Talk:South Park Republican/Archive 1

Archive 1

Misc unsorted discussion

I dont think I fully understand. There seems to be an unclear bias here. Please tell me what you mean by this. In which episode does it say that big evil corporations, tobacco companies, etc. aren't that bad? That seems WRONG!! User Hmoleman00

-Episode 217 : Gnomes

---

It's implied. You ever seen the episode with Rob Reiner raging against big tabacco and showing the hypocrisy of the anti-smoking groups? Or epidoes where the citizens rage against big companies (In one episode it was a Starbucks knockoff)and in the end they realize why they're so big is because they've been succesful and have good products. If you haven't noticed Trey and Matt's right wing slant in their show you're not very attentive.

---

No infact episodes portray big corporations and the tobaco indusrty as GOOD and the small town stores and the anti-tobaco groups as BAD!!

---

Have you ever heard of satire? Or is that a liberal concept? South Park is a Parody!!!I was ready to put a political bias notice on this page, but I decided to do some research into the subject first. According to the author of the first two google results for South Park Republicans, the term has nothing to do with the show South Park. [1] According to Stephen Stanton, who wrote the articles, South Park Republican has more to do with a general social trend than it does with the television program itself. He says, "The cartoon is just a metaphor. Many 'South Park Republicans' have never seen the cartoon. Maybe some are fans of the X-Men movies (which make a strong case for Second Amendment rights, limited government, individual liberty and personal responsibility). Other would-be Republicans do not watch TV at all; they may spend more time reading about lopsided labia than balanced budgets." Although he attributes the coinage to someone else, an Andrew Sullivan, his analysis is most likely one of the most read. As far as I can tell, Andrew Sullivan feels similarly anyway: [2]. The idea of "social liberalism" coinciding with "fiscal conservatism" or "conservative views on foriegn policy issues" is not new, and has nothing to do with South Park. [3]. Further, there is no suggestion of Republican bias anywhere in the show. My associates and I had always suspected South Park of leaning slightly to the left, and were very surprised to see this interpretation. As far as I can tell, Republicans think that the show is biased towards Republicans. The suggestion that the Saddam Hussein/Satan connection is pro-war is rediculous, as are most of the things mentioned on this page. The South Park movie was released far before September 11, not to mention before the issue of the war was commonly envisioned!! Their gay relationship in the movie is seen by many as a satire of the demonization of Saddam Hussein, not as an encouragement to demonize him. Obviously, because of the nature of satire, not everyone will understand the intentions. The list in the bottom half of the page is not without bias, and deserves to be on the talk page rather than the main entry. Liberals make fun of liberals too! Flying Hamster 01:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, liberals make fun of liberals and conservatise hopefully can make fun of conservatives too. But the creators of South Park are neither - they are moderate and Libertarian.Zarkow 11:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi

This is the first time i have tried this so i hope it is the correct way to contact you.

Thanks for your feedback on the South Park Republicans article that I added stuff to. I read the first part of the article a while back and heaard about the concept of South Park Republicans previously. I could see there was some debate in the blogosphere etc about whether it was an appropriate terminology and whether South Park and its creators actually have a Libertarian/Republican slant. I had seen some episodes on TV and quite enjoyed the show, but had noticed no politics. A freind of mine lent me his complete and up to date collection of South Park and over a few weeks I worked my way through them making very brief notes in a notepad document whenever political issues were referenced. That list is the second part of the article.

I agree with you that suggesting that the portrayal of Saddam Hussein in no way represents a pro-war possition and such assertations in the first part of the article are absurd. I am loathe to delete other peoples work however, so I let the second part of the article speak for itself.

I was careful in the langugue and phrasing I used not to betray my own point of view on the subjects mentioned since my point of view is of no interest. However it can be confusing when reading the article, because the very nature of the inquiry, it is attempting to determine the POV of others.

Determining the political slant in an episode and deciphering what is satire is really no effort. While there may be satirical lines in the show (such as Cartman's anti-semitic comments) when a general point is made throughout an article it is as plain as the nose on your face. On some occasions the message is ambiguous (i.e. on stem cell research) but on these occasions I note only that a political matter was discussed (". . . discusses Stem cell research".) In many of the episodes there is concluding monologue from (usually) Kyle or Stan (two charachters based on the two creators of the show) making clear political points which merely serve to bang home messages that were more subtly made in the course of the program. Parker and Stone have stated that the do include their own political opinions in their productions.

