Jump to content

Talk:200 (South Park)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

List of celebrities

Let's make a list of celebrities in this episode and then link to the episode with the celeb.

Like this:

Why not wait until after the episode airs? This seems to be like WP:CRYSTAL. —Terrence and Phillip 00:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
should we add Metallica as well? They got made fun of. Fighting for Justice (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we should add Wikipedia editors. They're a bunch of dicks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.234.213 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest not making a random list of mocked celebrities. It'd be more appropriate to summarize the episode including which celebrities played important parts (Cruise, Reiner, Streisand, etc). -- TRTX T / C 02:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The list of celebrities is very unneccessary. What TRTX suggested is a good idea. The large list is clearly failing the WP:NOT#STATS rule. ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TRTX and ♫ Douglasr007 . Dr B2 (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's said that celebrities from Sexual Healing have no interaction with the people of South Park, but this is inaccurate as Kyle and Butter's attend Sex Addiction Therapy where most of the celebrities even Tiger are present. Suggest revising. User: mbcdadb 15 April 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC).

Rob Schneider is missing. I think I saw him once in this episeode, in tom's house in the background as a carrot. But I can't 100% confirm it right now.

Mr. Garrisson in two places at once

The placing of Garrison at two places at once seems obvious to me, especially as the camera cuts back & forth a number of times. Whether it's an oversight or even some sort of a joke or symbolic reference to the fictional nature of characters represented in TV in line with the postmodern themes of this episode is hard to tell.

I suppose someone with more knowledge of wikipedia's regulations than me can decide but i think it at least is worthy of discussion given it seems to be so obviously highlighted in the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craft24 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC) (Craft24 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Theme vs. Cultural references

Hey all. Lots to write about with this one. So, since this episode includes so many references to past episodes, I struggled on whether to include those in the Production section or the Cultural References section. My feeling while working on this was that references to past South Park episodes and subplots should be included in the Theme section (since, as the Production section now indicates, that was indeed the theme of this show) and that other references should go into Cultural references. (For example, Tim Burton has never been mocked in a past episode, so he goes into "Cultural references". But the celebrities that have been featured in past episodes belong in "Theme".) I really believe this is the best way handle this. Thoughts on this? — Hunter Kahn 17:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If secondary sources comment on cultural impact, cultural reception. If the producers/writers of the show comment on planning/writing/development, production. If secondary sources analyze overarching themes and impact, themes. -- Cirt (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Celebrities list removed

[1] = this should probably be discussed a bit. -- Cirt (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I've restored it. Every single item on this list is cited by no less than two sources: one for their appearance in "200", and one for their appearance in previous episodes. This isn't an unsourced trivia section where people are just adding WP:OR without the sources to back it up. The reasoning behind the removal of the list seemed to be that it was trivia, and in some cases, I'd agree. But since the very theme of this entire episode was about bringing back celebrities that have been mocked over the 14 years of this show's run, of course a general round-up of those celebrities and their past appearances in the show is going to be necessary for an article like this. As long as it's well sourced, there's a place for it in this article. — Hunter Kahn 21:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
A well-thought out rationale, and I agree with this comment. It should not be removed. Similarly, unsourced entries should not be added. -- Cirt (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Bay

Since two sources are needed, here's a source for Michael Bay appearing in this episode, and being mocked in Imaginationland Part 1. I know the page has been locked, but still, wanted to supply these. The first link also lists several of the Celebrities that appear in this episode, for anyone who is curious or is looking for sources to expand the list here. The Clawed One (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I added it, as well as a number of other celebrities that South Park Studios claims was in the episode: [2]. There are a number of celebrities listed by them that I couldn't find a source for the original episode, however. Can anyone help? These are the celebrities in question:
Barry Bonds (“Up the Down Steroid”)
Gary Condit ("Freak Strike") (note: need source for this specific episode, “Butters’ Very Own Episode” appearance is sourced)
Francis Ford Coppola (“Free Hat”, “Cancelled”)
Brian Dennehy (South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut)
John Edward (“The Biggest Douche in the Universe”)
Sylvester Stallone (“Wing”)
Eric Stoltz (“Freak Strike”)
Tina Yothers (“Pink Eye”)
Thanks. -- Viewdrix (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you use the website as a primary source? It appears to not go against WP:SELFPUB. Cptnono (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal from iTunes

This episode was removed from iTunes on April 22, 2010 following the controversy surrounding "201." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobobob123 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Great summary!

