Talk:South Park controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"equal opportunity offenders".[edit]

The summary says "Parker and Stone usually reply to such controversies by regarding themselves as "equal opportunity offenders"." The linked source (http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/980522/kyle.shtml) says "A backlash against political correctness, "South Park" is what can be called an equal opportunity offender." The author of the article called the show an "equal opportunity offender. Unless there's another source that shows that Parker and Stone call themselves such (in which case the source should be changed or added), then I think this needs to be changed. The wording is that they themselves said this and attributed it to themselves, when it was someone else who said it about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.171.65 (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Irwin[edit]

This comment: "However, what many people failed to realize is that when Steve Irwin turns up at Satan's party he is dismissed by the Devil who says that it is too early to be satirizing Irwin's death. Thus, Parker and Stone are attacking those people who did mock Irwin's death". Actually, Irwin is finally dismissed in the episode for having "no costume", because he's only got a stingray through him. I don't think it's this double satire mentioned earlier - I think it's just a joke at Irwin's expense.

I haven't actually seen the episode in question, but I think the description needs to be revised anyway. Just based on the description as given in the article, I don't see how it "attack[s] those people who did mock Irwin's death." I don't have to see the episode to be confident that this description is pretty far off base. If anything, it sounds like the episode is acknowledging its own offensiveness, but furthermore lampooning the standard taboo against making fun of recent tragedies. At any rate, and regardless of whether the description and my interpretation are accurate, the wording of the passage plainly betrays its vested interest in defending the episode. The one thing I can say without doubt is that it desperately needs to be rewritten. Chalkieperfect 05:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that this whole paragraph needs to be rewritten. It is most definitely not NPOV 84.13.149.104 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Shit" episode[edit]

In the discussion of the excessive swearing in "It Hits the Fan," do we really need the quotation of an entire lyric from Mr. Garrison's "shitty fag-fag" song? Wouldn't it suffice just to say that Mr. Garrison sings a song called "Shitty Shitty Fag-Fag" to the tune of "Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang"? The way it's currently written smacks of the kind of meandering descriptions of TV shows we give our friends who missed the show last night. While that kind of "So then it was like..." has its proper place, I don't really think this is it. Chalkieperfect 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgarity Section[edit]

The only qualm I had was the line "...many bodily swears such as "dick", and even "cunt."" That may be a very minor qualm. In fact it is. That description does infer some kind of extra vulgarity to the term cunt vs dick. Im not criticizing this over some kind of ridiculous male vs female issue. I just think that it is retarded to assume that the term is more vulgar, when in reality the only people who would consider it "more" vulgar are people who are overly sensitive to vulgar words, and whose opinions are therefore completely useless due to their initial bias. Im changing it to "...many bodily swears such as dick and cunt." that removes any emphasis or subtle comparison inherent in that sentence.Gordonliu420 (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disabilities[edit]

I tagged this section on the basis that is is pretty biased and unencyclopedic. Although really, the whole article isn't a beacon of a great wikipedia page, I think that section suffers from poor writing the most. Razorhead 10:02, 28 December 2007

I have removed this section. Having seen the episodes in question, I doubt that that are biased (they discribed plot points rather than opinion) but they have nothing to do with the topic of the page. The page is about Controversies, and neither of the episodes cited in the section (as I think the original post stated) caused any contravesy TimothyJacobson (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's back, and I suggest removing it again, though not on the basis that it might contain original research (it doesn't, as far as I can tell; the events discussed actually did happen in the episodes). Rather, it doesn't state how the episodes were controversial to anyone, whether disabled persons, advocates or the general public.
Other sections of this article explain how it was controversial, as opposed to just rattling off a laundry list of events which readers may or may not find controversial. It's the difference between the two following statements:
  1. Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights protested the season finale episode, "Bloody Mary", for its depiction of a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding from her rectum.
  2. The season finale episode, "Bloody Mary", depicts a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding from her rectum.
I'm in no edit war mood, but I think I'll remove (like, in a week of so if noone responds and if I remember to do it) the section unless someone adds references mentioning public outcries to the issues in the section. --92.104.130.4 (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforest Schmainforest[edit]

I don't know if this deserves to be in the controversy section or not, but this episode in particular was criticized by the Costa Rican Government early in 2007(despite the episode airing in '99) over their satirical POV of this country. Vic729 02:27, 08 January 2008 (UTC)[1][reply]

Haha[edit]

Hilarious that there's a whole article dedicated to this. Leopold Stotch (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism of South Park"?[edit]

Why isn't the article titled Criticism of South Park, like the articles on the other fictional works (Criticism of Family Guy, Criticism of Torchwood, Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code, Criticism of World of Warcraft) are titled? --DrBat (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well theres no criticism yet about anyways, no mention of the libertarian spin the shows been having for the last seassons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.142.65 (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD Blue?[edit]

Wasn't "It Hits The Fan" about the controversy deealing with an episode of Chicago Hope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.184.148 (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Park may become banned in Russia[edit]

Moscow prosecutors say South Park cartoons could incite hatred. __meco (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The worst?[edit]

Is it possible that South Park could be the single most offensive show in the history of television? 24.226.77.23 (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The worst?"? Those who enjoy the show would likely prefer "The best" for the same reasoning. Sorry, that may sound POV but there seems to be a hint of POV in "worst" as well.Blaimjos (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the most offensive show not last because no one would watch it? Aparently it never offends fans of south park. Which would also make it not "equal oppurtunity offenders"

Episodes in the summary paragraph[edit]

This is a really long sentence:

The show's writers, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, describe themselves as "equal opportunity offenders" and frequently lampoon debates about contentious issues, including vulgarity ("It Hits The Fan"), religion and cults (e.g. "All About Mormons", "Bloody Mary", "Red Hot Catholic Love", "Fantastic Easter Special" and "Trapped in the Closet"), sexuality ("The Death Camp of Tolerance"), drug abuse ("My Future Self n' Me", "Up The Down Steroid"), racism ("With Apologies to Jesse Jackson"), and global warming ("Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow").

I don't think that mentioning specific episodes is appropriate in the summary paragraph. The parentheses significantly break the flow of the sentence, making it rather unreadable. If someone is looking for episodes which are examples of each topic, the rest of the article provides this information with better presentation.

The show's writers, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, describe themselves as "equal opportunity offenders" and frequently lampoon debates about contentious issues, including vulgarity, religion and cults, sexuality, drug abuse, racism, and global warming.

I'm replacing it. ~ Booya Bazooka 06:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad censorship[edit]

It states in this article that the black screen saying that comedy central refuses to show muhamad ect was realy from them. I always thought it was actualy in the show, and was a joke. Anyone know for sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord loss210 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Times Square car bomb: police investigate South Park link[edit]

Source, for use in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ginger controversy[edit]

The ginger controversy may also be worth mentioning.. It has become permanately embedded in in youth popculture and the schoolyard environment.

There is the original "don't make fun off gingers" video on youtube as a possible reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.172.211 (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph article[edit]

The quote you use from the Telegraph article has been taken out of context. The author goes on to say:

Though it's quite true that South Park remains guilty as charged of all the above offences, it also happens to be possibly the funniest programme on television and certainly the boldest, bravest and most socio-politically acute. It may lack the wry, gentle, family-friendly charm of The Simpsons, but that is rather the point: South Park's job is to inflame and annoy. Mhvoiceuk (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on South Park controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:South Park controversies/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*Article needs expansion, with references from reputable citations. Smee 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Last edited at 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on South Park controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on South Park controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on South Park controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on South Park controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Park_controversies&oldid=1208848814"