Talk:Moral Orel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Season 2 and 3 DVD[edit]

Rumors have been circulating that this series will not be released onto season box sets. Any official statements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
--- Dino posted on his facebook profile the following, "OPEN ANSWER TO MY FACEBOOK FRIENDS: Based on poor sales of 'Moral Orel Vol 1' there will most likely never be another DVD of Moral Orel episodes released." So it is highly likely that this is just a rumor. The first instance of this being mentioned that I can find is a comment on Morel Orel's facebook fan page, and the person who states this does not provide any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church[edit]

I removed a parenthetical statement refering to the Catholic Church as the "Original Church form which Protestants broke away", as this statement is a gross oversimplification of Christian History (for example Greek Orthodox Christians see themselves as the original church from which the Catholic Church broke away). The statement also has nothing to do with the show.

The Roman Catholic Church is indeed the oldest surviving Christian denomination, but it is the result of consolidating earlier local organizations. (Prior to the creation of the Roman Church proper in 314, what are now called Dioceses were equivalent to denominations, except that they were purely geographic and not based on doctrinary disagreement.) Furthermore, the Diocese of Rome predates the universalized Roman Church as a single organization and was founded by the Disciple Simon Peter, which explains how he is listed as the 1st Pope.
In any case, you're right that it isn't relevant to the Article. Thanks for removing it! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something?[edit]

OK, I've seen that episode twice, and I'm still don't get it. Is it supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek social commentary or what? I cannot understand why Cartoon Network chose to hype this show. The promo gave me mixed signals: superficially it resembled a typical syrupy Christmas cartoon, yet I wondered if it was in fact some off-color parody of "Davey & Goliath". What I ended up seeing was this nauseatingly cheerful and deluded young "true believer" who thinks his hyperactive kid brother is Jesus, yet is oblivious to the complete meltdown of his nuclear family. Maybe I'm just being cynical, or maybe that was really the intent of the show to feel that way. Akira625 22:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You aren't missing is heavy handed poorly conceived "satire". I don't even waste my time with it anymore.

This show is realy a downer. I just saw the first episode and I was shocked by the incredibly depressing ending.

  • It wasn't particularly funny or entertaining in any way. I'll be surprised if Adult Swim keeps this for long. karmafist 06:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought this show was pretty good after i saw the first three epidodes. once you know what there talking about and looking at the plot will tell you why its funny, there was actually some really funny scenes.(The tay 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

I first saw this show last night, and it was the funniest satire I've seen in a long time. What it critiques is the same self-righteous, intellectually and ethically bankrupt, Protestant U.S. "Christianism" that Ben Folds sings about in "Jesusland." As someone who grew up in a similar household and who accidentally took Jesus seriously (i.e., it's all about radical love), I found the cartoon's portrayal of a puddle-shallow culture of repression and denial not only spot-on, but frighteningly funny. 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Mierek 4:51 PM December 1, 2006

Well when I saw the first episode I was like what the friggin heck is this but when I saw like a couple of more I started to watch and like it--Yowiki 23:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias or Unbias?[edit]

Why is this entry in the form of personal opinion about the show's standpoint? It should be unbiased, which it seems to have some bias.

The author apparently thought it appropriate to use this article to demonstrate his political views. Right or wrong, they do not belong in the entry. Also, please sign your commments. --Orion Minor 09:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read it several times, and I don't think its written in a bias manner. The only instance that could be: "The program centers around Orel who constantly tries to be good and lives by an exaggerated version of Christian morality. However he often misinterprets theology and this results in chaos." This would be a factual statement, since that is how the show is presented, with exagerated Christian morays, which eveything gets all mixed up. The first episode is a good example, when Moral decides to raise people from the dead for "spitting in the face of God", a clear exaggeration of the message.