I have tried to be thorugh are careful in my analsis, and where I have been less that certain, made that clear. I do concede that I may have missed things out or got things wrong and I would be grateful for any improvments you could suggest, or if you think I have drawn the wrong conclusion from any of the episodes, I would be gratefull if you could set me straight.

I have to say for the record, that I was personally extreemly suprised at some of the politics that I found in South Park. In short allthough its politics matches closest with Libertarianism (Trey Parker is on record as saying that he is a Libertarian party member.) it diverges in many ways. It appears to be to the right on issues of forign intervention (libertarians are mostly ultra-pacifist) and on 'life issues' (e.g. abortion/euthanasia/marrige etc.) While being strictly empiricist regarding science and religion, and highly critical of the church, it appears to be vaugely against secularism. It is this group of beliefs that I think had been branded "South Park Republican".

Either way it seems clear that South Park is anti-liberal, attacking as it does a host of well known celebrity liberals but I cannot see any critique of Bill Clinton as the first part of the article suggests.

To conclude I have to say that it appears hard to argue that the term South Park Republicans is misplaced. From the content anaysis of the shows, and on-the-record comments from the producers it is clear that South Park represents a significantly right or center viewpoint on the whole. Although Parker and Stone do not reflect my political beliefs, I wont critisise them for bias, since they are private citizens and are entitled to be as biased as they please!

pardon my spelling and grammer,

jucifer

P.S. Liberals do make fun of liberals but liberals dont make fun of liberals for being liberals!

P.P>S. South Park is not a Parody. What exactly does it Parody? In certain parts there is parody.. The Lord of the Rings is parodied for example, but the show itself is not parody. The same applies to satire, it contains satire and like all good satire it mocks people and viewpoints using their own words against them. The object of satire is allways clear.

(I think it is misplaced to call the portrayal of Saddam as satire, its not political satire for sure.)

If you think the the content analysis of the episodes is faulty or biased I think the best way to proceed is to analyse for bias or error point by point. That way hopefully we will be able to arrive at some kind of accepted conclusions. Would you agree?

---

First, I am not certain if I understand some of what you are saying here. "However it can be confusing when reading the article, because the very nature of the inquiry, it is attempting to determine the POV of others." is something I don't exactly understand. If you are refering to the article, I don't think that it is meant to determine the POV of others. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.

I don't have too much of a problem with the list on the bottom of the article and I believe that my statements prior reflected that. I do however have fundamental problems with the consistancy of the article and the assumption that South Park reflects a Republican point of view. First, as I mentioned, the evidence suggests that the term "South Park Republican" is not essentially linked with the show South Park. The subject matter that is contained in this entry is therefore erroneous. The list, which I condone for the effort provided and for its potential use, I find to be more suitable for inclusion on the South Park talk page (I would suggest putting it on the South Park page itself in the bias section, but that would be far too much material to fit), as this page should not address, except for perhaps very breifly, whether and to what ends South Park is biased. Instead, South Park Republican(s) should address the emerging group of republicans that are more socially liberal or even have libertarian leanings but still encourage aggressive foreign policy initiatives. The importance of this article is in the dichotomy that is drawn between the traditionalist Republican ideas and newer, more modern perspectives. This is all evidenced in my prior entry. As I referenced earlier, South Park Republicans might have never watched South Park! Secondly, there is no correlation between the politics of South Park (as measured by the contents of the concluding monologues primarily, and secondarily measured by the subjective analysis of the biases of the creators and the show itself) and the political platform of the Republican Party. South Park has been decisively moderate on every issue as to not alienate either liberal or conservative viewers. Even on the issue of foriegn intervention, which you noted in your last post, South Park mirrors the moderate view of Americans (It is important to note that many democrats were in favor of the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq that began shortly after 9-11). The idea that South Park is antiliberal is equally as unsubstantiated as the idea that it is conservative. Despite your postscripted comments, liberals do make fun of liberals for being liberals quite often. The assumption that they do not belies a fundamental misunderstanding of satire. On many occasions, I have heard a person with liberal views jokingly discredit an adjacent liberal's comments with an ironic jab indicating their "liberal" status. The reason it is comical is because it reflects the fallacy of abusive ad hominem that is becoming more and more common. In other words, it is funny because it parallels a common conservative tactic of arguing against what liberals say by referring to them as liberals. South Park's treatment of certain "token" liberals is not indicative of a broad social anti-liberal additude. It is instead a parody on the use of this fallacy (Although you may not agree with this, that does not mean that many people have had similar interpertations). The fact that bias was so hard to detect speaks clearly to the show's moderate standpoint. As a corollary to the biases of the creators, and because the show challenges many freedom of speech ideas, I would agree that the show could be considered to have a libertarian slant. The phenomenon on which this article is based is not called "South Park Libertarians", however, and therefore I see a visible disconnect between the politics of South Park and the group South Park Republicans. This fits in with the actual defining elements of the term, which as I will point out again, do not directly coincide with the show South Park.

