Talk:The China Probrem

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

No Episodes of CHINA PROBLEM scheduled in Re-Runs[edit]

With the recent conclusion of season 12 of South Park, they normally don't waste any time in showing an episode in re-run. But for whatever reason, this episode THE CHINA PROBLEM has not been shown in rerun since it originally aired, even in scheduled re-rerun times of it leading up to the next original episode. THere are many rumors out there that a pair of film directors were not too amused by their portrayal in this episode, leading many to speculate that they had something to do with the episode not being in reruns.Whippletheduck (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to wait until Season 13 airs to confirm may be how George and Steven felt, but we cant prove that to be true until we here from Comedy Central. They usually dont address re-run information till a new season airs, or till the following year --J miester25 (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mystic River[edit]

Did this episode not seem to be related to the film,Mystic River? I didn't see it mentioned in the cultural references. I'm talking about how the two boys saw their friend kidnapped, who was later raped and they had problems dealing with it. Just a thought. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mystic River didn't involve anyone seeing their friend raped or kidnapped. Even if it did, it'd be a tenuous connection, since lots of films contain those elements. Nightscream (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhh yeah...they kinda did see someone get kidnapped, they just didn't know it was a kidnapping until he was returned. They didn't see him get raped though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Clone Wars[edit]

Does anyone else think that Lucas and Spielberg rapeing a stormtropper may have been a rference to the latest Star Wars movie, The Clone Wars, which was almost universally panned? Just a thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be right, but I think it was more of a swipe at how the franchise was raped by everything that came out since 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It was probably a swipe at both, at Star Wars in general, but the Stormtrooper chosen specifically for the Clone Wars, as the symbol for CW was a Clonetrooper, which would be a "rape" of a Stormtrooper. --JohnVMaster (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The yoda puppet was reffering to prequels and stormtrooper to clone wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

God damn peole. It was a reference to the Star Wars movies. Not Clone Wars. Even the basic nerds know theres a huge difference between Clone stormtrooper outfit and Non-clone stormtrooper. (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Good reference[edit] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Rape scenes film references[edit]

The rape scene references to "The Accused" and "Deliverance" are obvious, but it is not clear to me that the first rape scene is in fact a reference to "Boys Don't Cry" as stated in the main article.

And I am not the only one--at least one article I've read ties it to "A Clockwork Orange" instead: "South Park rape episode draws record viewers"

Can someone point out the details that link the scene to one film or the other? (Or some third film?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellingman (talkcontribs) 21:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review, the consensus seems to be that it was in fact a third movie: The Kite Runner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellingman (talkcontribs) 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

New image[edit]

Am I the only one thinking the image is not very suitable? I mean, there's nothing in it which distinguishes any elements found in this particular episode. As a matter of fact, it could represent any episode! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingspor (talkcontribs) 22:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It was put up before the episode aired when only the preview clip was available. I'll put up a new one. --JohnVMaster (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the image currently there needs to be changed to Cartman and Butters at P.F. Changs or something like that...not wat is going on in this picture now. The title of the article is "The China Probrem" and this current picture does not relate to it as much for somebody who is looking at this for the first time and never saw this episode. --J miester25 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the whole Indiana Jones-thingy was undoubtedly the more prominent element of this episode. Therefore, I think the current image suits this article and episode perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingspor (talkcontribs) 23:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should chance the picture to avoid spoilers. but on the other hand... if you dont want to be spoiled then dont wiki the episode. -Ixillius —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC).


Why is there no mention of the AFL? Cartman created the American Liberation Front, which is obviously a satire of the Animal Liberation Front. I think Cartman's message at the end is also a satire. While they might be fighting for a cause they believe in, it's not worth it if they do it via unethical means (shooting people in the dick/sabotage and violence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is more likely a coincidence than anything else and is a stretch. There are many, many, many organizations out there- almost no matter what initials you select with the letter A being in the front, you're bound to double up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But Matt and Trey have parodyed PETA and other organizations many times before, it seems unlikely to be a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobb (talkcontribs) 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

They did an ALF parody in the space whale episode too... Free Wyzlyxz or whatever it was. -- (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

But then why the ALF? Why them in this episode? As an obtuse jab for no real reason? South Park pretty much says what it means up front. If the Animal Liberation Front was a target, then chances are it would have more bone to it besides the initials.

How is it that hard for people to understand? ALF, the Animal Liberation Front. Did you miss the "Liberation Front" part? Just saying "oh, heaps of groups have A in it" is idiotic.

Trivia is incorrect!![edit]

This is not the first time Cartman said "I've learned something today." The first time was at the end of the 7th season premiere "I'm A Little Bit Country". What is said in this article is incorrect and needs to be changed. It is misleading and does not follow I'm A Little Bit Country's article. --J miester25 (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made the neccesary corrections to this section --J miester25 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

HEYYY WHAT HAPPENED TO MY SECTION???? --J miester25 (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipeda. Cultural References sections are, too, for the most part, but at least those can generally be sourced. Trivia by it's very nature is trivial, and therefore not suitable for an encyclopedia, per Wikipedia rules. --Mike | Contrib 15:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
"Your" section? Wikipedia is editable by all, nobody owns an article. Alastairward (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This is stupid. I like the cultural references! You can't find anything like it on Google, as you've previously stated. If as you say nobody owns an article, why do you take matters into you're own hands? Dorkules (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yawn, do I really have to go through the motions again? Very well, if you add something to wikipedia that is challenged and you haven't cited it, don't expect it to stay there forever. See the no original research rule if you want clarification. And if you can't use Google, that's not my problem. Alastairward (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I find your attitude absolutely turd, especially since the cultural references are a critical part of any south park article. I will dig up citations for it, if I have to write them myself for other sites as valid sources since users such as yourself are the scourge of Wikipedia. Another-anomaly (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It is very disappointing to see that the references are being cut all the time. These are the reason to even read the article! Do we need the storyline? No, we just saw the episode. But do we want to know "Hey, I recognised two of the rape-scenes, what was the third?" Yes, we do. And Wikipedia is not there to help out anymore. How much citing do you need? See the scene, see the original movie it refers to: done. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it's only a duck when Parker & Stone say it is. Stijndon (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

According to [1] you're supposed to add {{fact}} tags before you move anything. A link to each episode on might be enough of a citation for most stuff and could be easily added.

I suggest you make yourself familiar with the contents of [2]. It is not a requirement to cite sources when describing synopsises of works because the work itself *is* the citation, in this case appropriate for television episodes.

Next step is to bring in an admin regarding your editing abuse/bias.

Another-anomaly (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and your whole argument is rubbish since footnote 2 clearly tells of the film references. Yawn, read your sources before ignorantly editing sections out.