Therefore, since everything is factual in the article, i would have to say that it is unbiased. --LordKrath, 3:34 AM, Jan 23, 2006

Did you check the history? Look there and you will see what caused the controversy.--Orion Minor 11:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the previous edit. I honestly didn't know there was a NPOV policy for Wikipedia but I'll be sure to stick to it from now on. My post was a reaction to other edits if you take a look in the articles history that were pretty much all conservative views. I did expect some of my comments to be edited mostly by people who didn't agree or simply wanted it to be from a NPOV (not knowing it was policy). I didn't expect it to be completely deleted but I guess it's understandable. I was hoping it'd be ok to still leave the following:

"The program was created as a social commentary that exaggerates real misinterpretations of chistian views on life, society, and god. To some, this program comes as a breath of fresh air while to others it is completely obscene, the only thing everyone agrees with about this show is that it's highly controversial."

I do still stand by comments such as "The show appeared as a social backlash to a recent social and political shift to the right in America." but I'll leave those for the discussion page from now on. --Lefty 2:58PM January 23, 2006

I would stress that the show lampoons not christianity in general, but a particular brand of protestantism: the characters mention being protestant again and again, and compare themselves favorably to Catholics. The creators of the show seem to know that christianity is much bigger than this one insular brand of it. -- GLF 10:21AM May 30, 2006

There are two main issues in the article that either count as bias or original research: 1. "Orel misinterprets theology." 2. "Most of the townspeople do not live the way a Christian is supposed to.... Christianity presented in the show is a jaded view of how Christians act today as opposed to how they are supposed to be setting an example of how to live." On the contrary to these points, from an objective point of view, the show mocks the actual literal tenants of Christianity itself. Humor arises because Orel interprets Christian dogma literally: he believes in actual omnipresence, he believes in the second coming, that the dead will rise again, etc. The show isn't about a failure to live up to a Christian ideal-- this is the bible. (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. if you want to link to a source citing the show's creator about his intent in support of a different view, that would improve things, but intent aside, from an objective point of view, the show simply mocks Christianity

I think the above paragraph could be rephrased to say that since there is no one agreed-upon way to be a Christian, then please don't edit the article and make claims that the townspeople are being good Christians or bad Christians or anything to that effect unless you also make a counterargument on this discussion page as to why such an edit isn't original research and merely an opinion. (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


Seriously's, this show is going to end up like The Book of Daniel (television), if no one defends it. Sweetfreek 01:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC) A badly written unwatched tv show?

I don't think this show will attract nearly the controversy that show has. This is being aired on cable very late at night. It's on a programming block that is typically ignored by anybody who isn't interested in adult-oriented animation. It's presented as comedy rather than a serious attempt at presenting Christianity in a different light. Whereas The Book of Daniel directly portrayed religious icons in a light that offended some, Moral Orel only portrays the followers of those icons (more specifically, the extremist followers) as being incredibly flawed. In any event, there wasn't much of a mainstream controversy over the portrayal of Jesus in South Park (or, for that matter, the portrayal of Satan in the same series). Jeff Silvers 01:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode Summaries[edit]

I'm the one who's been adding these little summaries to the article (I've done 2 so far). I hope this is OK with everyone. I think if everyone likes them, they would probably look better in their own section, but I don't really know how to do that. I haven't done much editing besides little grammar corrections on various articles. I'm not registered here yet, but if I start contributing more I suppose I will create an account. EDIT: I finally registered! Your new Moral Orel Episode Summary Writer is: awesom-o 05:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Registering is an excellent idea, particularly if you're going to edit a section of the site on a regular basis. As a registered user you can put Moral Orel on your watchlist, and you can sign the discussion page any time you make major changes. Incidentally your summaries are a lot more interesting than the show itself. It's possibly the worst thing on adult swim to date, but peversely it's so bad I looked it up to find out more about it. BronzeWarrior 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I organized the episode summaries, I hope you don't mind. Anyway, IMO, I think the show is pretty funny. :) Yono 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Americas[edit]

"The globe shown in the opening credits is missing most of the North American continent, with the exception of the United States, and the entire South American continent."

Could we rephrase this so it makes sense? Does this mean that the globe only shows the United States of America in the Western Hemisphere?

In short, yes. Canada, Mexico, South America - all completely missing. The Eastern half of the world is intact, though. I just couldn't think of a better way to phrase it. - Someguy0830 (Talk) 06:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How about "The globe shown in the opening credits is missing the entire Western Hemisphere, with the exception of the United States."

