Moxyrox makes a valid point, though. It should be mentioned that there is a district given this name, but it's unclear as to whether this is a co-incidence, intentional or whatever. --lincalinca 11:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Towelie?

I cannot find any article/section in any article that describes the character Towelie? Do you guys think there should be any? TRBlom 21 December 2007

Actually there is... just type in Towelie. :) Jmlk17 10:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Rating Netherlands

The rating of the whole series is 6+ in the Netherlands. -> http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/classificaties.php?search=extended&original_title=south+park&director=&release_year=&productietypen=&genre=&x=0&y=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.183.121.57 (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Add episode name in Music section

In the fifth paragraph of the section Music where it says:

Cartman has a mental quirk that forces him to finish singing Styx's Come Sail Away whenever someone sings a few bars of the song. As soon as he learns this, Kyle, who has a strong and explicit hatred for Cartman, takes advantage of this and forces Cartman to finish the song so many times that Cartman becomes literally unintelligible.

please change the beginning to give the episode name, such as:

Episode 202 ("Cartman's Mom is Still a Dirty Slut") reveals that Cartman has a mental quirk which forces him to finish singing Styx's "Come Sail Away" whenever someone sings a few bars of the song. As soon as he learns this, Kyle, who has a strong and explicit hatred for Cartman, takes advantage of this and forces Cartman to finish the song so many times that Cartman becomes literally unintelligible.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.239.151 (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Add information to Music section

During the Snakes & Arrows Tour by the band Rush in 2007, the song "Tom Sawyer" was opened with an animated clip of the Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny in a band called "Lil Rush". Cartman, with a wig to imitate Rush lead singer Geddy Lee, leads off with lyrics that attempt to reference the character of Tom Sawyer from the Mark Twain novel. Cartman gets the character confused with another Twain character, Huckleberry Finn, by saying Tom Sawyer "floated down a river on a raft with a black man." When Kyle interrupts the performance to point out Cartman's flaw, Cartman insists that he is Geddy Lee and can sing whatever he wants. Kyle then yells at Cartman to sing the correct lyrics, at which point Cartman counts of and then the concert switches to the real band performing the actual song. Several clips of this performance can be found on popular video sharing websites such as YouTube taken as unauthorized recordings during performances at various venues. It should be noted that this clip may also be a reference to episode 709 ("Christian Rock Hard") where the same four characters had a band called "Moop".

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.239.151 (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Last Cable ACE Award winner

Just noticed that this factoid is wrong, as Inside the Actor's Studio is also still on the air. It's among the few remaining winners still on the air though. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 06:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Source for Paragraph # 1

I have a source for the first "citation needed section." http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/South-Park-Biography/08EC47749861147A48256DD60013CE29 Not Something and Not Someone (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also a source for the last sentence of the Controversies section: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4804334.stm "Hayes leaves 'bigoted' South Park" 14 March 2006, 10:01 GMT

Kodath (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"South Park has parodied Scientology in several episodes" (this is not true)

This article claims that "South Park has parodied Scientology in several episodes". This is not true. As confirmed by Trey Parker and Matt Stone in their DVD commentary of "The Return of Chef" (Season 10), only two episodes relate directly to scientology itself. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njciancio (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. I would very much like to edit this fallacy, but can not due to the privacy settings. South Park has parodied Scientology only in the two episodes mentioned above. "South Park has parodied Scientology in several episodes." ought to read "South Park has parodied Scientology in two edpisodes."; and the sentence "Most of them, however, never mention Scientology by name, although they are obviously meant to parody it." ought to be deleted. DanTheShrew (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected this. The "several episodes <...> never mention Scientology by name, although they are obviously meant to parody it" is untrue. If the author here has provided a reference, then it isn't one I would trust. DanTheShrew (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Predicted episode total in 2011.

"On August 26, 2007, Parker and Stone committed to three more seasons of South Park, so the show will run until at least 2011.[2] They will continue to write, direct, and edit every episode of the show, bringing the series total to 223 episodes by the end of its fifteenth season. [4]"

Re: the series total being brought to 223: I can't figure out how this figure was reached. It is not in the 'animationmagazine.net' reference cited. Can anyone verify this? DanTheShrew (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. Jmlk17 20:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that DanTheShrew (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Jmlk17 09:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Production time

In the article is says it takes six to eight month to make a Simpsons episode, and only six days for a South Park episode. When I follow the link in citation number nine, what I make out is that in six to eight they make loads of Simpsons episodes simultaniously. The actual time spent on one episode could be a lot shorter. Slightly misleading.Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been hearing this fact about The Simpsons for about 15 years now, and I always figured they must be making many episodes at a time. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that it takes 6 months to complete an episode of the Simpsons. I expect one could find hundreds of sources to verify it. DanTheShrew (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

why

I added a link to the South Park wiki and it got deleted....?? 70.92.103.13 (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When, under what name, please? And most importantly, what link? - Denimadept (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

South Park Studios website

i'm from europe and i can watch the episodes, wlthough the article says it's for US audience only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.84.17 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

South Park in desperate need for a politics section

Though politics and social commentary play a large role in South Park, I'm surprised that nothing on the creators' political views and how it's reflected through South Park is mentioned in the article. There is a lot of stuff on the web analyzing each episodes' politics, though mostly from libertarian sources. However, considering that both are libertarians, the analysis is probably more accurate then a conservative or liberal analysis.

I am working on an added politics section right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Production schedule

As mentioned in a previous comment, it's not a reasonable comparison to say that an episode of the Simpsons takes six to eight months to produce, while an episode of South Park takes six days. If the Simpsons producers did one episode at a time and each took six to eight months, it would take many years to finish one season of the show. Looking through past comments, I don't see anyone arguing for keeping the "six to eight months" comparison, so I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggsyntax (talk • contribs) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Production schedule

As mentioned in a previous comment, it's not a reasonable comparison to say that an episode of the Simpsons takes six to eight months to produce, while an episode of South Park takes six days. If the Simpsons producers did one episode at a time and each took six to eight months, it would take many years to finish one season of the show. Looking through past comments, I don't see anyone arguing for keeping the "six to eight months" comparison, so I'm removing it. Eggsyntax (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)