My recommendation is to debate the slant of South Park on the South Park talk page, and to reshape this page into a legitimate encyclopedia description of the political phenomenon of South Park Republicans, as opposed to endlessly debating biases when it is extratopical and unneccesary for the article's primary content.

P.S.: In response to your postpostscript, first, the object of satire is not always clear. Although it is clear to anyone who understands the satire, inevitably not everyone will understand, and thus is not universally clear. Intent and Inferrence are two very different things. As far as parody is concerned, South Park has many individual parodies involving certain scenarios (like the one you mentioned), and it is impossible to say that South Park does not approach many topics in certain stereotypical ways that are characteristic of a particular style with the purpose of satirical juxtaposition. In fact, it could be easily argued that the entire show is a satire, because satirical inflation is a prominant momentus force in (almost?) every episode. Political satire is only one medium that satire presents itself in. Flying Hamster 04:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your reply

Orogins of the phrase:

This is a quote from Sullivan's site, and appears to be the very first coinage of the term anywhere on the net.

"Wednesday, December 12, 2001

SOUTH PARK COMES OUT: Yes, we now know, after much speculation, something that is obvious to any devoted fans of the Comedy Central cartoon show, “South Park.” This brilliant, scatological, hilarious concoction of anti-p.c. Gen X genius is the product of two men – Trey Parker and Matt Stone. And at a recent award ceremony hosted by People for the American Way, no less, they came out as … Republicans! Well at least I now have a quick response to the next person who asks me to sum up my politics. I’m a South Park Republican. But shhhh! Don’t tell Robert Bork."

A description of the awards dinner that appears to have started the whole thing is at the bottom of this page.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C40820%2C00.html

Thus it appears that the coinage of the term that has gained wide currency (it was meentioned on CNN on election night) was indeed a reaction to the politics of the show itself. Its usage is to describe people of a particular persuasion who might never have watched the show. Clearly at explaination must be given as to why the term originated, and if the coinage is appropriate that answer must be 'because South Park describes a particular set of beliefs.' Since this is disputed (including, by your good self) the only way to resolve whether the coinage is appropriate is to analyse the show itself. Maybe there should be two articles: one discussing the 'emerging group' and one describing the coinage? Frankly though I feel one article with two distinct sections should sufice, and i agree that there should be a discussion of the group of people in question.

To clarify what i meant about the POV thing, i was responding to your statement The list in the bottom half of the page is not without bias, by saying that it did not include my own biases, but I understand why you would make that mistake. Since the POV of others is being analyses, it can sometimes become confusing as to where the bias comes from. (This is compounded by the need for brevity.)

I do however have fundamental problems with ... the assumption that South Park reflects a Republican point of view.

A share your feelings on this, I find it slightly upsetting that such a partisan show is aired. However I really cant see any way around the fact that South Park repressents a Republican point of view.

Secondly, there is no correlation between the politics of South Park ... and the political platform of the Republican Party

There is no precise correlation, it is more Libertarian that republican but there is a large overlap, and both Republicans and South Park are to the right of centre.

South Park has been decisively moderate on every issue as to not alienate either liberal or conservative viewers.