Another-anomaly (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yawn, fixed it for you. Now cite your references. Anthony cargile (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

lol! The threat of admin action? I don't think I'll lose any sleep over that. Nothing you added is verifiable (it asks that you ensure that when you edit any page.) With regards this, I've added so many tags to SP article only to see them lie there for months to know that I can safely remove the dubious material without compromising the article. And as for this policy, all you've done is add someone else's speculation to the article. Read up on all that here, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". and other user editable websites are no use to us, all they consist of are fan rumours for the most part.
Now, two questions. What references do I have to cite and why do you think admins will give you credence when you're trying to hide insults that can be clearly seen in the edit history? Alastairward (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahem, the article now has two tags for you to clean up (properly this time), and an administrator has told you to knock it off on your talk page. I'm aware the insults can be seen, I administer 8 high profile websites and know the inner workings of HTML, server side scripting, and even system software and assembly quite well, thank you, and that includes the commenting system and how it can be viewed such as: . Now be a good little troll and stop removing cited sections with valid sources. Another-anomaly (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Anthony, as I have said before, an Admin left me a message regarding one reference only, nothing to do with this article. You've done nothing to try and make an effort to properly cite the references you allege to. As for your work experience, bully for you, but how does it qualify you to call someone a douche and then complain that the admins should be coming down hard on me? Why even bother to hide what you said to me? It's a talk page after all, why not... talk? Alastairward (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, we do try to add references when possible. But we're too busy reading all the guidelines you slap in our faces. This guideline is nice, by the way: Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles#What_this_guideline_is_not I've seen for a couple of times now that you remove a well-sourced version of the cultural references, and then somebody else puts an old, unsourced version back. Do you want that? Or do you want a sourced version to just remain in place? I bet you want the sourced version. You've made that pretty clear. So maybe just leave it in place. Stijndon (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
That just doesn't make sense. Without a cite I'd rather have nothing up, reliable verifiable cites are

few and far between. Alastairward (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

1, the section has been sourced before, only for you to remove it with a sarcastic yawn (violating your much-quoted WP policy), and most of the references cited were, in fact, non-user editable, factual sites (e.g. reliable sources). 2, WP policy, which you need to read up on rather than linking to blindly, says an article about a TV episode or movie can use the actual movie/episode itself as a reference and in fact the episode is viewable online, so all the better for linking. Read up, Alastairward, and as pointed out above: STOP REMOVING CITED SECTIONS. I will reinstate the cited section you removed, providing a link to the south park episodes as well, and if removed this time maybe a second (or third? ) admin notice will finally shut you up. Another-anomaly (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright Alastairward You said and NOW IM QUOTING : Nobody owns an article. You are the biggest hypocrite in the world. You have removed my references i have provided for Episode Continuity, you have provided your own Cultural References that i do not have a problem with, so why not add your section, and ill add mine IF YOU PROVIDE REFERENCES LIKE I HAVE? You do not have the right to completely erase cited facts in Wikipedia Articles. If, you do it again, i will report you for violation of standards to the admins. --J miester25 (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

lol, he was on the wtiquette page, and he has been tagged as being in an edit war. I was going to add this to the witiquette page before somebody deleted it:

The South Park studios website (where Matt and Trey directly contact the outside world without Viacom/Comedy Central) is certainly a valid source, especially since primary sources should be even more highly regarded for credit than secondary sources, which many times are, in fact, user-editable websites, and even at that anybody with a job title editing a website for pay or as an official position is a USER, so even those can be disregarded almost as easily as any old blog or wiki, and many news websites are calling themselves blogs just to add to the confusion. But Alastairward is right on something for once: We are here to really discuss his etiquette on WP and his snide remarks in the removal edits of the content everybody so enjoys, despite his opinion against it for whatever reason. The issue of his removal of properly cited content is a part of this discussion because thats what everyone is so angry about, since (again) cultural references/parodies/satire constitute a large portion of south park episodes, and a decent list of them should be present on the actual article since it is just as (if not more) important than the plot itself because of Matt and Trey's emphasis on it. Moving them to the talk page as you stated still gets them to us one way or another, but seeing as they are a major part of every episode, why not move the plot to the talk page? Or the Picture? Or the episode number? I'm sure that constitutes a "compromise", since the only sources for the episode number is the South Park studios website itself and God forbid we place any primary sources for a major part of the episode. South Park acts very much like a median to parody popular culture in a satiric manner, so removing the cultural references is utter blasphemy to a SP article, and causing harm to Wikipedia's coverage of the subject, and Alastairwards hostility to anyone believing this not only gives me the impression that South Park goes completely over his head (he is a Star Treck follower/editor as well, a completely different breed of show), but also causes edit wars between him and a few too-literal non-specific WP policy followers and the rest of the South Park fans/WP users that actually know more on the subject and what it stands for than the opposition. At times its like an English major is editing an article on computer science, citing references without knowing anything about the article's target, although they (at least believe) they are "following" all the guidelines written for doing so for every article, not just special topic-specific rules. If we can use the actual episode as a source for the plot (which constitutes only roughly half a SP episode, the other being satire), why can't we use it also for the satire itself and add the cultural references to the article, not the talk page, where they belong alongside the plot so that the entire episode is thoroughly explained, not just a minute (completely secondary source referenced) plot description? Anthony cargile (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Season 13?[edit]

On a commerical for this episode on Comedy Central, it was advertised as the season premiere. So wouldn't this be the Season 13 premiere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

no --J miester25 (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, this isn't the season premiere...Comedy Central lied to get more viewers/attention. This is merely the second "run" of season 12, and this episode was the mid season premiere, not the season premiere...

Aspiring chemist (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Why does the episode summary refer to the Storm Trooper raping scene as influenced by Deliverance? It is clear that the third rape scene is a reference to this movie...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference in 'Pandemic'[edit]

In the newest SP episode, | Pandemic (South Park Episode), there is a reference to Indy being raped in Peru, and therein, to this episode. Should that be mentioned in this article? Perhaps in a continuity section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is continuity, it should be only mentioned in the Pandamic article. I dont think it would be right to have foreshadowing information in this article because its not supposed to be about Pandamic. Now in the Pandamic article, it would be ok because u are talking about information that was in the episode Pandamic. In this article, u are not supposed to be talking about information that came directly from Pandamic, u are only supposed to be talking about what came from The China Probrem and ONLY reactions, not what occured in future episodes. It would set readers off course and contain spoilers for that episode. That line did not occur in this episode, it only occured in Pandamic. So there, in the Pandamic article, the continuity reference should be made. --J miester25 (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references[edit]

Citations and discussion here, blogs and fan sites don't really cut it as far as cites go;

  • The first scene where Indiana Jones is raped is based on the rape scene in Boys Don't Cry.
  • The daydream of the lawyer consulted by the kids (featuring him playing a Willow arcade game) shows George Lucas raping Indiana Jones on a Howard the Duck pinball machine at a bar with Steven Spielberg cheering him on. This is in reference to the movie The Accused.
  • The scene where Indiana is forced to squeal like a pig while he is raped is a direct reference to Deliverance where Ned Beatty's character, Bobby, is forced to strip in front of two hillbillies.