I take it that the creators of the series were trying to imply that the United States is somehow more important than the rest of the Hemisphere, or perhaps the entire world? At least that the sterotypical Christian thinks this? Captain Jackson 22:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. - Someguy0830 (Talk) 22:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If Christians think that the U.S is more important than the rest of the world, then how do you explain Christians who live in other countries? :) (Christianity wasn't started in the U.S., so how can all Christians believe this?) I think the artists were simply too lazy to put in the rest of the western hemisphere (Besides, the show takes place in the United States and they were probably showing the U.S only, for that reason.) 19:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The show is meant to make fun of Christianity in this county, which tends to place undue importance on this nation. It's not a matter of laziness. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. I have never heard the idea that Christians think America is more important than other countries. If America was the only country they cared about, then there wouldn't be such thing as missionaries (and there wouldn't be Christians living in other countries). Also, they showed Europe and the rest of the world, thus, the U.S. was not the only country on the globe, which in turn shows that they weren't implying that the U.S. was more important than the rest of the world. Again, I think the writers either made a mistake, or were simply too lazy. (or they might have meant something else) 16:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, the writers aren't the ones designing the props, so its not their mistake. Second, they took the time to make the rest of the world, so why not those specific regions? They obviously did so on purpose. This show exaggerates Christianity, which like it or not will tend to place undue importance on the country its based in. They're not saying that all Christians simply pretend those countries don't exist. Read the quote in Bias or Unbias? Honestly, I don't know why you're trying to argue against this. It's not going to change and it's not even mentioned in the article. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm incredibly sorry, I did not mean to get on your nerves. You are probably right about the whole thing, and the only reason that I argued, was because I have never heard that Christians think the U.S. is more important than other countries. (maybe they do, but I have personally never heard that) You made a reasonable point, and I will accept that. Sorry again for wasting your time. (no seriously, I had no intent on angering you.) 20:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of anger, but rather of relevance. I notice you've been arguing similar issues in other articles. I just don't see the point here. The show is intended to make fun of Christians, some of whom don't tend to recognize the importance of other countries, particularly those with differing beliefs. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I got carried away! (again) Once more, I'm sorry for taking your time.

P.S. How did you know I had been debating similar issues on other articles? (did you see my signature on other articles, or what?) 21:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's actually quite simple to track other users' edits. Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's somewhat creepy. Let's pretend this little thing never happened, ok? 22:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that not all Christians think that America is the most important country. There are many many Christians in Canada, Mexico, Central and South America. Just that there is this thing for WASPs that tend to see the world as revolving around the USA and other countries are not as important.

I'm guessing they left out Mexico because Mexico is very well known for having many catholics, and in the show they are constently making fun of catholics. Also, most religious people tend to be more on the conservitive side and conservitive/right winged people tend to think America is perfect (see American Dad!) Uber Cuber 05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the ommission of most of the Western Hemisphere is a geopolitical jibe, not anything to do with religion -- just a simple reflection of US self-centeredness. It would make no less sense to me if Orel and his fam were atheists.Bustter (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Lost Commandments[edit]

I'm a bit confused on the addition of the "Lost" 19th commandment. I can't remember, "Thou shalt not masturbate," mentioned in the show. Ryulong 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's in their bathroom in one of the newer episodes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
"Spare the Rod and Spoil the Choild" is in 'Love' at around 7:22, not sure though now if it's an actual lost commandment, any way to confirm?

Episode 10[edit]

The article has no information on "God's Chef" However the following website has a summary of it:

"In order to masturbate and still go to heaven, Orel hatches a hair-brained scheme that turns Moralton topsy-turvy."

