Talk:201 (South Park)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Setting up the Plot section

I haven't been on wikipedia in a long time and I've never helped edit an article for a live release such as this one, but I think it would be helpful to bring together a simple plot summary here so we can use it to write the actual plot section. We should also discuss spoilers, unrelated information, and anything else that may be important. Like I said, I've never done this before, I just think this would speed up the process of starting this article. Burn N Flare (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

- spoilers are not a concern in the writing of wikipedia articles. The information provided is meant to be comprehensive. Short synopsises can be obtained elesewhere.--Jan-da-man (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Extremists Threats

Shouldn't there be a mention of the very real threat by muslim extremists intended towards Matt and Trey for their portrayal of MOhammed in the episode? This was some pretty big news which definitely influenced the presentation of this particular episode.

http://entertainment.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978189881 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.30.52 (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Different Reruns

Comedy Central did not air the episode two hours after it's initial run, as they've done with all the other episodes. At midnight EST, they aired an episode from earlier in the season - not even the heavily censored 201 episode that apparently aired at the regular time (10 pm EST). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.35.172 (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

EDT not EST. 96.241.24.246 (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The same applies to Canada's Comedy Network.

Batman parody

the entirety of the seens with scott tenorman are all direct parodies of the comic batman the killing joke with scott as the joker complete with cain and creepy stare —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deliphas (talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Carman's father

A picture of Cartman's father (aka Scott Tenorman's parents)can be found here: http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season5/TenormanParents.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hysto1 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Source: http://www.spscriptorium.com/SPBios/TheGuestsS5.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.105.104 (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange

You can also add something more into 'Cultural References' section, for example, the scene at the door of Dr.Mephisto's lab is clearly a parody of 'A Clockwork Orange'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.163.5.176 (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Neil Diamond

There's no reference in the summary to how the Super Best Friends stopped Mecha-Streisand with the Neil Diamond ruse. (Actually, for all we know at the end of the epsiode, they're still singing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.97.69.10 (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Here's a news article outlining the controversy that the episode caused, including warnings/threats against Parker and Stone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8636455.stm

I would add it myself, but the article is semi-protected. 134.84.187.55 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources for people with time

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/20/comedy-central-censors-south-park-episode-muslim-threats/?test=latestnews http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article7105417.ece http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ixtNaqRpSqti8gDHGSyN8lXBhQjAD9F886HG0 http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/22/south-park-mohammed-issue-sparks-debate-among-muslims/ Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing Dialogue

The article currently treats the poops near the end as part of the episode, however, I'm not sure what they are. It is blatant censorship of the ideological kind, too, not just bleeping Muhammad or the f word, but the creators, it seems, actually put dialogue there. This article needs to say what it was. INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM FOR A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, ANYONE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.67.30 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had the subtitles on while I watched this episode. The 'Muhammads' that were bleeped out in the episode did show up in the subtitles, but the big long bleeps at the end did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.139.47 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda thought it was a joke at the end, but not sure. Simanos (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3878 says it wasn't a joke, but maybe that's a publicity stunt. I doubt it was a stunt though... Simanos (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Bleeping and the end

comedy central bleeped out about a minute of dialog at the end of episode! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.10.191 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• the bleeping of the 'i learned something today' was clearly a joke, because it would be impossible to write the dialogue to resolve all the loose ends of the conflict. it also played into the bleeping of mohammed's name the whole time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.138.46 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

nice

Comedy Central admitted to adding the beeps along with "visual" censoring.

'We reached out with our own request for information and received the following from another Comedy Central spokesperson: "We’re not commenting, but I can tell you that we were responsible for the bleeps and not showing Muhammad in last night’s episode. Matt and Trey are not doing any press at this time, but I’ll let you know if that changes."'

http://www.avclub.com/articles/updated-comedy-central-heavily-censors-last-nights,40387/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.7.35 (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Matt and Trey Respond

http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3878 http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/south-park-creators-respond/

"In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it."

I have little experience with integrating press releases into articles, so I'll leave it to someone else. Xargon666x6 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the episode "Super Best Friends" is no longer streaming on SouthParkStudios if someone wants to add that in to the article. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

OMFG he's right, it's blocked too! Simanos (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing from iTunes

"201" was not added to the iTunes store (episodes are usually added the morning after they air). "200" was pulled from the iTunes store on April 22, 2010 after being available for a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.213.34 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing word in text/grammatical error - can someone please fix?

they did not have "network approval" to make "[their] original version" of the episode on their website.

should probably read...

they did not have "network approval" to make available "[their] original version" of the episode on their website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.22.234 (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

DVR?