Alastairward (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Episode Continuity[edit]

Wondering what this has to do with continuity of any sort. It doesn't really seem to be anything of the sort, just another minor plot point blown up to give it's own section. Any reason to keep it? Alastairward (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I have provided 3 sources to show how this is continuity to two other episodes in the show. I have given reason as to how this is continuity. I understand that u want to keep Trivia out of the article. That is fine. But, you can not take out an entire section that has been source and it is reasonable to have sources that is streaming video on the website according to Anthony user whatever his number is. He is right. You can not do that. That is in violation of Wikipedia standards. I have edited the article and provided factual evidence to support the facts. You can not remove that information. Who are you to say what is regulated in this article? If, you remove it again, i will report you for WS regulation violation to the admins.

--J miester25 (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

FORGET EVERYTHING I SAID!!!!! THIS WAS A BIG SCREW UP ON MY PART. Alastairward i am horribly sorry for everything that has happened. Since you do not have a probrem with my section, i will not butt into the references. I conceide and again i am very sorry for everything i said to you. The only reason why we should keep Continuity in the article is to show that it has been a while since Cartman provided a moral in the show...5 years actually. I think its important and should me mentioned. My references do verify the information and like Rogerbrent said, it is enough verification for information to be kept. --J miester25 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have removed them (tonight, and it that was before I read your apology). I queried them before and then Nightscream weighed in with (and I quote from below) "Mentions of continuity with other episodes do not constitute "cultural" references." I agree with that, so they went.
I'm not disagreeing that your cites from southparkstudios reference the show (that's the show's website, no problem with that) Its just that the continuity listing is just trivia, you're only reiterating plots from before. It has nothing to do with what we're discussing below, this is an entirely different matter. Alastairward (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
But even if it is Trivia, shouldn't readers be aware of the importance and rarity of such instances? Thats why i think it should be on there. When Soetermans edited it, he only capitilized the title (grammar mistake on my part), he kept the section and saw no problem with it


Which administator suggested to remove it?--J miester25 (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream suggested it twice on this page. Search down and you'll see.
If it's an instance that's repeated a lot in South Park, well there are plenty of those already. Kenny's death, Mr Mackey's drug lectures, Jimbo and Ned calling out "They're coming right for us." I might suggest adding it to a character page though. Perhaps there's room there for Kyle's moralising? Alastairward (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
But because it pertains to this episode, i think it should belong in this article, and it should be stressed that what i provided doesnt occur often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J miester25 (talkcontribs) 00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Stuck: (J miester25 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
You do like that stuck tag don't you! We're not really stuck though, as mentioned, continuity isn't really a cultural reference and is simply reiterating the plot. Alastairward (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
haha it helps me mark the page because theres so much on this page i get lost. so maybe it should be mentioned in the plot, just worded differently? E.g. Cartman, who has not given a moral since the 7th season, etc. (explain what it was in the plot), George Lucas and Steven Speilberg, who have not appeared in an episode since the 6th season, etc. (continue on with the plot). Would it fit better in the plot section? I can still provide the sources, as i should, but would it make sense more there that way i dont repeat anything in the article? --J miester25 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, does it really add anything to the plot? Like I said, it is just reiteration of what's been said on other episode articles. Alastairward (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it shows the significance of the episode --J miester25 (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
To be blunt, each episode is significant in that it progresses the history of each character. That much is contained in the separate articles for each episode. If someone wants to find out more, they can browse them. It's not up to each episode to act as a guide for the rest. Alastairward (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference Quality[edit]

Does this work as a vaild reference, alistairward?

Twinsrulemlb (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Add it to the existing history-preserved references, which maybe one day will be restored by someone other than the afore-mentioned unwashed heathen. Anthony cargile (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on cites[edit]

Below is my reasoning for not accepting the cites given in the "cultural references". I'd like users such as Stijndon to discuss them here rather than merely reverting my edits without reason.

Southparkstuff is a fan site, Southparkstudios is the actual producers site for the show. Only the latter is the word of the creators, the former is fan opinion.

A blog, no quotes from the creators of the show.

Just another blog, even if it is featured in a newspaper website. No reference to having spoken to the creators of the show.

Southpark wikia is just another wiki, citing it is as good as citing another unreferenced wikipedia article. Copy their references by all means (if they have any), but remember they're subject to the rules about verifiability here too. Alastairward (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you blatenlty did not undo a revision, you would have noticed that none of those sites were the references. What i provided all came from SouthParkStudios, a primary source. --J miester25 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How many times must I say it, I did not remove the section you added, that contained references. We were discussing the use of the cites above in reference to "cultural references". Alastairward (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
ok my bad...well since it was remove, i added it again since Rogerbrent (administrator) verified that the references in my section would be enough citing. --J miester25 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Final Compromise[edit]

This section will discuss the issues brought forth by Anthony cargile, J miester25, Stijndon, and other users who have been affected by this. It will include reasons for said references to be included in South Park articles that have been removed by Alastairward. This will also discuss that nobody should have to present a cultural reference before Alastairward, seeking apporval from him. Wikipedia articles are not owned by anybody and therefore do not need approval for adding cited information regarding issues such as these. This section will also provide insight by administators Rogerbrent and Nightscream, to guide the issue and resolve it. This section does not permit hostile accusations, but permits a civil understanding of what Cultural References are and if information is referenced, it does not give someone the right to remove it completely before discussing the issue beforehand. After each case presented, a final compromise will be issued and it will be left at that. --J miester25 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress; comments welcome

Thing is, the cites are already mentioned above, why didn't you discuss them before? Besides which, in a way there is little point in asking about "cultural references", it all boils down to trivia, plain and simple. My own request for this talk page and article would be that the three users named above would stop reverting my edits with no or poor reasoning given in the edit summary, or using the talk and edit summary to push abusiveness. Alastairward (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from ""

This section is not about that. This is about why you are removing cited information that is proven to be factual before you address it in the Talk Page. Stick to the topic. Afterwards, we will then discuss a compromise. But for now, state why you removed cited information. --J miester25 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me get this straight first. You and Anthony Cargile made posts on several pages, stating that I was bullying other users and even altering (not just editing, but altering!) wikipedia to stop you editing it. I did no such thing, I simply stated that I didn't believe the cites you provided backed up your claim. There has been ample time and space for you to discuss all this, yet you simply sought to hound me on wikipedia and bully me into accepting you idea of what constitutes a good article. So after all this, after you accuse me of trying to bully everyone into accepting my supposed grand scheme for how wikipedia looks, you decide that there should be a final plan for how this page should look, with no input from other users but the gang you formed to stalk me on wikipedia. You can see why I'm sceptical, perhaps this change in attitude is because of the actions of admins disapproving of your behaviour?
My views on the cites provided are above in a section already created. Alastairward (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason why we seemed hostile was because you blately erased the information, removed the list of references, and forced everybody to seek your apporval to add information. Many users took offense to the position you established for yourself and we wanted to bring this forth to administrators before we set up a discussion solving this matter. However, Neon White told Anthony, Stijndon, and I that we had to present our case elsewhere and here we are. We apologized and offered to do this in a civil manner. It is time to move on and discuss what we are going to do to solve this issue so that insiteful, sourced, information is provided in articles such as satiric shows such as South Park, Family Guy, etc. without the potential of being deleted because others disagree with it. Before we can do so, we need insite from Nightscream and Robertbrent so that this is guaranteed. We also need positions from Anthony and Stijndon. --J miester25 (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You didn't seem hostile, you two were hostile, cautions were handed out for it. Many users boils down to basically you, Anthony and Stijndon, and no, you two (you and Anthony) for the most part didn't give any more reason than "douche" or some other bit of abuse for your edits. Nothing has been deleted, merely moved to the talk page so that it can be discussed. Your argument as I see it seems to be that nobody can disagree with you as admins have to approve any edit you disagree with. All along I was quoting policy and making room to discuss things, it seems that only now that you and Anthony have been warned that you're willing to be polite. Alastairward (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you did violate Wikipedia Standards: According toWikipedia:Citing Sources Article 5.1.1
Retrieved from ""
Since the section Episode Continuity, an update of a previous Trivia section, was sourced, not tagged, and removed, it is a clear violation. --J miester25 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
On August 17, 2008 03:35, -Roger addressed the issue of you removing the information and/or complete sections in South Park articles in your Talk Page. He stated
Although you provided a discussion about Episode Continuity, you failed to provide tags or templates so that information could be discussed, but kept in the article and marked as being under construction. Also, you did not provide the raw information and sources from Episode Continuity in your discussion. This is also in violation of what administator already stated in your Talk Page.
On October 28, 2008 00:56, regarding this issue with Cultural References and the discussion you had with Another-anomaly, administratorNightscream stated in your talk page
Retrieved from "",
You have gone against what an administator already warned you for and you violated Wikipedia Standards. --J miester25 (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't edited this article before now, so I hope that makes me "uninvolved". I don't know the exact record of every single edit here, but based on what I have seen, here are the points I would make:

  • First, no personal comments. Ever. This violates WP:Civil. Discuss the material, and why you disagree with your opponents' position. Do not discuss your opponent on a personal level.
  • Second, when there is an edit conflict, getting into an edit war is a violation of WP policy. The proper thing to do is to discus the matter on a Talk Page. When that discussion is ongoing, continuing to make the same edits that are the source of the conflict violates this policy. This is not a question of one editor owning the article or seeking approval; it's simply what Wikipedia policy says. See WP:Edit war and WP:Consensus for more on this.
  • Third, all lists are considered Trivia. Since South Park is a satire/parody show, the pop culture references it makes are valid for inclusion, IMO. See Not all list sections are trivia sections under WP:Trivia. HOWEVER---
    • Mentions of continuity with other episodes do not constitute "cultural" references.
    • All such material must be sourced, and the source must establish the original intent of the creators. Blogs and personal interpretations of editors do not do this, and are a violation of WP:SYNTH. If a critic or reviewer spots a reference, you can use that as a citation, but only if you attribute it to that reviewer (i.e.: "Critic John Doe saw this scene as a reference to Cloverfield...) I would suggest with regard to other references that viewers spot in episodes, that you wait until the DVD of the episode comes out to see if the creators make any mention of the reference in the Commentary. Since many such assertions are not "doubtful", leaving the material there with a fact tag would be okay, IMO, but the people who insist on putting it in there should monitor sources like the DVD's to see if a source emerges, lest it eventually be removed. I actually fought for a more lenient view of WP:Verifiability on this point, but was told on Jimbo Wales' Talk Page that such material must be sourced. If it isn't, it constitutes original research.

If any of my opinions require further clarification, let me know. Nightscream (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Could not have said it better. On the Wikipedia Etiquette page, I offered two paragraphs summing up my views on the situation, and you are the second administrator to back us up. I don't care about continuity, since it is a TV show with seasons, therefore offering expected references between them, and placing the cultural references along with a fact tag seems like a perfect compromise, adding references as the creators comment on the DVD.

You know guys, I learned something today: We all were all wrong for our comments to each other, be it me and Jmeister's "douche", "satan", and the anonymous user's "F***Head", or Alastairward's editing war starting comments like "yawn", but if we can all agree on placing the cultural references on the article along with a fact tag (removed as the DVD verifies the source), we can all put this whole ordeal behind us and stop teh editing war. The cultural references section will *not* be a trivial list, as it is just as important to a South Park episode as the plot itself, so for the benefit of Wikipedia, its users, and the Wikipedia Policy, I think we can all finally settle this once and for all, and this is just my and Nightscream's recommendations. Another-anomaly (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that we should move on. I just want to know that if I provide sources showing continuity of previous episodes, whether it would be for South Park, Star Trek, Family Guy, whatever, and if the section provides more insite and is cited with reliable sources, whether it'd be primary or secondary, does it have the potential to be removed without it being discussed beforehand? This is exactly what happened to me on October 26. He shall remain "nameless", but I know who it is and you know who it is. So, in the future, even if it's cited, will it occur again? --J miester25 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's hope not. The two (or three?) admin notices should have sent a message regarding the edits. I fully support Nightscream in his compromise, and I think we need to implement it right away, although we should leave editing ALL those South Park episode articles to someone who actually as the time... Another-anomaly (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha. Unfortunately, I will not have that time till either Christmas Vacation during school or summer vaction. However, summer of 2009 might be not as leinient for time, since college wil be around the corner. I might have spread it out and provide the information just in the Talk Pages for that time, and then when people agree on it, I'll add it. "He-Who-Remains-Nameless" can put his own ideas in as well, but this time we have to be absolutely sure that he agrees with the additions. Most times, I might not even wait for his approval because it is not needed. I'll use the 3 user rule and if 3 people agree, it is going on there, along with the source. --J miester25 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I was actually alluding to a comment Alastairward made earlier in the arguments, when he admitted he does actually have the time on his hands to edit these articles. If thats the case, and he agrees fully with the compromise along with the other majority of us, we can move the culture refs out of the depths of the talk pages and back into the article with a fact tag, citing the DVD commentary when it comes out (Seinfeld did that regarding the real soup nazi, and it was cited on that page in the same manner as Nightscream mentioned above). Another-anomaly (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I like each suggestion made here that will result in "sourced" cultural references in South Park episodes (eventually spreading to other series). Attributing the references to critics, along with a link to where they state the reference, seems like a good compromise to me. That was a good insight e . Given the length of the discussion above, and my general agree-etation with it, I don't feel like I need to add much more than my approval. I'm looking forward to living in a world where the Reason for reading South Park episode articles is actually valid again. Stijndon (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Work in progress; comments welcome