I must disagree with this, South Park is descisively moderate on a few issues, but is decisively rightist on most issue it has dealt with. One thing the producers clearly do not care about is alienating viewers, in fact they clearly thrive on causing as much gratuitous offence as possible.

In other words, it is funny because it parallels a common conservative tactic of arguing against what liberals say by referring to them as liberals. South Park's treatment of certain "token" liberals is not indicative of a broad social anti-liberal additude. It is instead a parody on the use of this fallacy

To argue that Parker and Stone's regular mocking of liberal celebrities (mocking partisan liberal celebrities is a primary theme in their new movie Team America also) is some sustained and very suble parody of conservatives stands firmly in the face of the fasts. In logic one allways tries to explain observations in the simplest possible way, only using more convoluted explainations when the facts demand it. As such, some strong evidence that Parker and Stone are actually not as my research shows would be needed to sustain such a point.

The fact that bias was so hard to detect speaks clearly to the show's moderate standpoint.

As I wrote above the bias was not at all hard to detect. It was not like the bias of Foxnews, which can usually only be seen by reading between the lines or analysing what the choose to/not to report. (I suspect bias is the wrong word regarding South Park, unless 'political opinions' and 'biases' are synonyms, but i'm not sure.) Again, the evidence shows that South Park is somewhere significantly right of moderate in the American political sphere.

I removed the lines about Clinton and Saddam which have no basis in fact. I also removed the line about the tobacco companies and corporations because it is not factual.

I would agree with you that the page needs improvment with more detail about the nature and demographics of the SPRs. I think the list cound be contracted from 1500 words to 700 in prose form, with the original placed in the talk page. However since this subject is under debate, i feel for the time being it should stay as is, to facilitate discusion on a point by point basis.

I think it would be most expidient to this end if evidence against a) any particular points in the list you dispute b) the articles neutrality. Only evidence pertaining to these issues could justify your assertation that the 'the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.'

Respectffully yours,

Juicifer

P.S. You quote from Stephen Stanton "The cartoon is just a metaphor. Many 'South Park Republicans' have never seen the cartoon. Maybe some are fans of the X-Men movies (which make a strong case for Second Amendment rights, limited government, individual liberty and personal responsibility). Other would-be Republicans do not watch TV at all; they may spend more time reading about lopsided labia than balanced budgets." Continues immediatly: "Regardless, these individuals are still "South Park Republicans" in my book, just as thousands of "soccer moms" have children who play baseball, football or hockey instead of the world's most popular sport." Which is my position in precis. The need for the discussion on what is the nature of the politics of South Park is required here because the politics is questioned by some. Such discusion casts doubt on the approrriatness of this new coinage, and therein lies the crux of this matter. http://www.xboxaddict.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-47262.html

First of all, there is no reason that this page should not have a neutrality warning since there is obviously debate that is going on as to the show's political leanings. When a neutrality issue is being debated on a talk page, there is no legitimate justification for the removal of a neutrality warning. "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so." - Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder. Obviously, there are many people who believe that South Park is not explicitly republican. Although this correlation is the basis of the article, until the article is worded correctly, I will support a NPOV violation. (The NPOV applies to the top portion of article, not the relatively objective bottom section, which, in my opinion, is somewhat misplaced.)

The FOX News source is valid (at least as valid as possible given the conditions) and it does seem that the creators have declared themselves to be Republican. But lets not jump to the conclusion, then, that this means that South Park is a "republican show". Just because the creators of a show have certain political leanings does not mean that the show itself has those leanings. That's My Bush is a great example of this, as it was critical of Bush by definition. However, for the same reason that South Park is not Republican, That's My Bush is not liberal, although the subject matter is critical of the Bush administration. I would place a NPOV on That's My Bush if it declared that it was a liberal program. Obviously, this is not neccesary because of the general policies regarding NPOV that wikipedia tries to maintain. "...we employ a different understanding of 'neutral' and 'unbiased' than many might be used to. The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them." - Wikipedia's NPOV Page

I find your ambiguously condescending remarks in the last post, well, quite confusing. If I were to take a similar (and erroneous) approach to logic as you have and imply that the most simple answer is the correct one, I would say that you were trying to push your own conservative bias, because that is the most simple prediction that pops into my head. However, thats not how logic works, and thats not how the world works, and therefore I don't make such assumptions. You said: To argue that Parker and Stone's regular mocking of liberal celebrities ... is some sustained and very suble parody of conservatives stands firmly in the face of the fasts (sic). In logic one allways (sic) tries to explain observations in the simplest possible way, only using more convoluted explainations (sic) when the facts demand it. As such, some strong evidence that Parker and Stone are actually not as my research shows would be needed to sustain such a point.