Did anybody else have this episode scheduled to tape on DVR or Tivo, but it didn't tape? I had it set, but it didn't record, and all previous episodes have. With all this censorship business, a conspiracy theory is forming in my head that Comedy Central prevented the taping somehow! lol — Hunter Kahn 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my DVR missed it because it wasn't marked as new, so I tried watching the re-airing, which was pulled. It's not available online, so who knows when we'll be able to finally see it. Klopek007 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

--It is available online, however it is not available on Southparkstudios or comedy central streaming sites. Wikileaks might have it ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.67.30 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It recorded just fine on my TiVo at the scheduled time. Maybe it just depends on the DVR used. --Hourick (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

- Yes, I had my DVR set to record all new South Parks, it recorded it and even said "201" but it was Scrotty McBooger Balls instead.

• Yeah, my DVR was also going to skip it because it wasn't marked as new (the third time that's happened in the last few weeks with different shows) but I caught it in time. I doubt it was intentional on CC's part, since they could have just not shown it altogether (as they did with the scheduled re-airings) rather than shown it but tried to make a handful of people's DVRs not record it. Propaniac (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek Link

Just in case it's of any use, here. Apparently, the CC headquarter building's security has been increased and the article confirms that images of Muhammad were blacked out during the episode.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring of controversy section

Hey all. I wanted to share that I restructured the controversy section a bit and renamed it simply to "Censorship", and the word Controversy seemed a bit loaded and possibly even POVish. Previously, it was broken into four sub-sections, most of which contained little more than one paragraph's worth of information or less. It not only made the section choppy, but it made it difficult to flow the information well because they were so separated. Some stuff, like "Statements to the media" and "Response by law enforcement", didn't really seem to warrant their own sections anyway. The info and sources are largely intact, but the structure is different. Just wanted to run it by you all. — Hunter Kahn 13:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See censorship seems even more loaded than Controversy, Since i dont think any one disputed it is a controversy i originally renamed controversy from censorship Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• If we decide to rename it from controversy to censorship, that's fine with me. My main problem was with all the sub-chapters, not the title of the original chapter. I had thought censorship was less controversial than, well, controversy :D but if there's a strong disagreement, we can switch back. — Hunter Kahn 17:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Really you did good job, but censorship is extremely strong POV for us to take. What most americans call censorship a fair number of muslims call common decency and common sense. Since this seem to be controversy more than anything lets keep it there and present both sides. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Very well then, for now, I've renamed it back to "Controversy." I personally still think "Censorship" is a better title, but I don't feel strongly, so I have no problem changing it back. If a conversation develops here that determines the WP:CONSENSUS should be one or the other, I'd support that. In the meantime, I'm good with whatever. :D — Hunter Kahn 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC) On second thought (again, for now) I've changed it back to censorship based on a single fact: Comedy Central themselves used the word "CENSORED" in the episode, so in all honesty, it can only be described as censorship. — Hunter Kahn 20:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point didn't think it like that, excellent Censorship it is. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in the Censorship section

"During the original broadcast of "201" on April 21, 2010, all images of what was apparently Muhammad were obscured by a black "CENSORED" box, and all references to his name were replaced by audio bleeps. Several other portions of dialogue were bleeped, including almost the entirety of a monologue spoken by Kyle at the end regarding the moral of the episode. These same visual and audio instances appeared in the previous episode, "200", without any such censorship."

This is wrong. The "censored" box was intended by the South Park creators...as evidenced by Tom Cruise later getting his own after using the Goo machine. Only the audio-beeps were by Comedy Central

• But now even Muhammad dressed as a bear, which was an image previously allowed in "200", was censored. I've reworded it a bit to be clearer. — Hunter Kahn 23:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Episode was aired in Canada

I only mention this because the episode was apparently pulled from the UK. Canada gets South Park on The Comedy Network, and the episode was aired on the East Coast feed of the network on April 25 at 9:00 PM EDT. Three hours later, the West Coast feed also aired the episode. The version that aired in Canada seemed to be identical to the one that aired on Comedy Central, with Muhammad's name bleeped throughout the entire episode, and with the speeches near the end bleeped pretty much entirely. Drpickem (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that 201 was not aired during any of the other timeslots which are typically reserved for the week's new episode (similar to Comedy Central).

