Talk:Cartman Gets an Anal Probe/Archive 1

Kyle

what does kyle say at the end when he curses at the aliens? i only know of 2 words that get bleeped and i dont know what he said. does anyone have an uncensored one who knows what he said? -Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kibitokai123 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

• I don't think there's an uncensored version of the first episode, so no one really knows what he said, not even Trey and Matt. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed

• In the recent UK poll Paramount Comedies' Top 10 Episodes, this episode was ranked number 4.

I removed the above. It was formerly in the "Unaired pilot episode" section, although the aired episode of Cartman Gets an Anal Probe was ranked number 4. I think this should be included somewhere else in the article. Sittingonfence 21:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I just read the article from the very beginning and realized that a mention of this is already made. Sorry.

UK airdate

Does anyone know when this episode was first broadcast in the UK? I know it was circa 1998 on Channel 4, but what's the specific date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.31.175 (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war avoidance

Can we not use the episode itself as a reference? If not, how do we find references for TV show episodes? - Denimadept (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I'm starting the hunt for external reviews, which we need if we ever keep this episode article. By the way, there's a discussion regarding possible elimination of some SP episode articles over alleged lack of notability. For now i've found: (I'll update this list as I find more)

• Bellafante, Gina (1997-08-18). "The Next Generation". Time.
• Bozell, L. Brent III (1997-08-20). "'South Park': TV's New Nightmare". Creators Syndicate.
• Fretts, Bruce (1997-08-15). "South Park". Entertainment Weekly. (although it look like a general review of the show it's really all about this episode)
• James, Caryn (1997-08-13). "Cartoons About Children Feature Grown-Up Jokes". The New York Times. p. C14.

(to cite these click on "edit" and copy-n-paste the "cite web" template from {{ to }}

I don't quite have the time to summarise all these myself, so I'd like someone or two to help me out, please. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't really get anything from the second two on the episode itself (notability would extend beyond merely reviewing the show too). Also, this is the actual template for citing websites. Alastairward (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I agree; the Entertainment Weekly and NY Times sources are more in general; the Times even teases of two future episodes. But Template:Cite news is used "specifically for news sources" (i.e. NY Times). -Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure whether or not you knew about the templates. Any positive reviews (for balance)? Alastairward (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Any positive reviews (for balance)?" Hmm.

• • • • Bozell = super-duper-negative (writing about South Park has been his part of his day job for over a decade now in his column)
      • EW, NY Times, Time = Average

At this moment I can't seem to find any "two thumbs up" type of reviews. Maybe the section should be POV-tagged? Also be sure to use American English in South Park articles and other American topic articles.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

POV would probably only be for heavy use of weasel words or attempts to stifle addition of balanced sources or reviews. I know about the use of British and American English on wikipedia, but differences crop up so infrequently that I forget. Alastairward (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW it was I who had tagged the other articles for possible lack of notability, I had thought a pilot episode should be kept anyway as the first of a show. Alastairward (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot section

I'm scanning through it right now and find it could use a bit of shortening and grammar fixes. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Referenced in other episodes

Some events in this episode also take place in subsequent South Park episodes. In City on the Edge of Forever, when the boys are stuck in a stranded school bus, Stan says they have been in worse situations. A flashback follows to this episode. Instead of a satellite dish, an ice cream truck emerges from Cartman's rear, and the visitors start eating ice cream. In Cancelled, the children are waiting for the school bus as usual, when Cartman tells his friends about his weird dream. Several events follow that are almost identical to those in this episode, until the boys and Chef realize that they are stuck in a "repeat". --82.171.70.54 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

there is one in Free hat as well.

Thanks, but this is akin to a WP:TRIVIA section, in my opinion. There are lots of internal South Park references in the episodes. I'm not sure why we should list them all. If there a published source commenting on the importance of them, I would be more inclined to do so. Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cartman Gets an Anal Probe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I'll be starting this review. First off the bat, after this I think a second opinion is needed, so I'll be needing one.