When all of this is over, and we recieve feedback from Alastiarward, I will copy this entire section and post it under the Talk Page of the South Park article to inform users of this issue so that problems and speculation will not persist in the individual articles for episodes of the show. I will also post it in the List of South Park Episodes Talk Page as well. Since this discussion has administrative rules, users will follow the rules that Nightscream set out, again i thank you for your cooperation. --J miester25 (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I left a few talk page notices regarding the comp. for users that were involved in this and other article editing wars earlier, as well as admins. So if we get a few more people satisfied with this from both a fan standpoint and a WP standpoint, we can go ahead with it even without Alastairward's response, although just for good faith I'd like to hear what he has to say about this. Another-anomaly (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I don't want to deal with anymore conflicts over this, especially ones that we intentionally set up. --J miester25 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
From having edited pretty much every South Park episode article to date, I can say that fact tags remain in place for a long time, many months and I have no faith that you three (Anthony, J miester25 and Stijndon) will actually come back to address the tags, you haven't even addressed the cites you made in the first place for which I provided my disagreement above (why haven't you addressed them yet?). If the cites I provided above can be discussed first, then that would be a start.
As for your interpretation of Admin actions J miester25, Nightscream suggested that one cite be left on an article page with an amended description. This is far from your claim that admins have demanded that I cease and desist editing any South Park article. I would like to also query why it has been the case that I have edited, over the past couple of months, the other South Park episodes in this manner, without any warnings or bans in place. It seems strange if as you three say, I have been flouting WP Policy all over the place, that it's only now that a problem has occured.
Alastairward (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
At this point, you are the only one opposing the compromise. If nobody else has any objections, the vote is now 4 to 1 in favor of keeping the references with a fact tag. 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another-anomaly (talkcontribs)
Actually, you have been warned by Nightime and this is not the first time the issue has been addressed. It took somebody to actually find out what you have violated and can we PLEASE just move on and accept the compromise?--J miester25 (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:DEMOCRACY. And take a look at WP:MOS (capitalization): if you have to add cultural references (NOT Cultural References), write it correctly. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 13:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Soetermans, thanks again for the support. The purpose of this new "forum" simply seems to be so that the trio above can have some sort of a platform of supposed decency to bully me into accepting their point of view. They still haven't (I'll have to take that as a straight out refusal now) told me why they think their cites are valid, simply that they're there and that's all that matters. I couldn't possibly agree that there's any sort of consensus or agreement until they at least state their point. So far all they've done is express how little they think of me and how important it is to dedicate whole sections of an episode article to minor plot points. Alastairward (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Read Nightscream's (an admin) post before making blind accusations to support your view. Sorry, the vote is now 4 to 2 in favor of the proposed compromise. Nobody is bullying you, we are trying to reach a compromise and we are all for the one Nightscream posted, so lets be WP:CIVIL about this, and follow WP:DEMOCRACY rather than continuing an unneeded editing war and continuing attacks on one another, which seem to revolve around you and your edits. Another-anomaly (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh now that's just annoying. First thing first: please don't ever suggest that I'm expressing how little I think of you. That would be WP:OR. Please don't put words in my mouth that were never there to flavour the debate.
Also, you accuse us of bullying you into accepting a point of view? And what do your edits do? Not bully us into accepting your point of view? There is an obvious dispute, and you only state "OMG I'm being bullied!" So we try to get some resolution, and you keep crying wolf. That's not constructive. Stijndon (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahem, let me get this straight again. Pursuing me to talk pages not relevant to the article and throwing insults isn't bullying? And nor is this corraling of me by you three? You won't even have the manners to discuss the cites above in the section I provided. Of course it's bullying, what else is it?
I've read what Nightscream said above, you need to provide some cites that support what you're declaring. You don't seem to have done so to the satisfaction of the article. Why do you refuse to talk about that? Alastairward (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahem, we are not here to further discuss insults, as administrators have already stepped in and warned everyone about that. Stick to the topic at hand, and as Nightscream said, we can put the uncited section in the article with a fact tag, and cite the DVD commentary when it comes out. Please do not post off topic posts. Another-anomaly (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Stuck: J miester25 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We all had this lined up and yet you are still complaining of bullying. Looked: we (or I) apoloized for the messages we sent you, I asked everybody to be civil, an administrator lined out what will happen, and yet you still are insubordinate. Why won't you just listen to Nightscream? --J miester25 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for pointing this out (yet again) but the cites concerned are there to be discussed right above, but you insisted that there could only be this ridiculous closed process. Don't cry to me if wikipedia and its users don't obey your whims!
I would also like to point out that there is no "final compromise", wikipedia is free for everyone to edit, despite what you might insist.
You might have just put the information on the page with a fact tag already, in fact you could have done that right away instead of stringing things out like that. You haven't used your editing time here well, that's for certain.
I have seen too many fact tags remain with no action taken after months to beleive it is certain that these would be addressed. But that is besides the point, certainly feel free to add this info and the fact tag along with it, however ridiculous it may seem to do so (an editor freely entering information they know to be speculation.) But I would see no point in setting a time limit at your personal descretion. If you feel free to add information, knowing that it is speculation, you shouldn't also demand that it be left in place because you say so, such a demand takes away from the fact that wikipedia is free to edit by everyone (no matter how coarse, rude and bullying they may be.)
J miester25, I listened to Nightscream, there is no edit war, I've been nothing but polite and I'm adding no speculation to articles, what's wrong? Alastairward (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
When cited Cultural References are put in an article, don't be hypocritical and remove them. As you asked already, I have already stated why SouthParkStudios is enough of a reference. Administrator Rogerbrent already mentioned in your Talk Page that a website that contains a video that pertains to a Wikipedia article is enough of a reliable source, thus placing verifiability in the statments provided. --J miester25 (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason why I also brought this up was because of the assumed position that you established in the Talk Page of Pandemic. Many of the users who wanted to add information to the references HAD TO ask for your permission. As you stated once, "Nobody owns an article", and you have clearly gone against that. I am here protecting the rights of users to add sourced information without your approval. --J miester25 (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
"A link to each episode on might be enough of a citation for most stuff and could be easily added." That's what was written by Roger on my talk page. What was actually used as a cite (as you can see above) was, which is a fan site and thus not really of much use to us here.
Nobody had to ask me for permission to put anything on the page, my problem was with the sudden reverts, with no explanation that your gang of three was responsible for (also, the wikihounding and abuse). I also have a problem with your consistent refusal to discuss what you are using as cites. I created a section right above this one before this one was created, to ask why you three wanted to use the cites that you were providing. Not one reply from any of you on the subject and yet you accuse me of not wanting to progress? Alastairward (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
But my source WAS SouthParkStudios and you removed it without any explanation. Why did you DO that? --J miester25 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I raised the issue of the "episode continuity" on the talk page, but looking at this edit, it seems an anonymous user took it out instead. Also, "episode continuity" isn't really relevant to the article, all you're doing is interpreting certain scenes that may very mean something to yourself but not to anyone else. Even if the scenes you mentioned were cited (and so happened as you described them) the continuity of the show is irrelevant, things happen so what? All you did was link together certain parts of the show for no apparent reason.
Besides which, we're talking about the cultural references, none of which were supported by southparkstudio cites. Alastairward (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats it. Just forget about it. I'm out. Your so high and mighty, theres no point arguing. I'm done --J miester25 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to join this little shindig, but just to clarify: WP:DEMOCRACY states that Wikipedia isn't a democracy, decisions are made upon their right arguments, not how many votes they have. If it is 2-to-4, even if it is 2-to-100, still those arguments are weighed against each other. Well, party on! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it isn't a democracy, but Nightscream's insight into the matter is the best proposed, even if Alastairward does not like/agree/whatever with it. I'm going to re-add the cultural references, with a cite to the southparkstudios website, and if anyone feels it needs a fact tag, go ahead and put it in. I will also cite the DVD commentary when it comes out, and this should stop the edit war. At this point, as others including myself are getting tired of this, I don't even care what Alastairward has to say anymore, and if anyone has any more problems put it on my talk page if its directed at me, or create a new section here if its general (I'm not claiming ownership of this article, like some people). That's it, its over, We've heard what the administrators want and I'm going to follow it through. Another-anomaly (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand, Alastairward, is why you insist that all sources must be from the creators of South Park, especially since Wikipedia encourages use of secondary sources rather than primary sources. 96T (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand you're stance on the topic, believe me, but several admins have already told us what needs to be done, including Alastairward himself, and I'm going to follow through with that. Any edits going against this decisions at this point are violating administrator decisions. Please don't spark another edit war, or hurl any more insults at Alastairward, as its no longer necessary. Problem solved.