Edit request from 70.181.182.2, 26 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} under "response to censorship" there currently is "Although Stewart acknowledged Comedy Central probably altered the episode to protect their employees "from possible harmful repercussions", he satirized their decision by showing dozens of clips of The Daily Show mocking numerous religions without having ever been censored."

Stewart didn't show the clips in response or to satirize the network's decision, it was to illustrate the level of mockery given to other religions who had not responded with threats of violence. Stewart said something along the lines of "we never realized how well [religions other than Islam] can take a joke"

70.181.182.2 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please provide the specific text you'd like us to insert, as well as a reliable source to verify the information. --Darkwind (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" vs. "censorship"

It is NPOV to state that utterances of Muhammad's name were bleeped out and his visual depiction was likewise obscured (by a graphic which explicitly stated "CENSORED). However, the reasons for the controversy stem not so much from the censorship itself but rather from the underlying content. Therefore, it would be NPOV to have a section labeled "censorship" which discusses the ways in which the episode were censored. There could be a second section labeled "controversy" which deals with the various reactions to the airing of the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.187.55 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely censorship, of the really bad kind. Bleeping swearing is one thing, but names? And to top that, opinions at the end are bleeped out. Violation of free speech, anyone? - 88.159.237.128 (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech refers to the government, not private entities.

I can't believe the amount of censorship on TV, I'm 23 years old, therefore why am I being forced to watch censored tv? After all South Park is for over 18's anyway, does it really matter if under 18's watch it? its a fucking cartoon, just like Family Guy and The Simpsons 80.229.169.189 (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't censored for adult content. It was censored because of images of Muhammad. Under or over 18 wouldn't make a difference.

As I said, why censor it? I am an adult, I should be able to watch TV uncensored 80.229.169.189 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

WCityMike has put a lot of effort into expanding the plot summary, and has done a great job in getting the ball rolling on the real world aspects of this article. This has already proven to be an article of high importance considering all the news coverage and drama surrounding the subject, and I look forward to seeing it improve. From a grammatical and descriptive standpoint, the plot summary as of this post is very well-written. I would like to go over it step-by step and offer up a discussion about it.

Before I start, I'd like to reference a few blurbs from some guidelines:

• Per MOS:TV#Plot section: "The main purpose of plot summaries is to provide context for the rest of the information."

• Per Wikipedia:How to write a plot_summary#Length: "Well-written plot summaries describe the major events in the work, linking them together with fairly brief description of less important scenes. While longer descriptions may appear to provide more data to the reader, a more concise summary may in fact be more informative as it highlights the most important elements. By focusing the reader's attention on the larger structures of a plot, without drowning it in trivial detail, a shorter summary can often help the reader to understand a work much better than an overlong one."

• Per WP:PLOTSUMNOT: "A plot summary is not a recap. It should not cover every scene and every moment of a story. The point of a summary is not to reproduce the experience — it's to explain the story."

• Also, I remember seeing these suggested in discussions regarding plot summaries and I happen to agree with them: Don't waste excessive words on explaining what the reader can intuit, and don't depend on quoting dialogue from the work when the same information can be presented with descriptive prose.

If it doesn't serve to give a brief overview connecting the main events of the story, nor does it serve to provide context for other sections in the article, or is simply presenting information found in other sections with equal coverage, it is not necessary to include it in the summary. Too much of such would be lending undue weight to, dare I say it, fancruft.

Here is the plotsum as of this revision, with my comments in italics. Please note that my comments about "info in other sections" (IIOS) such as Production, Reception, etc. will be made with the assumption that the info will soon be in the article, or as a suggestion that it should be :)

The episode opens with Cartman, as Mitch Connor, narrating a flashback to Connor's 1972 medical discharge from his Vietnam War tour of duty. Segueing back to the present, Mr. Garrison refuses to divulge the identity of Cartman's father, but sends Cartman to Dr. Mephisto.

• Already, mentioning the Vietnam seems unnecessary, as it's more of a throwaway gag and not essential to the rest of the story, but I'm only slightly leaning towards its omission.

