Talk:Gnomes (South Park): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:12, 3 July 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gnomes (South Park) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Animation C‑class Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Park C‑class Mid‑importance

	This 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.South ParkWikipedia:WikiProject South ParkTemplate:WikiProject South ParkSouth Park articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television C‑class Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy C‑class Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

In Other Media

"The Republican Road to Recovery," an alternative budget proposal released by the Republican Party in March 2009, has been widely panned by the media and bloggers as an "Underpants Gnome" budget, in reference to this episode, due to its vague nature and missteps in logic^[1]^[2]^[3]. For instance, one flowchart starts by "Reforming Medicare and Medicaid" which will then lead to "Universal Access to Affordable Coverage" which in turn "Limits Federal Spending."^[4] Another example is the claim that tax cuts will lead to economic recovery, without any explanation of how.^[5] Despite being labeled a budget, it contains no hard numbers on revenues and expenditures as pointed out by both conservative^[6] and liberal writers^[7].

Paul Cantor promotional page

- I usually don't opine on such things but this article is a Paul Cantor promotional piece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.214.112 (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. The "Themes" section seems to rather blatantly use the show as a proxy for the political views of the authors listed in it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Undue weight is being given to Cantor's point of view. 70.172.214.70 (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweek Bros.

I think it's pretty obvious "Tweek Bros." is a reference to "Hills Bros." coffee, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSLugb2jiqQ , not really sure what to add to the article though (is it original research?) 75.158.104.172 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without a reliable source to back this up, it would be considered original research. – Richard BB 08:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange and superfluous

Does anyone else find this article to be, um, unnecessarily academic? The information it contains is certainly quite interesting, that is not what I quarrel over, but to me it seems like all of the content going into depth raises and explains certain topics that don't really need to be discussed in an article about one episode of a cartoon. Some of the ideas just sound incredibly absurd and half of these things aren't even properly sourced, for instance -- "The gnome characters and their underpants collection represent the ordinary business activity of capitalism that takes place on a regular basis in front of everyone, but is seldom noticed by society." Really? Does this person really think Trey and Matt actually meant to hide some elaborate social commentary within some characters that are called the underpants gnome? Methinks not... (NBMATT (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, they do. They comment on aspects of life, making amusing parodies of it. Dream Focus 10:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://firedoglake.com/2009/03/28/come-saturday-morning-the-gops-underpants-gnome-budget/

[2] ttp://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/real-republican-road-to-recovery.html

[3] ttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/26/20352/2002

[4] ttp://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final

[5] ttp://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final

[6] ttp://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2ZiZWYzMWNlNzAxZTA4ZWQxYWRiZWM5MmZhNjY4YzU=

[7] ttp://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2009&base_name=my_favorite_budget_ever

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 : Quite. The "Themes" section seems to rather blatantly use the show as a proxy for the political views of the authors listed in it. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 09:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
+:I agree. Undue weight is being given to Cantor's point of view. [[Special:Contributions/70.172.214.70|70.172.214.70]] ([[User talk:70.172.214.70|talk]]) 00:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 == Tweek Bros. ==