Maybe they're making it up. Then again, it may be right. Point is, it hasn't aired. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
They're not making it up. FreakyMutantMan 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We know that now. Didn't then, though the "Thou shalt not masturbate" commandment is a dead giveaway. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)
I don't know if anyone is still interested in editing any of this, but, I was actually just now watching Adult Swim and this show was on. I'd not seen it before, so I came to Wikipedia to read about it. Interestingly enough, as I read that "God's Chef" had never been aired, it happened to be the episode that was playing on Adult Swim. I don't know how many other times it had been aired, but just wanted to point out that it's been aired at least once and I saw it. --katiebean 06:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

No Criticism or Controversies Section?[edit]

It seems to me like anytime Wikipedia has an article on any person, thing, program, or institution that can be labelled as leaning towards a conservative viewpoint, there is (rightly) a subhead called Controversies or Criticism in said article. Brent Bozell has called the Moral Orel show the very definition of heavy-handed propaganda ("Going to church seems to disqualify you from being capable of love, charity and the slightest fraction of common sense"). Is there any reason there should be an absence of said sections in Wikipedia articles when they feature persons, things, programs, or institutions that can best be termed as leaning toward a liberal viewpoint? Asteriks 16:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing is Adult Swim shows are primarily watched by males 13-25 and people who are high. (When Home Movies was still on this might've been less true) It's a little difficult to offend those groups. Still I might add a bit of controversy if I find a notable example.--T. Anthony 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a grand liberal conspiracy which will make you disappear if you write one. They have black choppers. But you know what? I'm kidding. Nevertheless, let me tell you a story. I was browsing the web, when I bumped into the critisism page you are linking to. It listed several examples of events in the show and concluded that since none of them were funny, it's a bad show. However, I did find some of the events funny, so I searched for episodes at YouTube and Google Video finding some. Then I became curious if anyone had written any good critisism and came here finding none. So if you can find some critisism, which elaborates beyond "wasn't funny, I'm not like that" why don't you summarise it and add it to the article so I can read it. --Lakefall 20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

'Criticism and Controversies' sections aren't really the sort of thing us conservatives put into articles. After all, it takes one viewpoint and inserts it into the article under the veil of neutrality, while at the same time solidifying it as 'valid' simply because it exists. ^_^

Are you saying you conservatives rather want other people to add your criticisms into Criticism and Controversies sections for you or are you simply disagreeing with Asteriks above, who seems to want such a section? Or are you conservatives declaring a War on Criticism to eliminate all criticism from the world in general and Wikipedia in particular? :-P I don't think Criticism and Controversies sections are a bad thing as long as the criticism in them is reasonable. If it's something utterly ridiculous and easily rebuttable and only kept there to soothe the other side then your point holds. --Lakefall 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
My point was we aren't as whiny as liberals. :p
If you can find criticisms of the show online, which I have no doubt you can, then add a section. I can't imagine anyone not welcoming the addition and I don't see why you bring the matter to the discussion page instead of just adding it. If you do so, you might want to include criticisms on qualitative grounds as well as philosophical ones. Since the show began, there's been about as many comments that it was poor satire or not funny from people who aren't offended as there have been comments that it was blasphemous from those who find it offensive. -- 22 February 2007

All I can say is that I am an AVID wikipedia-er (that's a new word and I've just now copyrighted it!) and regardless of the nature of the work the article is based on (be it liberal or conservative) I ALWAYS look for a "criticisms" section, where it seems applicable, and I was greatly surprised to find that there was no such section on the Morel Orel wikipedia page. I'm CERTAIN that there must be SOME negative statements floating around out there that we could add under a "controversy" section. Personally, I feel that to NOT have any criticism on a controversial show which is built upon a controversial issue seems either objective or lazy. Ugh... Wikipedia won't let me sign this thing with the usual dashes... so I'll just write it out, that I am Dr. Ransom and I edited this part in on October 7, 2008. Sorry about that.

I am a Christian, and a Libertarian. I've watched the show on many occasions. I'm not offended by it at all, because I think the show is actually leaning more towards mocking particular GROUPS of Christians in the United States (rigid literalists and 'fundamentalists') rather than Christians as a whole. If not, they've done a pretty poor job of denigrating all of Christianity; especially with so many upstanding, loving, charitable and even heroic examples of the faith, from all sects. It is the same case with other religions; there are marvelous examples of wonderful Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc people. I wouldn't find a show mocking terrorists to be a slander or attack on Islam. I also wouldn't find a show mocking militant Zionists to be a slur against the Jews. Christians who get offended by this show are probably the same ones who reject large portions of science, handle snakes in church or ask their pastor how they should do everything. They are a minority of extremist sects, but they attract a lot of attention. Our national census shows that between 70-75% of Americans are self-proclaimed Christians, yet nearly all of us accept science and are nothing like the pop-culture portrayal of the extremists.