Meanwhile, when the Ginger Separatist Movement forces the townpeople to have Muhammad step out of his bear costume, we learn that Stan, Kyle and Kenny, on Mr. Hankey's suggestion, had replaced Muhammad in the bear costume with Santa Claus. The conflict between the townspeople and the Gingers is prematurely ended by Mecha-Streisand entering town, killing Pip, and destroying Casa Bonita, Country Kitchen Buffet, and Raisins. The police call in the Super Best Friends, who ride into town on their Power Cycles. When their initial attack fails, Moses suggests they pacify her by offering her a duet with Neil Diamond. Krishna adopts the form of Neil Diamond, and Mecha-Streisand stops her rampage to perform with him.

• First off, diving right in to mentioning that Muhammad is in a bear costume leaves the reader with no frame of reference. We don't know why he's in the bear costume. Explaining why he's in the costume might be important to provide context for IIOS about this serves as a literary parallel to being fearful of allowing Muhammad to be seen, but it can also prove to be quite lengthy. So what are the important elements that we have learned from this passage? The Gingers and the townspeople are gathered in the street, as one prepares to give Muhammad over to the other. The exchange is interrupted by the arrival of Mecha-Streisand. Is it crucial to know that the townspeople first tried to dupe the Gingers by handing over Santa Claus instead? Do we need to know that it was Mr. Hankey who suggested the ploy? Do we need to know that Mecha-Streisand squashed Pip and attacked the the various landmarks? I don't think so. If you omit this information, the reader still understands that the townsfolk and the Gingers were in the middle of the exchange of Muhammad when they were interrupted by Streisand's attack on the town. Do we also need to know that the SBFs rode on Segways? I would also shorten the whole scheme detailing how the SBFs managed to get Mecha-Streisand to stop her rampage, and simply say they stopped her rampage. However, because cultural references are usually detailed in SP episode articles, a one-sentence description of the plan would be suitable for providing backdrop if there is to be IIOS about the jabs at Diamond and Streisand. Also, I think the reader needs to be informed that Muhammad was safely whisked away to Mephisto's lab to better bring us to the next passage.

Back at Dr. Mephisto's lab, Cartman-as-Connor, in blackface, uses white guilt to gain access to Dr. Mephisto's lab. Stan, Kyle and Kenny arrive soon thereafter, having thought to ask Dr. Mephisto to clone Muhammad (so that both the celebrities and Gingers may have him). The Gingers arrive and, gaining access using the same technique as Connor, take Muhammad and Cartman captive. The Gingers contact the celebrities and offer to share Muhammad in exchange for access to the "goo transfer" process, a process which transfers Muhammad's inability to be ridiculed to a target individual. Tom Cruise is the first subjected to the process, gaining a "CENSORED" box identical to Muhammad's, but the possibility of further treatments is ruled out when the Super Best Friends arrive to free their comrade Muhammad.

• In the interest of keeping the plotsum in compliance with the length guideline, I believe that this can be trimmed. We need to know that Cartman, Muhammad, and the Gingers all arrive at Mephisto's lab. Do we really need to know that Cartman and the Gingers used "white guilt" to sneak in? Do we also need to know that Stan, Kyle, and Kenny requested that Mephisto clone Muhammad? Also, I think a description of the "box" that covers Muhammad should be established earlier in the plotsum. It's not merely a technical detail, but a story device as evidenced by the appearance of a similar box over Cruise at this point in the episode. This might help the reader better understand what the plotsum is detailing when it mentions the appearance of the second box.

Meanwhile, Cartman wakes up from being captured at Mephisto's lair to find himself in a carnival setting taunted by a high-voiced, melodramatic madman. The Gingers take him to this madman, their Head Ginger – who is none other than Scott Tenorman. Tenorman reveals to Cartman that they shared the same father, Jack Tenorman (a Denver Bronco right tackle), meaning that by his act of revenge against Tenorman in the fifth season premiere, Cartman had in doing so murdered his own father and fed him to his half-brother.

• This seems fine, except maybe for the "who is none other than" part. To me, it doesn't seem to be proper tone.

The fight between the Super Friends, celebrities and Gingers spills over into the carnival space where Cartman was being held captive, and Tenorman escapes in the confusion. During the fight, Sea Man leaps upon Tom Cruise's back, leading Kyle to observe, "Hey, look, Tom Cruise has Sea Man on his back." The "CENSORED" box immediately disappears, and all present continue to make jokes based on "Sea Man" and semen being homophonic. When Cruise questions why they're able to do this, Kyle says, "That's because there is no goo, Mr. Cruise. You see, I learned something today ... " However, the remainder of Kyle's monologue is rendered inaudible by a continuous beep, as are brief monologues by Christ and Santa chiming in.