Another-anomaly (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny that we spent time looking for non-user editable references to the rape scenes, and now we don't even need them anymore :) Am i glad this is resolved... Stijndon (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Had to be the most drug-out argument I've ever had. So much bickering back and forth like little girls. Anyways its over now, and future SP episodes will have the same done to them. Another-anomaly (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Point of order, an admin made a suggestion, but did not tell us what to do. Any edits after this point that you start an edit war about are simply a continuation of your bullying and wiki-hounding. It seems a bit much to add information knowing that it is purely speculation. Alastairward (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


Hold on a second, cites are needed, fact tags were not added, there is no compromise at all! You've not done anything in line with what the admin suggested! Alastairward (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And I do quote:

"Okay, I haven't edited this article before now, so I hope that makes me "uninvolved". I don't know the exact record of every single edit here, but based on what I have seen, here are the points I would make:

  • First, no personal comments. Ever. This violates WP:Civil. Discuss the material, and why you disagree with your opponents' position. Do not discuss your opponent on a personal level.
  • Second, when there is an edit conflict, getting into an edit war is a violation of WP policy. The proper thing to do is to discus the matter on a Talk Page. When that discussion is ongoing, continuing to make the same edits that are the source of the conflict violates this policy. This is not a question of one editor owning the article or seeking approval; it's simply what Wikipedia policy says. See WP:Edit war and WP:Consensus for more on this.
  • Third, all lists are considered Trivia. Since South Park is a satire/parody show, the pop culture references it makes are valid for inclusion, IMO. See Not all list sections are trivia sections under WP:Trivia. HOWEVER---
    • Mentions of continuity with other episodes do not constitute "cultural" references.
    • All such material must be sourced, and the source must establish the original intent of the creators. Blogs and personal interpretations of editors do not do this, and are a violation of WP:SYNTH. If a critic or reviewer spots a reference, you can use that as a citation, but only if you attribute it to that reviewer (i.e.: "Critic John Doe saw this scene as a reference to Cloverfield...) I would suggest with regard to other references that viewers spot in episodes, that you wait until the DVD of the episode comes out to see if the creators make any mention of the reference in the Commentary. Since many such assertions are not "doubtful", leaving the material there with a fact tag would be okay, IMO, but the people who insist on putting it in there should monitor sources like the DVD's to see if a source emerges, lest it eventually be removed. I actually fought for a more lenient view of WP:Verifiability on this point, but was told on Jimbo Wales' Talk Page that such material must be sourced. If it isn't, it constitutes original research.

If any of my opinions require further clarification, let me know. Nightscream (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)"

fact tags are there now, its done. Stop editing the section unless citing a DVD commentary. Another-anomaly (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and the cite for the section is the southparkstudios page (reference 1). Another administrator said we could do that and the section would be sourced properly. Another-anomaly (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Anthony, yeah, and you didn't add them, which I thought was the point of the discussion above. Also, Nightscream, if we're allowed to speculate freely and simply add fact tags, what stops anything being added to the list of references. As I said before, I've gone over all the rest of the South Park article and the tags just sit there for months waiting to be referenced, long after any DVDs and commentary come out. Alastairward (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Anthony, I removed that cite because it didn't support the claims made. Just because an Admin said you could add it doesn't mean it's valid or cannot be removed. Alastairward (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first, I made a couple of edits to the section myself. Only the first word and proper nouns in a section title are capitalized. There was no "squeal like a pig" scene in Shawshank, and indeed, the actual rapes of Andy Dufresne were not seen on camera. It was Deliverance in which Ned Beaty was anally raped by another man who made him squeal like a pig. It's an iconic film scene. I also removed some unnecessary detail in the passage, such as the video game, the type of pinball machine, etc., but added the years of some of the films references.

Now, onto your concerns:

I didn't see any fact tags in the article, but you're right that fact tags should not be used as a substitute for sources, and that it should not be seen as a license for speculation. The fact that someone thought the Shawshank was the origin of the pig-squealing line is an example of why references should be absolutely unambiguous. If editors slinging it out cannot agree, then the entire section should be moved here pending a finding of sources. As for the southpark studios cite, I looked though the Edit History, and it does not make any mention of Deliverance, or any other cultural reference.

I also notice that the wording in the section was "It is alleged...". Alleged by whom? The editors who wrote this? Uh-uh, sorry, that's not gonna fly. It's one thing to interpret a reference via the intent of the creators. It's another thing to claim that this was "alleged" by a reliable source. You can't just fabricate an "allegation". And yes, if you're arguing that a given reference was intended as such by the creators, then that's precisely why it does indeed have to be sourced by the creators, unless you're just reporting what a critic or reviewer said. This is what happened with the source for the Cloverfield reference in "Pandemic". The source is an episode reviewer, so the passage is properly worded to reflect that.

What I would suggest is this: Invite others to this discussion, including other admins, and ask them if they favor leaving the section with fact tags, or moving it here until the DVD comes out, and see if a consensus can be reached. Make sure that you do not violate WP:CANVAS when doing this. I personally don't have a problem with leaving it in with fact tags, but if it indeed gets out of hand, as you suggest it might, Alastair, then a different action may have to be taken, such as another discussion, page protection, or moving the section her.

I'd also point out that I'm still seeing personal comments being made here. Please stop it. I don't want to have to give warnings on your Talk Pages. Comment on why you agree or disagree with the other person's arguments. Not on the person themselves. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

God, so the longest discussion in the history of the internet continues. I wish I could contact Matt or Trey themselves to get them to comment on their references more, or to make a South Park episode making fun of this.
I will invite everyone back here, as well as some administrators I've come in contact with in the past. I'm glad you're pointing out the personal comments made by somebody else, as well as the speculation added to the article by the same editor that keeps arguing against it (the "allegations"). Jimbo Wales himself said as long as they're sourced, they can stay, but the best source would be the yet-to-be-released DVD, which almost 98% of the time has the authors claiming their references. It does not come out tomorrow, but keeping the references in there with a fact tag and some cites of episode reviewers should hold until it does come out, then I'll add the cites myself after getting the DVD.
For those just joining the discussion, please read both side's arguments above and on the Wikipedia Etiquette page, which was regarding this and Alastairward's personal attacks and aggressive edits. This is so we don't have to re-explain our reasons for our opinions regarding the edits we've made, and to keep this sections clean with only other's insight into the matter (granted they've read and understood both sides of the argument).
That said, please tell us from a Wikipedia Policy-abiding standpoint you're (other users and admins) standpoint on the article, despite the fact we've been through this hundreds of time.