What we've got here is your subjective analysis. I did not say that my take on the program is neccesarily the only explanation, and to argue that yours is the only valid explanation would be contrary to the idea of wikipedian objectivity. Once you can provide evidence that South Park represents a Republican POV, which you have not (and i speculate will not be able to), then the basis for the removal of the NPOV notice will be legitimate, and I will concede the argument. Evidence means evidence; evidence does not mean merely saying you have evidence or stating that other analysis "stands firmly in the face of the fa(c)ts". I happen to believe that my standpoint is correct, as you can imagine, and for you to speak of it in the way you have, I can not help but take offense.

To simplify: If explicit evidence is not presented confirming that South Park is a republican or conservative show, then a POV rewording is neccesary to ensure NPOV. Until either of these conditions is met in a way that satisfies all parties, the NPOV notice should remain on the page, as the debate is still ongoing. I am clearly not an overzealous biased maniac, and removal of the NPOV notice (although factual accuracy qualms have been relatively dealt with) is not in keeping with wikipedia policy. Ongoing POV debates are essential to the character of wikipedia and should not be squelched, but instead channeled into the character of the article itself. Flying Hamster 19:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: I just wanted to add a small note about abusive ad hominems in light of your complete denial of their possibility (?). Historically, use of abusive ad hominems have been responsible for many arbitrary criticisms, leading to such problems as civil rights disputes and the holocaust. Today, certain key liberals are the victim of these attacks as well. Character attacks are a serious social problem, as they are inherantly counterlogical. Humor is one of the best means to deal with this broad social problem, and I praise the creators of South Park for showing this invalid criticism's absurdity. This is a legitimate standpoint and does not break down for the reason of being too complicated as you seem to imply.

Hi

Thankyou for your feedback.

I did not remove the neutrality note someone else did that. As you can see on the history page about eigth other users have made improvments to this page in the past few weeks.

There is really no need for this to be a personal matter Flying Hampster. You have misunderstood me when I was not trying to be condesending, any certainly not ambiguous. I'll try and be clearer this time. I disagreed with your arguement that the political satire in South Park "is funny because it parallels a common conservative tactic of arguing against what liberals say by referring to them as liberals." I now state quite clearly, that in my entirely subjective analysis (for all analysis is subjective, not least yours) that I consider your assertaion that this is the case (for that is what you said above, you didn't say it was a possibility, you siad The reason it is comical without any of the qualification you would like me to preface my remarks with) so far fetched as to be total hogwash, and since you are clearly an inteligent person I can't for the life of me understand why you would say this. Do you really think that two people who claim to be republicans, who produce shows with predominantly conservative/libertarian views, mock liberal celebrities on a regular basis over eight years (often mocking thier views allongside/through them), do so to mock conservatives for mocking liberals? No doubt you would argue that when they have a hot-dog munching Michael Moore take the role of a suicide bomber in their new movie and then describe him as a "giant socialist weasel", they are mocking conservatives. Though I respect you, Flying Hampster, I think your assertation is absurd and strange.

But lets not jump to the conclusion, then, that this means that South Park is a "republican show". Just because the creators of a show have certain political leanings does not mean that the show itself has those leanings. That's My Bush is a great example of this, as it was critical of Bush by definition. However, for the same reason that South Park is not Republican, That's My Bush is not liberal, although the subject matter is critical of the Bush administration.

Neither myself, nor any other wikipedian, that edited this page before or after me, is advocating the idea that South park is a republican show. That point was made by Andrew Sullivan and many many others since. All this article does is report this issue. Since some people disagree with the basic premise, a list has been set up, so political references from the show can be seen together. Some of the points are liberal while others are more conservative. If you disagree with the idea that South Park is a republican show your critique must be aimed at Sullivan and those who agree with him.