On the other hand, I think there should definitely be a "Criticism" section. We have criticism against every article which describes something people perceive to be "right-wing" or "Republican". I don't believe in the "right-wing - left-wing" political theory, however the trend is obvious. Just look at the George W. Bush article. Gone is the old "Criticism" section, yet strewn throughout the entire article is talk about all of the criticism, dissent and negativity. The very word "criticism" appears 8 times and the word "failure" 3. In the Barack Obama article, "criticism" appears once (about Nobel Peace Prize), and "failure" appears once in Obama's own quote about high school drug use. :) My point isn't A is better than B, or vice-versa, but that it is just obvious who writes the articles. Agendas can slip even unknowingly. I've recently spoke about this in the article about "left-wing right-wing politics". It's very obvious which so-called "wing" is making up the rules and the article.

So what criticism might we add? For one, the show is a very poorly played satire, and not very clever. It is very crude, both in its art and content. It's not particularly "enlightening", in any way. It serves no real purpose other than mocking and attempting to offend. The target of the satire is very unclear; my interpretation in the first paragraph is just that; my interpretation. Other viewers seem to have totally different ideas, and most seem to feel its an attack against all Christians and their definition of "right-wingers". It's extremely immature, and as another person has said, seemingly designed for people who are intoxicated (like "Robot Chicken", which I'm, shockingly, a fan of! :D). On top of that, it really ISN'T funny, in my opinion. It is also not watched by many people, and I've never met a fan of it in person, or online.

You can find plenty of similar criticism online. Due to Wikipedia's rules, I doubt you can post mine. It doesn't allow anything someone wrote to be posted; only something from some impersonal source (i.e., an "institution" who the author agrees with, or the New York Times). :-/

Postscriptum - I believe the lack of other countries for North America on the globe is to highlight the geo/ethnocentrism of whatever "group" they are targeting. It's certainly no mistake or "laziness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious animation?[edit]

I thought I was the only one who noticed that. But should this be considered "religious animation?" That would be like classifying Police Squad! under "crime dramas."

Agreed. SelfStudyBuddy 05:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not as much a religious animation, but more of a satire(because they make fun of religion). Hope this helps you. PlatypiPwn (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC) PlatypiPwn

Episode guide as its own article[edit]

I'm in favor of making it a separate article, if a full second season appears. Replace the whole guide with a bulleted list of the episodes and original airdates. --SidP 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that each episode should now have its own article. 04:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


I believe the episode "Courtship" had music other than mark rivers if anyone canfirm this a note should be added to the music section. SelfStudyBuddy 05:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I did a little research and I was right "Peter Blood" was featured his track you was used through out the episode. --SelfStudyBuddy 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Several episodes in the second season, particularly the later ones, make use of songs by "The Mountain Goats." (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Original research or unverified claims[edit]

There is not one citation needed flag in this entire article, until there is citation needed flags, I am removing the original research or unverified claims tag. --SelfStudyBuddy 01:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

General Overview[edit]

The second sentence of this article has to be fixed. The show is simply rated TV-MA. To guess at how it got that rating reeks of bias. I'm too lazy to clean it up.

Serious Tone[edit]

Do you think it should be mentioned how the episodes seem to be taking a darker, more serious tone? It started out with plain old humor, but with season three, the episodes have un-humorous, dark names such as "Numb." The storylines of each episode are not following the same "advice, insane action, spanking" routine, and generally, it seems really dark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenMorgan (talkcontribs) 07:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The writers seem, perhaps in honor of the show's final season, to have taken a very dark turn. I haven't found much expert commentary on this yet, but it really does seem deserving of mention ... Rangergordon (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In the section on Doughy, there are a number of claims made about his parents' relationship to him that cannot be verified. While we could certainly assume that the characters presented as his parents are actually his older brother and his brother's wife, there's no particular reason to, nor is there any reason to assume his "real" parents died in an accident and left the kids with insurance money. I always thought they were just immature, still stuck in their high school days (which actually wouldn't have been that long ago if they had Doughy shortly after they graduated, a very real possibility considering they are shown to have been in school at the same time as Stephanie the sex-toy shop clerk (in "Closeface"), who appears to be in her 20s-30s), a commentary on people whose popularity peaks in their teens. Though they appear young and dress/behave as a stereotypical high school jock and cheerleader, there's no evidence that would suggest they aren't his actual parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