Good work whoever wrote the summary. This was what I was hoping to put together but didn't get a chance to watch the ep again to take notes. I did remove the trivia section breaking down who actually interacted with the town as its getting too much into original research. 163.231.6.85 (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The irony in the above statement mildly amuses me. --81.23.54.142 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Death Threats

Could you please update the 200th episode 'death threats' details to include the fact that RevolutionMuslim.com posted the creators home and work addresses as well as the veiled death threats please?Twobells (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For sure if you have a source. I'll see if I can find something too.Cptnono (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see home addresses. Did I just miss them?Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
We're not going to post the address, just that it was posted. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
UPI did say that a home address was posted. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The info about their home addresses was already in the article. What Matt is saying is we're not printing the actual addresses themselves, just that the addresses were posted on the RM website. — Hunter Kahn 14:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I did miss it then. Thanks for fixing it.Cptnono (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
A fellow American, has reported the Islamic terrorists who had threaten the lives of the SP creators, to the FBI. I hope that the FBI intervenes, and prosecutors those Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the content addition! Twobells (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to add is how carefully worded the website is, while it could be construed as a "thinly veiled threat", the wording is such that is "cautions" the creators that OTHERS might take it more extreme. This website has always worded things carefully, which is why it has been able to survive so long in the states. The articles (200 and 201), need to reflect that is it's not a "Death threat", but simply a "Caution", which I find equally ridiculous. BTW: the site is still (happily) down.--Hourick (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I think this article ("200") does reflect this with the sentence "Despite al Amrikee's claims that the website entry was a warning, several media outlets and observers interpreted it as a threat." — Hunter Kahn 15:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Author of the threatening post on the radical muslim website should be identified by his real name: Zachary A. Chesser Twicestock1 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No Excuse for Violence, No Excuse for Censorship

Edit request from 99.251.153.106, 22 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} "200" received generally mostly positive reviews.

This is redundant, please change to:

"200" received generally positive reviews

OR

"200" received mostly positive reviews

99.251.153.106 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Done -- Ϫ 10:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad image

Someone should remove the Muhammad image, per the possiblity of retailation or threat by Al-Queda or any other Islamic militant groups. Does Wikipedia, risk a chance of it. I'm afraid of threats or a DOS by the group, if it happends. --70.132.205.141 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.70.202 (talk)

[3] = this change should be discussed on the talk page, instead of simply being removed with zero discussion about it whatsoever. Comments, thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
In fairness, it was also added (on the 15th) with no discussion. I have no moral problem with it appearing in the article. My only qualm would be rather it is really necessary for the reader's understanding, as is required by the fair use guidelines. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It depicts an image of crucial importance. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the fact that Muhammad has been shown in an earlier episode before the Denmark-caricatures-incident indeed is crucial for the whole point of this current episode which discusses whether it can't show him again and what this implies.--JakobvS (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think many of you are missing the point... The question isn't whether the content itself is relevant - it clearly is. The question is whether displaying an image which didn't even appear in this episode (I think) is crucial to the reader's understanding of this episode. Personally, I don't think it is, which would mean it doesn't fall under Wikipedia's very strict fair use guidelines. To meet Wikipedia's guidelines, it has to meet a higher standard than just being "useful." (There is no doubt it meets the legal definition of fair use.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