It cannot possibly be the point of this article to debate this issue. The point must be to report the issue, allongside differing mainstream views.

If you feel the first part of the article is POV then go ahead and edit it so it is not. If you do not wish to edit out the POV you percieve in the article then there is really no need for the caution. As I see it, if you dispute it, you have got to be willing to fix it. I dont see any POV in the article, but if you can spot something go ahead - this is wiki! It can't be right that your contribution is merely to cast the neutrality or the article in doubt. Make whatever chabges you feel are neccesary to remove POV, remove the POV warning, and so long as no-on else disagrees with you that can be the end of this correspondence.

Yours gratefully

jucifer 21:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Juicifer you are absolutely correct. If you continue to have problems with rogue individuals placing NPOV header tags on this article without making any other sort of contribution you need to refer this matter to the RfC in order to preempt revert-edit wars. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 22:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

GRider - So, I'm a rogue individual? :|. I have modifications in mind, but I didn't want to alter the page until it could be discussed in this room. I am afraid my contributions would be reverted, so I wanted to discuss them... that is no reason for you to treat me as hostile. Whether you believe there is or not, by wikipedia rules this current phrasing is not NPOV, and the notice is appropriate. I've read them (the rules). I will go ahead and make my POV changes as you seem to suggest that I should, but if they are immediately reverted, like I supposed they would have been, then you have essentially destroyed all debate on this issue. My qualm is not absurd or rediculous. I just wanted to establish that there was POV in the article before I modified it. In fact, I only want to alter the wording of one section. I didn't mean to offend anyone... I didn't realize that the NPOV label was such an offensive thing. Oh and one other thing... I do not spend all my time arguing on talk pages. I contribute to wikipedia as well, and I am just trying to get the best POV possible.Flying Hamster 17:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jucifer, its Flying Hamster not Flying Hampster. I throw laundry in a hampster, and I feed my pet hamster. Many people I know spell it that way, so the misspellings are not uncommon, but it is an important difference. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine... Flying Hamster 17:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you throw your laundry in a "hamper". ;) -- El Duderino 20:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

I completly endorse the edits you have made, thankyou for your contribution. Thanks also for picking up on my spelling, I dont really care about spelling and would never bother to correct "absurd or rediculous" spelling errors.

-) [[User:Juicifer|Juicifer\^talk]] 18:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:Þ Flying Hamster 01:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have reverted some of the recent edits which were innacurate.

(301) To say that the episode is 'seen as making fun of' rather that 'making fun of' is bizare. The episode makes fun of environmentalism period. There isn't a human alive who would disagree.

(302) The episode makes fun of knee-jerk antipathy, not antipathy. Antipathy towards politicians is not saomething worthy of mockery. Similarly the comments put into Goldberg's mouth are inane, and were deliberatly made to be so by the producers.

(505) The episode does clearly state all the things removed. Infact making the environmentalist out to be amoral killers is a major theme in the episode, and has been repeated in otherr episodes since. Their rejection of arguement through propaganda and brainwashing is the other major theme in the episode.

People should not become confused. This part of the article exists to describe the politics of the show. The show is biased!! Thats why it might appear NPOV if you dont concentrate. NPOV here would be a misreporting the facts of the show. Bear this in mind when editing this article.

[[User:Juicifer|Juicifer\^talk]]

Main article could use paring down

This reads more like an editorial than a Wiki article. I suggest paring the whole thing down to no more than three paragraphs and the episode listing.

Keshiklabs 09:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, it's an editorial. It's beyond slanted to the point of being an outright attempt at taking very POV slams at Democrats, the environmental movement, and other activists using South Park episodes as a guise for doing so. For example, much of the wording describing South Park episodes includes gratuitous words such as "inane" which seem more geared toward promoting a particular political viewpoint than merely describing the content of the episodes.

I agree with paring it down to a few paragraphs at most, and limiting the list of episodes to a short description of the political issues raised.