Alright, the article overhaul looks pretty good from a skim. I'll have to look further to check for grammar and spelling after a few issues are taken care of:

1. The structural order of things throws me a bit. My suggestion would be to move "Historical background" as a subheading for production and the "release" bit of that section as one as well. The current way everything is seems a bit out of focus.
2. A reference in the Stone and Parker image under "Production" should be added.
3. The article appears to be lacking a "Pop-cultural references" section. As I'm not familiar with South Park very well, I'm not sure if there really are any, but if there are, it should be added. References of course should be added with it, unless there aren't any, in which the section should be abolished.

All in all, generally in good shape, just needs some additions and cleanup. The Flash ^{talk} 01:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate to move the historical background to the production section. The historical material is much broader than the material in "production". I'm not sure what seems out of focus - could you explain a bit more and perhaps I could tweak the article? Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the image. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read all of the sources I can find on this episode and I didn't see any relevant information on popular culture references. Generally, we are not supposed to list these things just for the sake of it, as that is WP:TRIVIA. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's why I said to only add it if there's a source. Anyways, after reading the background section again, it looks like it works well into Style and themes, but not really the issue. I was just thrown off a bit by "Plot" not being the first section. Still, nothing really "out of focus," I just think that some smaller things might fit better into bigger things. I suppose the Background section is fine on it's own, but I think a second opinion should be given before this is gratified. The Flash ^{talk} 14:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

I never thought i would be involved in reviewing an article on a TV episode, but...

• This article is excellent, and more sophisticated than most of the material on TV episodes and series etc. However, like The Flash, I think the Background section doesn't quite work. The section begins: ""Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" first aired in August 1997." Although this seems like a logical starting point, ths sentences that immediately follow, which are the true "background" I think, refer to a broad milieu within which the idea for South Park was conceived and then realised. The culture wars thus precede the episode, and should probably precede information in the opening para about the episode's airing. (It might even be preferable for the airing info to be in a later section)

• I have changed the sentence to "South Park was part of a reaction to the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s in the United States..." Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• "It was part of a reaction..." Read literally, the "It" here means this one episode of South Park, whereas i think the whole idea of South park is the thing that is "part of the reaction".

• This has been fixed with the above change. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Murphy Brown's motherhood, Tinky Winky's sexuality,..." I'm probably supposed to understand this, but I have no idea to what these remarks refer, and as a result I can't follow the nature of the argument.

• Unfortunately, these are the examples used by the source. I could explain, but I think that adding more would be OR. I was hoping the links would provide any context readers didn't have. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think "The culture wars, and political correctness in particular, were driven by the belief that relativism was becoming more relevant to daily life" is a very big call, and needs both specific citations and a bit more explanation.

• The entire paragraph is cited to the same source. Could you explain which part is unclear, so that I can work on my paraphrase? Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• The two sentences: "The culture wars, and political correctness in particular, were driven by the belief that relativism was becoming more relevant to daily life. South Park, one scholar explains, "made a name for itself as rude, crude, vulgar, offensive, and potentially dangerous"." seem like a non sequitur. How is something being rude and crude in any way related to the increasing importance of relativism in daily life? If they are related, the nature of that relationship will need to be explained to a lay reader.

• I've tried to clarify. Here is the original source. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the sentence: "Its critics argued that the Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny were poor role models for children while its supporters celebrated the show's defense of free speech.[3]" belongs in the background at all, but in the Reception section near the end. It seems odd to talk about critics views of characters in a section that is providing the background to the creation of the very first episode.

• Considering the source (linked above), I think this does fit. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would try and reshape this section along the lines of: "During the 1980s and 1990s, strong divisions in political and social life were characterised as a culture war, in which (explain role of entertainment and values here). Some analysts (who?) argued that political correctness was an (?undesirable?) effect of these divisions, as (who?) sought to blah blah. Debate surrounded the portrayal of X values. Examples included (Murphy Brown or whatever, but it will need explaining). South Park was conceived as a reaction to political correctness (reference needed - assuming I'm understanding this correctly). It "made a name for itself etc" (source). Sorry this is such a crap effort at setting out a framework.