• Only one minor nitpick here: I think Stan was the first to mention that Sea Man was on Cruise's back.

As the mayor leads the town in rebuilding "for the 39th time", Stan, Kyle and Kenny reunite with Cartman, finding him crying – not, they learn, because he murdered his father, but because he's "half-ginger." Connor reminds Cartman that he's "half-Bronco" as well and departs.

• I really don't think the direct quote from the mayor is needed here, unless most feel it's necessary for the plotsum to explain that a reference was made to the town seeing its fair share of destruction over the course of the show's run. Otherwise, I think it suffices to establish the setting of the scene by briefly stating that the town is re-building.

The boys find Cruise crying for a place he can live in "peace and quiet", and promise him a place where "everything is just happiness and joy." The episode's closing shot is of Cruise's corpse lying on the Moon's surface alongside the corpse of the orca featured in "Free Willzyx."

• Again, I don't think it's necessary to rely on direct quotes to describe this scene. It would be better to describe Cruise as wanting to find a place where he can avoid further mockery, as this was the motive behind his actions during the entire episode.

Doing my best to apply what I've explained and working with what is already written, while also trimming it from 586 words to 453 per MOS:TV ("As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words"), I came up with this:

Mr. Garrison refuses to reveal the identity of Cartman's father, and instead sends Cartman to Dr. Mephisto. Meanwhile, the Ginger Separatist Movement and the townsfolk are negotiating the handover of Muhammad when Mecha-Streisand begins to attack South Park. Muhammad, who is visually obscured throughout the entire episode by a black box superimposed with the word "CENSORED", is taken by Stan, Kyle, and Kenny to Dr. Mephisto's lab. The Gingers arrive and take Muhammad and Cartman captive. The Super Best Friends pacify Mecha-Streisand by having Krishna adopt the form of Neil Diamond and providing her the opportunity to perform a duet with him.

The Gingers contact the celebrities and offer to share Muhammad in exchange for access to the celebrities' "goo transfer machine", which transfers Muhammad's power to remain free from ridicule to a target individual. Cruise is the first subjected to the process, gaining a "CENSORED" box identical to Muhammad's, but further transfers are interrupted when the Super Best Friends arrive to free their comrade Muhammad. Meanwhile, Cartman is taken to the Ginger lair to meet Scott Tenorman, the Head Ginger. Depicted as a melodramatic madman, Scott has decorated the lair to represent a carnival and verbally taunts the captive Cartman. He reveals to Cartman that they share the same father, former Denver Broncos player Jack Tenorman, meaning that by his act of revenge against Scott in the season five (2001) premiere "Scott Tenorman Must Die", Cartman had his own father killed and fed him to his half-brother.

The fight between the Super Best Friends, celebrities, and Gingers spills over into the Ginger lair, and Tenorman escapes in the confusion. During the fight, Sea Man leaps upon Cruise's back, leading Stan to observe, "Tom Cruise has Sea Man on his back." The "CENSORED" box over Crusie immediately disappears, and all present continue to make jokes based on "Sea Man" and semen being homophonic. When Cruise questions why they're able to do this, Kyle says, "That's because there is no goo, Mr. Cruise. You see, I learned something today... " However, the remainder of Kyle's monologue is rendered inaudible by a continuous beep, as are brief subsequent monologues by Jesus Christ and Santa Claus.

As the town begins to re-build following the Mecha-Streisand attack, Stan, Kyle and Kenny find Cartman crying – not because he learned that he murdered his father, but because he's "half-ginger." Connor reminds Cartman that he's "half-Bronco" as well and departs. The boys find Cruise crying for a place in which he can live without fear of mockery. Stan and Kyle promise to help Cruise get to such a place. The episode's closing shot is of Cruise's corpse lying on the Moon's surface alongside the corpse of the orca featured in "Free Willzyx."