Beyond that, a good case could be made for recommending this article for deletion entirely, on the ground that it is a vanity article and the topic is unimportant, certainly not worth an encyclopedia article. The "South Park Republican" concept was invented by, what, maybe one or two Republican "bloggers"? Outside of that particular Internet subculture, the concept is irrelevant. Kaibabsquirrel 05:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flagged as NPOV-disputed

Given the level of argument about whether or not this article is NPOV, I decided to flag it as NPOV-disputed. Since I forgot to log in first, though, I'm stepping up here and taking the credit and/or blame.

Technogeek 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Level of arguement?

The only person to make a coherent challenge to the POV status of this article was Flying Hamster, and he edited the article to his satisfaction, and his edits remain unchanged. As I wrote above I dont see any POV in the article, but if you can spot something go ahead - this is wiki! It can't be right that your contribution is merely to cast the neutrality or the article in doubt. Make whatever chabges you feel are neccesary to remove POV.

In the meantime, I am taking doen the NPOV warning.

[[User:Juicifer|Juicifer\^talk]] 02:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV?

The entire episode list section, along with being completely unweildy and hard to read, is complete POV of the writer. The whole thing is ridiculous. I'm not going to sit and nit-pick on each example of POV, as that would take far too much time. If you want to make an attempt at a stand-alone page go ahead

Googuse

The Ridiculous List

Look - if you think it is so germane to the article, make a new page for it. It ain't staying here. googuse 01:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are dictating to us? Monti12 03:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who exactly is "us"? googuse 05:26, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Googuse, why don't you give an explaination of why you think the list is ridiculous. Obviously it's not clear to everybody why you feel this way.JesseHogan 07:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not going to go through and make a point by point refutation of the list. Read the NPOV? entry above this one. That is why I removed it in the first place. It's a sidebar to the initial article, not necessary information. It's fraught with conjecture and opinion and really doesn't serve a purpose. I don't see the problem with making it a second page, if it's necessary at all. googuse 01:36, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

The List

I provided the basis for the list a few months back, as a by-product of some research I had been doing. I cannot divulge the nature of the research so as retain my anonimity, but the list provided a near-complete survey of the politics of south park, not found elsewhere online. When I came across the wikipedia article on South Park Republicans and saw the ongoing discussion about the phrase, I posted the list, so people could asses the position for themselves without having to watch every episode. Anyone could alter the list, if they felt it was wrong in some way, thus the list would be constantly refined. I am working now on a similar list to disect the politics of "The Simpsons".

Many people had read the article, and countless people had made small delicate changes over a few months and many errors and minor POV inractions had been removed and many improvments made. That you feel Googuse that 2000 words of the work of so many people is for you to delete in one fell swooop is the height of arrogance. Indeed it is indisputably vandalism (even if your assertations are correct, which they are not) but its OK because I kept a copy the input on my hard drive so I can repair it. I have been sick for the past month, but now I am feeling much better and have the time for such exploits.

If you want to challenge the list you can, all the people who have contributed to it would no doubt appreciate any improvments you could make, however the list is not an entity in itself, it is a LIST containing totally discrete parts each of which needs to adressed seperatly, which you are entitled to do.

Again, you have to seperate the POV of the show from the POV of the article. The list I believe is a fairly accurate record of the politics of South Park. Since the show is mostly right-wing, a list of the shows political points will sound like a lecture from a right-wing idealogue - but ofcourse it is nothing of the sort. The question with the list entries is "what point is the show trying to make?" If that is answered correctly there can be no POV issue.