New Article for characters ?[edit]

Many article have new Article for characters, Main and Supporting. Would a new article for the characters be part of the cleanup ?

Danielle Stopframe....No article[edit]

I think there should be an article on Coach Stopframe, placed in the Supporting Characters section. However, I hardly think I could write a full article, as I have limited knowledge. Could someone with more knowledge of him than I write an article? Sakurato (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Character list[edit]

There is currently a character list at Characters for Moral Orel. This is a non-standard and ungrammatical name. A character list should be at List of Moral Orel characters. There was previously a list at that title but it was apparently unilaterally redirected without discussion. The new characters article can't be moved to the correct title because of the old list/redirect. Suggested solutions would be: 1) delete the redirect and move the current list to its place; 2) undo the redirect and delete the current list; 3) do nothing about the current redirect and delete the current list. While neither character list is referenced, the redirected list is at least grammatically written. I'm not a fan so I have no strong interest but my preferred solution would be 2, restore the old list and delete the current one. What say ye? Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs a clean up pretty bad.[edit]

It's like someone took the completely appropriate character summaries and added tibits of grammatical errors and things that don't fit.

Example: Also, he uses his mother wraped up "lost commandments" to teach Orel when he does something wrong. Her death really messes Clay up badly. If she was alive and see him as an alcoholic, she'll probably be disappointing in him.

They did. Have a look through the history of the page. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lunchbox Hymentact[edit]

the current article says "It is possible that "Lunchbox" is a nickname or genital-related euphemism." This isn't really a verifiable statement. It's more likely that the name 'Lunchbox' is a continuation of the stop-motion related names (i.e. Puppington, Modella, Posabule, Stopframe). The Lunchbox is a stop-motion tool used for getting instant video feedback for animation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonelvisamerica (talkcontribs) 09:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Issues of Errors Appearing in References[edit]

Can someone please go through the references and try and fix the "Check |url= scheme" errors which appears at least Six times. Not sure what is causing this and I don't want to even try and do it myself because I'm afraid I'll make it worse. Thanks. YborCityJohn (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie's Sexuality (i.e. Lesbianism)[edit]

Under Reverend Putty's paragraph it describes his daughter Stephanie as a "Punk Rock Lesbian" I don't think Stephanie's sexual preference has ever been established. But if I were to guess I'd say she's probably Bi-Sexual so I would like to take the Lesbian reference out until there is some concrete evidence and references that establish her sexuality. YborCityJohn (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Also look at the M.O. Outtakes videos on YouTube where it is suggested by Ms. Censordoll that Stephanie and the Missing Link man should get a room because he wanted a book on body tattoos and Stephanie runs a Tattoo parlor so there you go. As I stated before maybe it should said that she is Bi-Sexual until proven otherwise. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


WASPs are a cultural elite. The show's characters are decidedly middle America middle class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Home releases[edit]

Is this correct? to download episodes on ITunes it's $47.96 and on the Playstation PSP it's $87.65 because that's waaaay a lot more for the same exact episodes. Can you please explain this further. (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, this is correct... Apple's iTunes discounts it as a Season Pass (All episodes and the special purchased together and at once) which is $40.69 off of the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of $88.65 ($14.99 for each season plus $2.99 for the special) whereas Sony's PSP Marketplace does not do any type of discount so anyone who purchases the episodes through their PSP device will be paying full MSRP which is $87.65 ($1.99 for each episode plus a $1.99 for the special), I also believe that the Sony does not allow purchases in the PSP Marketplace to be downloaded or saved from the PSP device to a DVD or external hard drive. YborCityJohn (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moral Orel. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 11:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)