• The source does not quite contain the history of the culture wars you are looking for. I'm trying to use sources that mention South Park - these are not always satisfactory. After reading the source, do you have any suggestions for improvement? If this source is not adequate, do you think I should use a source on the history of the culture wars that does not mention South Park? Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have no issues with the rest of the article, which is excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy

• Just a further response to say that, while I would want to revisit the "Background" section at FA level, I am happy with it for GA, with the tweaks that have been undertaken. I will also leave a message at The Flash's talk page, saying I believe it's OK for GA, and that the ball is back in their court. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• After checking over the sections and generally structural system of the article, as well as sources, I've got to say I agree with Hamiltonstone. Article checks out all together in my opinion. Y Good job. The Flash ^{talk} 00:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical Background

I'm not sure why the culture wars are significant for this episode. For the article on the series? Sure, why not? In the background section for this article, however, I think it's more relevant to give a review of when the show started, what its major themes had been to this point, etc. All the focus on culture wars makes me think the episode will refer to them (which, if memory serves, it really doesn't). Scartol • Tok 18:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm really dumb. I forgot this was the first episode of the first season. Therefore, it seems best to discuss Matt & Trey's background together, how they got approval for the show, the protoviral animated Santa v. Jesus thing, etc. Scartol • Tok 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a paragraph on that. Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to Watch

Can I add a link to the episode for anyone that wants to watch it? Here's the link Can I add that to the external links section? C-Son-L Sweaters (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that site is sponsored by Comedy Central, so that is not a copyright violation. Awadewit (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

I saw that Awadewit removed an infobox image that I had added to this page, claiming it was violation of WP:NFCC #3. I added it back with the hope that we could talk about it here first and see what the consensus was; otherwise, the image is going to be speedily deleted since it's not being used in an article. Awadewit said in her chagne, "it doesn't matter what the rationale says (we can add the bit about obesity if you want) - the point is that we don't need TWO images of Cartman - it violates policy". My feeling is that this is not a violation of WP:NFCC #3. The point of this image isn't simply to demonstrate or illustrate Cartman. The rationale points out several other purposes the image serves, and I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand simply because Cartman happens to be in the image. Like I said, if the consensus is its a violation, I'll of course agree to its removal, but I wanted to hear some other thoughts... — Hunter Kahn 05:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The fair use rationale is insufficient, as I explained to the editor who added it in the first place. Here is what I posted to his/her userpage:

• Cartman's obesity can be seen in the video - we don't need another image for that
• Cartman's farting is only partially a visual element (and certainly "farting fire" can be described using words)
• It is debatable that we need another fair use image in the article just to demonstrate the alien probe - we would need a stronger reason than this, IMO.

I explained quite clearly to the user who added the image why I felt it violated WP:NFCC - the edit summary was only a partial explanation (as most edit summaries are). Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe I missed it, but I didn't get any explanation outside of the edit summary; I only got the generic orphaned non-free image notice from another user after it was already removed. But, in any event I wanted to give the chance for some more discussion to see if anybody uninvolved agreed or disagreed with your logic. Since I brought this to the attention of WikiProject South Park and others, and haven't heard back, I'll defer to your logic here Awadewit. You can go ahead and remove the picture. — Hunter Kahn 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Directed by

Resolved

Can we please verify Trey Parker directed the episode? It says so in the infobox, and the production section says this: "Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, wrote "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" and Parker directed; it was made on a budget of $300,000." While this sentence does have a citation, unfortunately it requires subscription, so I can't verify whether the citation only refers to the budget amount, or the writer/director details as well. The end credits of the episode do not name a director. --Mondotta (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Both facts are referenced in the article. Wadewitz (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Mondotta (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Every episode has an alien?