Another-anomaly (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all Anthony, my standpoint goes back a long way. Through edit histories and talk pages, my point of view on users adding original research and speculation then not bothering to come back and cite, can be well understood. Secondly, I'm not the one who threw abuse, made personal attacks and wikihounded another user, your own history of that can be traced back through your edit history on talk pages (such as a warning from the admin above I beleive).
I'd also like some sort of back up on your assertation that "98% of the time" the authors identify references. It's something that should be easy for you to provide, check a commentary from another South Park disc and let us know at what point someone identifies one. I'd also like to know why a contrary bit of cultural referencing cannot come in and replace the one you insisted on before such evidence is provided.
And your point about the speculation in the article, I hope you see that you've set a precedent. If you can bully and cajole for your own particular brand of speculation to be added, why can nobody else add their own? Why is yours "right"? (Indeed, why do you now "own" this section of the article?
You keep talking about cites, yet refused to discuss them at any time with me. I asked why the cites listed in the section above were, in your opinion, valid. You refused to answer, nor did anyone else in the gang you rounded up to hound and harrass me. IF after all this, you learn to restrain your editing somewhat and pick up a bit of wiki-policy, that would be cool.
I like to refer back to a Forbidden Planet reference at times like these. There's a scene, most of an episode infact, in the TV series Babylon 5 that apes a major plot point in FP, right down to the huge underground machine and a particular and well know camera angle. I thought to myself "A major rip off/homage", yet the creator of the show said nope, just coincidence. A really big coincidence maybe, but its there and cited as such.
It also makes me think on a bigger scale, about the cultural reference here. Why is it that Parker and Stone (allegedly) reference Deliverance when ripping on the latest Indiana Jones film? From my (uncited point of view) Deliverance has a scene with men seeing a friend being raped and not helping, which is a good metaphor for their disgust of the film. But how do we know this for sure, did they pick a film featuring rape at random, one that wouldn't have censors crying out foul (which I imagine would be the case if something like Clockwork Orange was reinacted). There's a lot of nuance that simply slapping a quick edit in the article and not citing misses out on.
"I wish I could contact Matt or Trey themselves to get them to comment on their references more, or to make a South Park episode making fun of this." To the former suggestion I would say, "yes please, it would help so much" to the latter I would say how awesome to have them reference us! Alastairward (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
What are you even saying anymore? I don't know what forbidden Planet even is, and we're talking about South Park cites here, not some other obscure show or even personal attacks. As for saying I own the section, Wikipedia is editable by all and nobody owns any article although at times you act like you do, even as one user said you on another talk page asked everyone for permission via you in order to add something to the article.
Nobody here is bullying anybody, especially since administrators have warned everybody about past personal attacks. The South Park DVD will be the end-all, final word (and reference) as to what the authors were alluding to, but for the time being they deserve to go into the article with a fact tag and any references found. If they do not have any references, they need to be obvious enough that they can be added without going to far into speculation-for instance the "squeal like a pig" is a direct quote from Deliverence, and even though we have no references for this parody, it is obvious enough (e.g. none of this "well, it kind of reminds me of...") to be added to the article with a fact tag until the pending DVD can be cited as a reference as the administrator suggested above.
Other articles are no longer my concern, but as for this season of South Park and onwards, I will personally buy/rent the DVD and confirm the references to keep the cultural references in the article, as they are (again) too important to the episode than to just put on the talk page, although it is better than not having them at all. As far as the comment on Matt and Trey referencing us (us meaning you, me, this entire discussion and long-winded WP discussions in general), I imagine it would be pretty similar to Make love not warcraft, in particular the end when they are all fighting and memorizing macros and the like.
Another-anomaly (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
If you can't understand the Forbidden Planet reference, it just goes to show that my guess that you're not really reading what I post is correct. Just as J Meister couldn't be bothered to check the edit history that showed that I didn't delete the section he/she added, but instead hounded me over it. I was pointing out that sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence, and giving evidence of such. Which leads me onto your assertation that it's "obvious enough". Should our cite be then "User Anthony cargile said so"? What if I disagree and say that it reminds me of another film?
Interesting point you raise though, why do you think the understanding you have of the episode is so important? What would someone lose from not sharing it with you? Point at hand, I haven't "The Accused" or "Boys don't cry". So I watched and saw Lucas and Speilberg raping Indiana Jones in a manner that is apparently patterned after other programmes. I thought to myself, "right, they didn't like the film, this is their response". A well crafted episode, I thought. But apparently I lost out on something from not having seen these films, what was it? Or is it just a case of someone watching the episode, thinking of a reference and wanting to share that they "got it"?
With reference to viewers who, like me, didn't see those films, what are you doing for us by sharing this information? Why do these references "deserve" to be there, flouting policy by not being cited or verified?
FYI, the admins didn't warn me about hounding and being abusive... Alastairward (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying "why is there information on wikipedia?" It sounds like you're using "why is there information on wikipedia" as an argument to not put cultural references there. Just transplant your above argument to something else, like everybody's favourite metal, sodium: With reference to people who, like me, didn't discover sodium, what was the guy writing the article doing for us by sharing this information? Why does this element "deserve" to be there, flouting policy by not being verified? "FYI, the admins didn't warn me about hounding and being abusive..." SIGN
Yeah, good argument Stijndon (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, please stay on topic, we are not here to discuss personal attacks, including the ones made on the Wikipedia Etiquette section regarding you, nor are we here to discuss forbidden planet. Even though you may not have personally seen deliverance (and even I haven't seen the accused, yet appreciated the article clarifying which movie the scene was alluding to), it is still a part of popular culture just like the indiana jones movies. Just as the episode itself can be used to reference the very fact that they are talking about the crystal skull and not, say, raiders of the lost ark, the same can be said for obvious cultural references, and the accused reference clarified in this article is one of the reasons I'm fighting this - without this article mentioning that, I would have never known which movie they were referencing although it was clear they did not just pull that scene's setting out of thin air (South Park always references something in popular culture because of their satiric nature, see the main south park article for details AND cites backing that up).
I have not seen "Boys don't cry" either, but the article's clarification of the reference in the episode is appreciated by both those who have seen it(yet may not remember the exact title of the movie, here to look it up), or those like me who have not seen it but are looking to find out. The writers do acknowledge these references in the DVD, and as I have said it will be referenced when it comes out but until then is too important to the plot than to be left out of the article.
"They didn't like the film, this is their response" is a comment by somebody whom does not understand South Park and their stance as a satiric parody of popular culture, supported by the fact that they sometimes reference movies not seen by those under 12 (under the age recommended for viewing South Park anyways). And if you watch every South Park episode, yet do not get any popular culture references whatsoever, you probably won't get the whole series since it is just as much about those references as it is about the plot, which adds to the show's comedic effect.
When Jared Has Aides came out around the mid 2000's, the Subway ads featuring were all over TV, so somebody who watches TV enough to catch South Park would have probably seen a Jared commercial, otherwise would have been completely lost in the episode, which is a perfect example for this case. Nobody comes out of their cave, watches South Park on a TV, then returns to their cave until the next week or else they would think South Park is nothing more than an elaborate, confusing cartoon with elements of understood humor, and this episode uses this type of humor quite a bit as does Pandemic's Cloverfield reference (I have never seen cloverfield either, so I appreciated the article's clarification after the admin asked you to leave the cited reference in the popular culture section).
I hope that clears some things up for you, since South Park is not the kind of show Forbidden Planet or Star Treck must be. Its not as literal or serious as it may appear to you.
Another-anomaly (talk) 00:55, 02:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In the words of Eric Cartman, Alastairward, "You take your American Liberation Front and you shove it up your ass." --J miester25 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Great now he's going to go off on how we bully him and we'll never reach a conclusion. Another-anomaly (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
And another thing: WP:NPA! If you keep acting like this, you'll be blocked. You can't say such things in a discussion, not here, not anywhere. Just because you can't agree with each other is never a reason to go calling names. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Soetermans, thanks again!
Stijndon, no, stop being obtuse. I'm not asking why there is information on Wikipedia. I'm asking why allow Wikipedia to come down under a flood of information that may not be factually correct (isn't that why you participated in the great final compromise above?) And also, why have editors willingly adding information that they seem to have said is not citable?
Anthony, you almost raise a good point, but fall at the final hurdle. In the episode you cite, Jared Has Aides, yes, an understanding of subway and its advertising helps a lot. But in this case, in The China Probrem, what you really need to know is that a lot of people disagreed with the way that the latest Indiana Jones film was written (all that stuff about aliens etc), that's what's important to know. The finer details, the films referencing rape that you wanted to include, you don't really need to know them to get the pretty blatant message. The fact that this episode comes with a reception section citing the horror of seeing Speilberg raping Jones sort of shows that.
And if we're really going to start playing the who-"gets"-South-Park-more game, then I'd say that yes, South Park is a lot more serious than you might think. It does a great job of seriously tackling issues such as Terri Schiavo and the right to die, American corporatism and how it may be good etc. That's exactly why we should take time to cite properly. It's not Shakespeare, ok, but it deserves a bit more attention than you give it.
I find it strange how you didn't see Cloverfield, but suddenly "got" Pandemic having read the reference. Wouldn't you need to watch the film to get the episode? And you don't think that the writers' hatred of the newest Indiana Jones film isn't the point of the episode? As I read your response, you're telling me its more important that they referenced Deliverance?? Odd indeed!
But back to the point at hand, please explain to me which commentaries have referenced films mentioned on the article pages. I mean, you've had a couple of seasons to go on and I saw little to no referencing in previous episodes. And while you're at it, give me a good explanation of why something uncited needs to go in the article. If it's so crucial to our understanding of the episode, if we can't "get" the episode without knowing this (and here's the bit that you ignore, that you really need to explain) won't it hurt readers to speculate? That they'll get the wrong idea completely? That they won't "get" it as you do? Alastairward (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Soetermans, let me explain what is going on here. When you get into an argument over this that has been going on for more than 10 days, and an administrator comes up with a solution that everybody agrees to, and you wait for one person's input out of good faith suggested by Anthony, then it collapses because of one person who wants it his way, what do u say? "Oh look at: pussyfeather." Impatience clouds your judgement and if you are as annoyed as i am, you would say the same thing. --J miester25 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I AM PULLING MYSELF OUT OF THIS. Since my section that i provided, Episode Continuity, was not removed by Alastairward, but by, I am deeply sorry for everything i have said to Alastairward and since he does not have a probrem (lol) with Episode Continuity, i will not butt into this anymore. I BUTT OUT (again, South Park humor) --J miester25 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you might get annoyed, sure, but that is never a reason to go calling names or suggesting personal things. Like what was said before, this is Wikipedia, nobody's property. Everybody here wants to improve this free encyclopedia, no matter how you look at it – even if you completely disagree with another.
The reason why I added warnings to your (J miester) and Anthony's talk pages is because those are standard Wikipedia guidelines, not because I'm on Alastair's side.
I've gotten in a couple of conflicts, but have never resolved into personal attacks, even when I was at the receiving end. Look at User:Soetermans/Conflicts#Some guy to see what I mean.
So please, continue this discussion in a decent manner everybody! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 18:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry. About a half hour later after i responded to your input, i realized that i screwed up and i was upset at the wrong person. i feel horrible for what i said, but please tell, who removed my section that he cannot completely remove cited information. theres nothing wrong with him bringing it up for discussion, like Alastairward did, but its wrong if he completely removes it. So again, im sorry. --J miester25 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