However, I could be wrong - I'll ask for input of people more knowledgeable in this area. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if the OP is just trying to be clever or is legitimately worried. Either way, as it's been pointed out already, Wikipedia is not censored. To address the other issue, I think the image would be better suited for the "Super Best Friends" article. There, the information about how this portrayal played a future role in subsequent episodes can be described to a greater extent. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I assure you I wouldn't care if Wikipedia has 10,000 pictures of Mohammad displayed. However, fair use justification is a completely separate issue than censorship. WP:NOTCENSORED is never sufficient, by itself, to justify the use of a copyrighted picture.
That said, now that the image has garnered so much attention, it probably is crucial enough to the reader's understanding of this article to fall under Wikipedia's fair use policy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with SoSaysChappy (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the image would be fine as "Super Best Friends", but that it isn't mean it wouldn't be appropriate here too. I think the image is crucial to a full understanding of this episode (and may prove to be for "201" as well), as it illustrates far better than words the point Matt Stone is trying to make about what has been lost as a result of the Muhammad cartoon controversies. — Hunter Kahn 13:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Current coverage is discussing and showing the image. I wouldn't be surprised if it is being put out there more now than with the original episode based on the increased backlash since the '06 shenanigans. CNN is showing the mascot costume which might be an acceptable alternative but the current image has a perfectly fine and justified FUR.Cptnono (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I misread a few things and should have better-worded my earlier post. If it's decided that the image is not crucial for this article, it should at least appear in the "Super Best Friends" article. I can't think of any reason how it would not be more than useful over there, but that's a discussion for that article. As for this article, I think this image helps a lot. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, I agree with SoSaysChappy (talk · contribs) -- :P -- Cirt (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we please remove the image. According to a recent newsport, the creators of South Park, had received death threats from a radicalIslamic group; I fear, that this might happend to Wikipedia--and it's hiearchy. I don't want to have a DOS attack on this site or someone getting harmned, if we violate a sacred religious right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I restored the picture, which you removed without seeking consensus here. In fact, the consensus seems to be leaning in favor of keeping it in place. Consensus can change, so if the majority voice favor of removing it again, we can do that. Personally, my vote goes toward keeping it. I think this "threat" from Revolution Muslim is nothing but a cheap publicity stunt; this group knew a post about South Park would get a lot of play in the media, since the show is a highly visible topic and the story itself would be easy for the news shows to write. I don't think Trey and Matt are in any real risk of retaliation, and I certainly don't think Wikipedia is, especially since other articles have included actual images of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad and Lars Vilks Muhammad cartoons, and they never resulted in any attacks. But I'm willing to hear other thoughts... — Hunter Kahn 22:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hunter Kahn. Are you ignorant of the facts of this modern age, in which we live. You don't think that, Revolution Muslim would make a "threat" to the creators of South Park, but guess again on your little assumption. Try reading a newspaper, just once in your fucking life. I did this fucking Foundation, a favor. How dare you jepordize the Wikipedia Foundation, with your bullshit assertion.Rio de oro (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to remind users that personal attacks are completely unacceptable. Mind your language, and stick to the task at hand. 195.194.150.129 (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, I've reported Revolution Muslim to the FBI for making a public terroristic threat; just waiting for the FBI to make the arrest of the radical clerics now.
I herby, assert control of this article page. No person, herin after, shall edit the questionable image, without the explict consent of this author. Rio de oro (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the image is useful as it illustrates how it was acceptable to show the image in S05 (and indeed in repeats) but is now regarded as unacceptable. As for threats, The Muhammed page also has an image on it, has had for years, and afaik Wikipedia has yet to be blown up. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the image of Muhammad does appear in the episode but was censored by Comedy Central. 76.227.77.125 (talk)Eric Ferguson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.77.125 (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Walemi1978, 24 April 2010

Please remove the image depicting the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

  • Allen, Nick (May 2, 2010). "Times Square car bomb: police investigate South Park link - Police in New York are investigating whether a car bomb in Times Square was targeted at the makers of South Park over a controversial depiction of the Prophet Mohammed". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 2010-05-03. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Source, for use in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Commentary by Tariq Ramadan

Commentary by Tariq Ramadan, to The Washington Post. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:200 (South Park)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have read through the article and it is very well done.

  • My only complaints are some of you wikilink that are too obscure, such a linkin goo to Butt Out which really isn't helpful.
    • I removed that one and a few others. Let me know if there are any others, or feel free to remove any yourself if you object to them. — Hunter Kahn 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, sometimes the text requires prior knowledge, like "Connor resumes his guise as Jennifer Lopez" when the reader might know nothing about this guise or what it entails.
    • I've made some additions to the plot summary to add more context for people who hadn't previously seen the show. This include the bits about Mitch Connor, the Gingers, Mecha-Streisand, depictions of Muhammad, and others. Let me know if you think more should be added. — Hunter Kahn 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize that the episode is filled with inside jokes from past episodes, but I feel the text should make sense to the reader.

Otherwise, great article! Xtzou (Talk) 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: Well written
    B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: Sources are reliable
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Sets the context
    B. Focused: Remains focused on topic
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Pass!

Bear Suit

The BBC report that in this episode the depict Muhammed in a bear suit http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8636455.stm. There isn't a reference to that here. I would think it's just a BBC mistake, but they do have a picture. Which is it? Black box and censored, or bear suit? Cos bear suit would surely be far more offensive! That's why I ask. 131.111.186.95 (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it was 201 which was black boxed. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Bear suit.Twobells (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw, what is very interesting is that while the BBC had the info off the wire within moments of the threats being made and had verified them according to their verification policy actually held off publishing the story for over eleven hours, this is in strict contrast to articles far less news worthy on South Park they (BBC) had previously published within moments of the story breaking and being verified. It seems that the BBC only acted to publish the facts once the story had changed from 'threat' to 'warning'.......Twobells (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the Mohammed/bear connection in "South Park" may have been inspired by the Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.27.11 (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought so, but that´s just my opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, episode 201 shows that it wasn't even Muhammed inside the bear suit after all. All that todo over nothing! KarlM (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Censor block

The sources only say that Comedy Central added audio bleeps, not the bars we see on Muhammad. This is further borne out by the part where Tom Cruise also gets censored. This wouldn't make sense if the prophet were not also censored.