Thoughts? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed again. My earlier attempts to fix the summary were quickly reverted for reasons that were not made clear via the edit summaries, such as there being a "consensus" for the expanded version because after it was expanded, it remained more or less in its same form for about a day until I trimmed it. Honestly, this doesn't make sense to me, as no massive changes were applied to the version that was present until it was expanded by the user who made the aforementioned edit summary. Wouldn't that technically indicate a "consensus" for that version, too? With the lack of further discussion thus far, nothing has been agreed upon, save for that at the very least the summary needs to remain trimmed. That was my main goal in the first place, as the expanded version was nearly 600 words, which puts it in violation of the length guidelines on MOS:TV. A plotsum should preferably be concise, while leaving out excessive details that merely recap the experience of watching the episode. No discussion has been presented for why it needs to exceed the preferred 500-word max. In trimming it to 450 words or so, I removed elements while explaining why they were not in compliance with MOS:TV#Plot section, Wikipedia:How to write a plot_summary#Length, and WP:PLOTSUMNOT, among other guidelines.

I was not simply assuming ownership of the article, as implied by another edit summary, seeing as how I included elements from both the expanded version and the trimmed version. If you see my comments above, I included discussions about whether to keep certain other elements of the proposed plotsum. Despite my reasons for thinking they were not necessary, I kept these portions in rather than removing them, leaving them open to further discussion. The trimmed plotsum is not simply my "singular vision". I didn't simple revert back to the version that was present before the expansion. My requests to the user who kept reverting the plotsum to enter a discussion and explain why they felt the plotsum didn't need to be trimmed nor have the other guideline issues addressed went ignored. So, I'm getting bold and putting back the trimmed version. Hopefully, from here, a consensus can be established more easily from a version that adheres to the numerous guidelines I've mentioned several times already. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

by his act of revenge against Scott in the season five (2001) premiere "Scott Tenorman Must Die",

I'd shorten it a bit more by taking out the episode back references such as the above. They are not strictly plot and could be taken out the plot summary and explained elsewhere, if editors want to strictly keep to word count to the plot summary it makes sense to keep it just about plot. The context they provide could also be included inline as part of the plot summary using Template:cite episode. Given the high density of back references in this episode it would allow proper context for more things without needing to overload the main plot summary text itself. -- Horkana (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion proposed for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day article

Editors interested in this article may be interested in the proposed deletion of a related article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. The deletion discussion will have run the required seven days by 20:31, May 3. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems premature, the campaign may gain publicity. Whatever happened to working on improving articles. Hope the deletion is postponed at least a week or fails outright. What I do think is that it is too much (undue weight) to put the campaign in the lead of this article just yet. This article should be focused on the episode, which is only a part of a larger story about artists and Mohammed.

Text deleted from intro here: A Seattle cartoonist suggested that many people draw and publish pictures of Muhammad on May 20, 2010, which she dubbed Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.

If this were actually notable enough to be included in the lead it would not need to say who started it, and probably not need to mention the date either and just say that Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was started in response, if it really was created specifically in response to this episode and not the larger issue of censorship. -- Horkana (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You make some good points. The mention should be pared back to simply saying that "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was started in response to the perceived threat." How's that? You say, if it really was created specifically in response to this episode and not the larger issue of censorship.' Actually, it really was created specifically in response to events that were specifically related to this episode (the threat that was made in response to this episode). That article explains it (see Everybody Draw Mohammed Day#Description of the cartoon). I think it belongs in the lead because it was a very notable response amid the public reaction. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

To make myself clearer when I say reaction to a bigger issue I think the South Park episode is itself a reaction to the murder of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy but it does seem like "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is more in reaction to South Park than directly to the earlier issue.

I'm still unconvinced you should emphasize Draw Mohammed here but not enough to revert again if you add back a much more terse mention of it now that I've stated my opinion about wanting to avoid giving it undue weight by including it in the lead. I do hope the other article survives so you can expand there and reduce the amount of information about it and emphasis in this article. -- Horkana (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler

Should remove mention of the identity of Cartman's father in the opening section. It being in the "Plot" section is fine, but people should be able to read the info in the beginning without accidentally running into a huge spoiler like that. Then they can just avoid the "plot" section because that would obviously have spoilers.70.70.21.192 (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Read WP:SPOILER. Whether something is a spoiler or not isn't our concern. — Hunter Kahn 19:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For some odd reason it was stuck in the middle of the third paragraph, a paragraph that otherwise lists ratings and broadcast information, so it was very out of place. The first paragraph already summarizes the episode, and mentions the plot.
Of course the summary should mention there is a subplot about Cartmans father, absolutely, and it does already. Maybe the intro might also mention the return of Scott Tenorman but the intro does already say "it alludes to several past story lines and controversies from previous South Park episodes". If an editor is convinced the father must be revealed in the introduction then a comment here or at the very least an edit summary saying why that much detail is needed would show good faith. -- Horkana (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think whether or not it is a spoiler is irrelevant. It's not necessary. As of this post, the lead paragraph provides a simple overview of both subplots, which is fine. The article should be self-contained, and need not worry about providing intricate details regarding other subjects in its lead paragraphs. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked for the reason the father bit should be in the first paragraph. The reason is this was a major development for a South Park protagonist, and its of a level of importance that it warrants mention in the lead. The placement was determined because it followed the Muhammad information, just as the Tenorman bit does in the body of the article itself. If the flow of or placement in the lead can be improved, by all means, let me know how. As it stands, it's hard for me to believe a revelation as monumental as the true identity of Cartman's father isn't mentioned in the lead... — Hunter Kahn 13:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead is already very full of information and feels almost too long already. The wording "while Eric Cartman learns the identity of his true father" is quite good and succinct (and marginally changed, I believe the wording was "tries to find the identity" before when SoSaysChappy commented). I do not think the intro should go into any more detail than that. If there absolutely must be more detail it should follow right there, not be jammed into the middle of the third paragraph and necessitate repeating what has already been briefly said once in the lead.

(Maybe the Cartman article would mention it in the lead but this article should not. For example, the Luke Skywalker article does say in the lead who his father is, but the episode V Empire Strikes Back article does not.)

Per WP:SPOILER ask is "encyclopedic purpose is being served"? -- Horkana (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr and Mrs Tenorman

Cartman does not kill Mr and Mrs Tenorman, he creates a situation whereby Farmer Denkins does so. The statment that "Cartman killed his own father" is false and needs to be changed. 121.217.57.63 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The episode says Cartman killed them. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Cartman's actions result in their death, he killed them. I think in the episode he said he killed them rather than "had them killed". Even if the first poster is correct about there being some level of indirection (and I don't think that is what the episode said) it is a matter of semantics and I very deliberately changed it to the shorter more pointed wording. -- Horkana (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not shown in the UK at all

Comedy Central UK completely pulled the episode, replacing it with repeats from earlier in the Series 14.

The Comedy Central UK website issued a statement citing "the safety of our employees" as the reason, if it's worth adding: http://www.comedycentral.co.uk/shows/south-park 213.106.66.185 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Chris

The article already mentions the episode was not (yet) shown in the UK. It would be good to support that with a proper citation but the link name/address looks very generic and likely to change so if you backed it up using WebCite just in case the link might change and then added a citation with the archiveurl parameter specified that would be, top quality or best practice if you prefer. -- Horkana (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Times Square car bomb: police investigate South Park link

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

Source, for use in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

SouthParkStudios Update for 201

Should it be added to the article that SouthParkStudios now says that they won't be able to stream the episode until 05/22/2010 due to contractual obligations? 63.169.70.126 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Link: http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/267116/

I don't think it's out of the ordinary, since they do that with every episode. An episode is generally available for streaming the day after it originally airs, but then a week later it is unavailable for streaming for about a month due to the contractual obligations. In the meantime, what might be worth mentioning in the article is that the site appears to be planning to stream the episode as scheduled once they fulfill the obligation, despite everything that's been going on. It would seem the network disapproval only lasted for a week. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You still click it and get the message. So I doubt it, unless they get something resolved. Splent (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For 200, I now get the same message that "Super Best Friends" has. 201 shows the same message it's always had (the one shown in the article). I suspect eventually 201 will change to be the "We cannot stream this episode" message the other two eps have. --Wean0r (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Commentary by Tariq Ramadan

• Tariq Ramadan
  • http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/05/05/VI2010050501811.html#

Commentary by Tariq Ramadan, to The Washington Post. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:201 (South Park)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll just list a few things here.