Resolved

The article contains this line in the Production section, sourced to the Season 1 Commentary:

"Each episode aired has a hidden 'visitor' or alien that makes a secret appearance that is very difficult to spot even when trying to look for it."

Is this supposed to mean every single episode of South Park has an alien, or just Season 1? That's the season I'm the least familiar with, so that wouldn't surprise me, but it would blow my mind if they repeated this motif over the course of 15 seasons.

Anyone care to fill me in? 216.20.152.85 (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The partial sentence about the aliens that you mention was added today, and its attribution to the season 1 commentary was incorrect. I have now corrected the sentence the following way:

"However, the crew started hiding aliens in the background in many South Park episodes, as an easter egg for fans; a tradition that goes back to Parker and Stone's first major collaboration, the 1993 independent film Cannibal! The Musical."

There are a lot of visitors hidden, but not in every episode, and I think the practice has been used less and less as the seasons progressed. There are fan websites that catalogue the aliens that appear. I remember reading that the aliens are often added by ex-animation director Eric Stough in the last minute. --Mondotta (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Carnivalesque"

Am I the only person put off by the pomo, first-year English-lit-major mention of Bakhtin and the carnivalesque? Doesn't it seem pointless to mention such when Bakhtin and "the carnivalesque" have been invoked in reference to anything vaguely satirical and/or "naughty"? It's like discussing Freudian theory in every article that mentions cigars.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.117.119 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but at Wikipedia we summarize what has been published on a topic. Reputable scholars published that essay on the carnivalesque. Wadewitz (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. I read it and thought "here we go again". The scholars may be reputable but the language don't half stink: "linguistic games that challenge official discourse" in the lede. I ask you. Ericoides (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

While I understand where you are coming from, Wadewitz, I don't think discussion of the carnivalesque sheds any real light on "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe". It seems instead that "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is being used as an entree into a discussion of the carnivalesque, not the other way around. I think this content would be better placed in that article, not this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.117.119 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Cartman Gets an Anal Probe vs. Murder of Julia Martha Thomas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cartman Gets an Anal Probe article. If only it said that somewhere on this talk page. Oh, it does - right at the top. BencherliteTalk 21:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Compare Cartman Gets an Anal Probe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) = appeared at TFA, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 7, 2012. vs. Murder of Julia Martha Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) = appeared at TFA, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2, 2012. See also this discussion at the talk page of the Main Page. (permalink) All the complaints over this article and seemingly none about Murder of Julia Martha Thomas. Quite fascinating, I wonder why that is? — Cirt (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Apparently you can't use the word "anal" without people complaining... Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I was totally offended! For so long I have lusted over the best human dripping to cook with my girl scout pies! And this article tells me the dripping i bought from that Irish Woman was probably fake?! An Anal probe is a perfectly legit medical process! This TFA is a fraud! No, honestly wut wut, I seriously doub't people would complain because their title scimmers. Pretty depressing. But these arguments can be pretty...amusing ^_^ Nutthida (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC) http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Murder_of_Julia_Martha_Thomas (latter should update soon…) NB: Jenna Jameson should do a film called Jenna Jameson Gets a Vaginal Probe. Then do a FA… Alarbus (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Here's an idea: get Vagina Monologues to TFA and see how many people complain. Some will, I'm sure of it. Such is life... Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Maybe a job for User:Jokestress (Andrea James#Life and career). Alarbus (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Omission?

Did they steal this idea from the kids in the hall? or are alien anal probes kind of like a jazz standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.173.56 (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it usual to list those who voiced the characters of an animated show or short piece? Is there a reason the cast isn't included here, or anything about them in the Production section? Just wondering...--TEHodson 21:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think simply because all of the voices in the end product were done by Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Mary Kay Bergman and Isaac Hayes. I do know there were additional voice actors and actresses in the unaired Pilot though, before Mary Kay Bergman was hired. --24.12.214.185 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find some reputable sources about the cast along with some important details for that section, please do add the material. It is often hard to find sources for this specific episode. Wadewitz (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)