Anyways, I've removed the part about images of Muhammad being covered by Comedy Central. We need a source for that particular part. — trlkly 21:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This was, in any case, in 201 only, not 200. KarlM (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No online viewing?

The website now shows 200 as being not available (ever, presumably) for streamed viewing online; previously, it had been listed as "episode available xx.xx.2010" like all the others, and was viewable when it first aired. Anybody know the story behind this? Is Comedy Central blocking them from putting it up along with 201? KarlM (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Yes, this needs to at least be mentioned in the main article. The midseason finale is going to be "released" online in less than a week and neither 200 nor 201 are still "allowed" to be streamed yet. The site usually allows streaming of a new episode within the week that it aired, and then it goes out of rotation for about three weeks before being permanently viewable. Both 200 and 201 are now over a month old and should be viewable on the site. This is highly unusual and should be commented on in the main article.--205.179.229.251 (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus and Internet Porn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

this was trolling. move along. Jack Merridew 07:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Buddhism founder Gautama Buddha is shown snorting cocaine in front of the South Park children and similarly in "201" when the Jesus Christ character is watching internet porn.[6][15]

That Jesus part failed verification. Links below.

Not in source http://www.avclub.com/articles/200,40132/. Not in source http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100035408/south-park-celebrates-200th-episode-with-another-attempt-to-show-us-mohammed/. Not in Wikipedia article 201 (South Park).

There are editors/admins reinserting this junks while threatening to block me for removing it, I dropped the soap (✐) 02:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it because one of the editors indicated a unwillingness to check sources. The other editor is silent after posting to their talk page. I dropped the soap (✐) 02:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Dude, stop the WP:GAME, he did not threaten to block you for removing the text. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The initial reason given being "rmvd blasphemy!" kind of makes this 'failed verification' claim a bit suspect as a post-fact justification. That said though, if it really does fail verification, it should be excluded, motivations entirely aside. - Vianello (Talk) 02:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Picture change

Can there be a different image for the infobox? The image used was for a scene not used in the episode and instead a promotion for the episode. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest? CTJF83 11:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably the scene with Tom Cruise in his fudge-packing uniform telling Stan and Randy that he wants to met Muhammad. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't really think an image like that would contribute anything to the readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, which is part of the fair use criteria allowing non-free images like these. The current image, I feel, does meet that standard by illustrating the wide range of celebrities parodied in the episode. We could include in the photo description, if you feel it's necessary, that it came from an ad for the episode rather than the episode itself (although from my memory I thought this scene was included in the episode). But I'd personally vote for keeping it in. — Hunter Kahn 23:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed Good Article status

Removed {{Good article}}. The article does not meet criterion for Good article status. The plot section has no references. Per good article criterion, good articles need to be "Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

An easy fail, a section that's entirely unreferenced. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • First of all, you cannot simply remove a good article status on your own. There is a process; if you want to have a GA status revoked you have to take it to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Secondly, plot summaries do not require references. Read WP:TVPLOT, which says: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." — Hunter Kahn 15:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

References to Old Episodes

I bring this up merely because this point is not explicitly, clearly, and overtly mentioned. The episode is full of references to earlier episodes, such as explicitly showing old settings, characters, references to events, etc. This goes beyond the main references that compose the plot itself to things like Casa Bonita, Country Kitchen Buffet, Raisins, etc. which serve as minor references to less controversial episodes from previous seasons. I bring this up because a line to the effect of: "The episode contains many direct and indirect references to previous episodes of South Park, ranging from important components of the plot, to minor background material" or something to the effect of that. This should be added to the introductory information, alongside the mention of controversy and significance of the episode and production details.68.6.76.31 (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Shown on SouthParkStudios.se

Episode 200 and 201 was available on Southparkstudios.se (Swedish southparkstudios website), but it is not anymore. According to the article, it was never available in Sweden, so this should be mentioned. (I know this for a fact, since I live in sweden and saw both 200 and 201 on southparkstudios.se) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.166.177 (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fake Muslims


The article under Revolution Muslim has a lot of substantial evidence that the Revolution Muslim is actually made of Orthodox Jewish people. It is speculated that they take extremeist views to smear Islam. I think the banning of this and the sequel episode in any way helps them smear Islam by making Muslims seem responsible for banning a silly cartoon in western non-Islamic cultures. It's note worthy that censorship in this case has the exact opposite effect than intended in that it does more to harm the reputation of Islam than protect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.125.120.194 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So even when the Muslims did it, the Jews did it? 83.253.139.35 (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on 200 (South Park). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:200_(South_Park)/Archive_1&oldid=1142394833"