• Mitch Connor - how does this wikilink help the reader's understanding?
• Ginger is a disambig page, so you have to know the meaning already to select the right one. These articles have a learning curve.
  • I dropped the Connor one altogether, and fixed the Ginger wikilink. — Hunter Kahn 21:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am wondering if the "Muhammad subplot" section should be combined with the "Censorship" section since it is the same issue. (It is all very sobering.) Xtzou (Talk) 22:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • My initial feeling is they should be kept separate, since the "Muhammad subplot" relates to the writing of the episode, whereas everything in Censorship relates to the network response to it. The current structure of the article was also determined by a consensus in the talk page. But if you feel strongly about it, we can continue discussing it... — Hunter Kahn 23:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• OK. The unusual structure of the article can be attributed to the outside events that dominated this episode, overriding the actual content. Could it be called something other than the "Muhammad subplot", since looking at the TOC you have a section for "Plot", but the "subplot" section is not there. It looks out-of-place. Perhaps if it had a different heading that didn't have the word "plot" in it. Xtzou (Talk) 23:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I couldn't think of a good alternative word for "subplot", so I changed "Plot" to "Synopsis" instead. — Hunter Kahn 23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It could be called the "Muhammad storyline". Then you would not have to change the basis format of the South Park episode articles. Xtzou (Talk) 23:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Good call. Done. — Hunter Kahn 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Well written

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Sources are reliable

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Well done! Congratulations, Xtzou (Talk) 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange cultural reference

the scene where "Connor" is asking for an ambulance to be called (as there was an accident) is a clear reference to "Clockwork Orange" where Alex tries to trick the cat lady into letting him in her house 93.97.12.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

-- Actually, this is a relatively ubiquitous cultural meme. The same ploy, i.e. to say my car is disabled and need to use your phone, did not originate with ACWO, and has been used by many criminals (spawning numerous fictional adaptations, including one in "What is the What?" and many others) to gain illegal access to homes so as to commit some crime or another (rape, theft, etc). 76.247.206.240 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that in this case, Dr. Mephisto's side of the dialog was identical to that of the cat lady in "Clockwork Orange" (film). Yaztromo (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Got cite? Alastairward (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a reference to a clockwork orange no doubt about it the dialog is the same and even the way cartman comes in is the same

I completely disagree with the "ubiquitous cultural meme" argument. While this certain tactic may be common, the manner in which the South Park scene played out was a very specific reference to the scene in A Clockwork Orange. Matt and Trey have talked about how A Clockwork Orange was an early influence on South Park (mainly the fact that it's about 4 boys) and have used references to it before (the scene in Bigger Longer and Uncut with Cartman's V-Chip demonstration) so it's no coincidence that they would make this allusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.34.200 (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous Editor, that's complete rubbish. If its not cited, then it doesn't go in. Stop wasting time with special pleading for it to be added. If it happens to pop up in the article sans cite, it'll be removed just as quickly. Alastairward (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

what kind of citation do you need just watch the episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.175.107 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Showing

so the eoisode will never be showed again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.227.41 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Episode number written wrong

In section 5.1 Ratings, it's written 21 instead of 201 ("In its original American broadcast on April 21, 2010, "21" was watched..."). Please someone fix it! Thanks! ;)

Xbox Live Video Marketplace - episodes pulled

Please add to this article that 'Super Best Friends' and '200' have been pulled from the Xbox Live Video Marketplace as well. '201' was never available on there. However, the 'Cartoon Wars' episodes have NOT been pulled from XBL at all.

Threat to South Park

This just made it through on The Smoking gun. [1] --Hourick (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Jon's intent

I don't agree with this:

"Although Stewart acknowledged Comedy Central probably altered the episode to protect their employees "from possible harmful repercussions," he satirized their decision by showing dozens of clips of The Daily Show mocking numerous religions without ever having instigated violence in response."

I don't think that's what he was doing. I think it directed at the Muslim extremists. Did Jon ever say that this part was directed at Comedy Central and their decision to censor? He didn't say it on the show. Where are you getting it from? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Shown in Sweden

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 201 (South Park). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503001847/http://www.thelocal.se/26366/20100429/ to http://www.thelocal.se/26366/20100429/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508170347/http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103940/ to http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103940/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100424223227/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/22/wednesday-cable-ratings-in-plain-sight-adds-viewers-loses-demo-south-park-still-a-ratings-champ/49492 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/22/wednesday-cable-ratings-in-plain-sight-adds-viewers-loses-demo-south-park-still-a-ratings-champ/49492
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407191725/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/01/wednesday-cable-real-world-hits-lows-south-park-stays-high-in-plain-sight-returns/47093 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/01/wednesday-cable-real-world-hits-lows-south-park-stays-high-in-plain-sight-returns/47093
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903133836/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/DVD/south-park-the-complete-14th-season-3-disc-box-set/dp/820263 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/DVD/south-park-the-complete-14th-season-3-disc-box-set/dp/820263
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://4archive.org/b/res/530038028

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)