Jump to content

Talk:South Park Republican: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Htahpoahf (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
{{SouthParkProject|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{SouthParkProject|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{Archivebox|auto=yes}}
{{Archivebox|auto=yes}}

==Pushing Republican Views==

Yes they certainly do. Is everyone forgetting what Kyle says at the end of the Bin Laden episode? "America may have its problems, but it's our home, and if you're not gonna root for your home team, you might as well get the hell out of the stadium." Paraphrased, this means that you're not allowed to disagree with what America's doing if you live in America. This is a very Republican thing to say. Parker and Stone are pushing this viewpoint on young people yet they deny they have a political agenda. Of course they do! Why would that line be written into the script if they had no political agenda? This quotation by Kyle is an important point and should be included in the article.


== The External links ==
== The External links ==

Revision as of 19:43, 6 March 2010

WikiProject iconSouth Park C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South Park on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pushing Republican Views

Yes they certainly do. Is everyone forgetting what Kyle says at the end of the Bin Laden episode? "America may have its problems, but it's our home, and if you're not gonna root for your home team, you might as well get the hell out of the stadium." Paraphrased, this means that you're not allowed to disagree with what America's doing if you live in America. This is a very Republican thing to say. Parker and Stone are pushing this viewpoint on young people yet they deny they have a political agenda. Of course they do! Why would that line be written into the script if they had no political agenda? This quotation by Kyle is an important point and should be included in the article.

The External links

I'm wondering, are the entries in the external links section actually the sources used for the article? If so, I'd like to reclassify them as such using the layout at Template:Reflist. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the {{External links}} tag on the article, those links need to be cleaned up. If they're references, please work them into the article as footnotes. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messy and Needs Sources

The "Meaning of Term" and "Usage" sections neither cite any sources and both, especially the prior, are sloppy. Someone want to take a try at rewriting them? --Col.clawhammer 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullhorn

I'd like to find the source with the quote from the creators about their "bullhorn to yell at America." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.197.51 (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much

Way too much of this information pertains more to the show then actual South Park republicans. While reading it I almost forgot that I wasn't on the show's page. The information needs some serious editing as a huge amount of the information is not relevent to the topic of the article. Glassbreaker5791 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits != notable

Just because you can google and get 'a lot' of web hits does NOT mean the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. WP:NOTABLETheRedPenOfDoom 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, they can't "prove" anything, but it can be used to "confirm roughly how popularly referenced an expression is". See WP:GOOGLE. нмŵוτнτ 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Not fans of extremists'

I've removed this bit: "They are simply not fans of extremists, and enjoy 'roasting' those on each side." The article had already mentioned that they consider themselves to be in the middle ground. (Trey Parker is quoted in this interview as saying, "And we're both just pretty middle-ground guys.") But whether they actually are or not is a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are many who consider their views to be extreme, even if they don't think so themselves, so I think that saying they are not fans of extremists is rather misleading in that respect. -- Oliver P. (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe another title

Perhaps the title of this article could be changed to "Politics of South Park" or "Political Views of Matt Stone and Trey Parker". Gtbob12 (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Politics of South Park" is a very different topic than "South Park Republican" which was a short lived neologism that was applied to people (primarily Stone, Parker and perhaps 3 others in reliable sources) who maintain a certain political view. That is not to say that "Politics of South Park" should not be created (oh, it already has been), but it is a different article. I am not sure that "Political Views of Matt Stone and Trey Parker" is a notable topic outside of the label "South Park Republican" (and I am not even really a supporter that SPR is a notable topic). -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are those views portrayed

"...center-right political beliefs that are, in general, aligned with those portrayed in the popular animated television show South Park." What are those views portrayed? Niew (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favourite of the anarcho-left

In the U.K. South Park seems to be very much a favourite of the libertatian hard left, if anyone has come across a source for this fact I would very much to add it. It would be a good addition given Stone and Parkers disquiet with "South Park Republican" term. Pete the pitiless (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]