All fine and dandy, until I found this, and adding cultural references to South Park articles are certainly grounds for improving Wikipedia. Another-anomaly (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: (J miester25 (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
Anthony, just as I thought you and I were about to enter (finally) some productive discussion, you cut and run? You could at least try and discuss what I posted above. Alastairward (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought, there's one cultural reference, a big one (the most important) that's not listed. It's funny that after all of the above it hasn't appeared, I wonder if anyone from the gang of three will insist on it being included, or does their interest in the references extend that far? Alastairward (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
State it in the Talk Page, explain why it is a reference, provide sources to support your claim (DVD to be released), and add it. Thats what everyone should do, including myself. --J miester25 (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah man, if I would know it, I would show it. I just don't know which one you're hinting at, you teasy-teaser, you. Be bold in editing it in! Stijndon (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Come now, would I of all people edit without cites? (DVD to be released does not count). I couldn't say, but if I were the sort of user to post, run and not cite, I might suggest that Indiana Jones and the critical fallout surrounding it's release might be justifiably more important than citing rape scenes in other movies? Tell me what you think. Alastairward (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like, maybe, the synopsis already covered that. Stijndon (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Not really, not if you read it. Where's the nuance and added meaning? (The sort you cultural referencers seem to yearn so much) It's notable that their strive to add information to Wikipedia falls short and we're left with the "I know what they're thinking of!" mentality that the gang of three displayed in this section and the one above. Alastairward (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

YAYYYYY!!!!!!!!! THE CULTURAL REFERENCES ARE SOURCED WOO-HOO ITS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --J miester25 (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, who did the detective work and dug up the cites? Alastairward (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Ford![edit]

I just removed some reference that said the Indiana Jones figure was supposed to be Harrison Ford. They constantly refer to the figure as Indiana Jones (the character himself) and nothing more in this episode. Also, the whole idea of the metaphor "they're raping Indiana Jones" refers to the character and franchise not the actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestBounce (talkcontribs) 06:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Where? Jparks13 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Jparks13

Sorry, correction: I removed a reference on the South Park Fan Wiki that started with a body of the original episode but that article is long gone now. WestBounce (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)WestBounce


I don't know what the two topics China and Indiana Jones have in common to be in one episode.-- (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


The controversy of Indiana Jones is described in the article and what about China? Nobody seems to care about that. Besides, it's the Japanese who say "r" instead of "l". There is an "l" in Chinese.-- (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)