Since so many poeple have edited this article over the past few months, developing a consunsus article, if you intend to challenge this article you will do so without further vandalism. jucifer 16:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Juicifer, I think the list is interesting and informative; I have learned a bit from it even though I've seen every episode. However, I don't think that South Park is strickly a Republican cartoon even though it may often lean in that direction. South park often rides boths sides of the fence. I think the issue with the list is that it comes under the title South Park Republican. Shouldn't there be an article called called South Park politics (and Simpsons politics for that matter) or somthing to that effect which this page would link to. I think that this particular article should limit itself to the idea of the South Park Republican, which I understand to mearly be a person with certain types of view remenecent of the show. If I have said something that has already been said on this talk page I apologize, I don't have time to read all of it today. JesseHogan 21:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JesseHogan is correct. The article is not meant to interpret the politics of the show. It is to define the term South Park Republican I made the original major NPOV edit of the article back in November. Soon after that you began to turn it into an opinionated episode guide. You can put in all the work you want on your list - it will still always be POV and always not belong here. If you want to make a new page for it, I'll let it stand. I'll disagree with it's purpose and validity, but won't argue for its removal. I'll leave that to others. If you want to fight for its place on this page it, take it to mediation. Until then, I'll remove it as often as I have to. googuse 00:14, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made that article, Politics of South Park, even though I think it belongs in this article. I don't have the energy for an edit war, but nor do I believe that unilateral deletion of large amounts of information to be a good way to build an encyclopedia (or consensus for that matter) RMoloney 19:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To whoever removed that list: please put it back. You ruined a perfectly good Wikipedia:Wikifun question which was based on interaction between this article and "references to Cthulhu mythos" article. Damn you. Grue 12:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Brian C. Anderson’s book

This is news to me but there is a book called South Park Conservatives. See [4]

we cannot make conclusions too quickly

Yes, I would need to agree with Flying Hamster about the satire thing. I mean it's just like saying, that the authors are applying the Mormonism is the only right religion to go to heaven after death, episode 411, "Probably". And there are numerous similar cases, this is simply an example of satire, or whatever you want to call it.

best regards

by Wayfarer-Talk , on July 2, 2005 at 23:01 GMT

Minor factual discrepancy

On this page, the estimated budget of "That's My Bush," which allegedly led to the show's cancellation, is stated as $1 million. On the Trey Parker page, it is stated as $700,000. Who's right? Or should it be written "reportedly between $700,000 and $1 million."?

Andrew Sullivan

What is he doing in the 2nd paragraph? It doesn't seem relevent at all.

• Indeed, it must be a leftover from old edits. Removed the sentence ("Andrew Sullivan has often been very critical of the Republican Party (mostly for social libertarian reasons and for lack of fiscal responsibility) and endorsed John Kerry in the 2004 United States Presidential election.") completely since it had nothing to do with the whole paragraph. 203.144.160.242 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Zarkow.

Team America Link

An anon user removed this link, i couldnt see any clear reason to or talk on it so i reverted. However It does seem to be trying to re-inforce the previous sentence perhaps it should be reworded? Discordance 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality spilling over?

The below link's subject seems to dovetail with this current article, although I think the neutrality level of the linked article is quite different. Much of the debate here seems like it could apply to this article as well. Should they be merged?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park_conservative

Just a thought.

UPDATE: I changed the definition to the bare facts (the treatise that was there can still be viewed in the "history" section). It appears that there is a plenty large enough dispute over whether South Park has a liberal or conservative bias that the vast edit was warranted. Ideally, the page would just be merged with South Park Conservatives. Having such a wide disparity in definitions over an "S" seems a little silly.

FINAL UPDATE/CONCLUSION(?): Two out of three users have attempted to make South Park Conservative merge with South Park Conservatives. With this (hopefully) final attempt, the number is now three out of four different users.

South Park Fascists?

I followed a link from the article here on Bill White (neo-Nazi): http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=1736 and a sample from "Blame Canada!" plays. Weird! Шизомби 04:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure White Supremacy-groups are playing the Star Spangled banner too...are you therefor implying that by reference the whole US is rascist? No, since that would be insane. And so is your linking of fascism to South Park-creators.Zarkow 11:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

haha

The whole idea of "south park republican" is a joke. Trey Parker is registered to the libertarian party. I propose renaming this article to "Cartman Republican".

And Matt Stone is a registered republican. Your point? The two describe themselves as "middle-ground" and the show targets issues and beliefes on both sides of the political spectrum from both sides. "South Park Republican" clearly refers to those young people who identify with the more conservative of views which the show presents.

Length/Focus

What percentage of the text in this bloated, rambling article actually deals with the term "South Park Republican?" Are the views of the show's creators really even relevant at all when discussing this term? What IS important how it is used, what exactly it means, and perhaps a history of the term itself, not lengthy descriptions of the premise of the show "South Park," or explanations for why "That's My Bush" was cancelled. Can we focus a bit and remove some of this completely superfluous text? Dunne409 08:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Their views are relevant because other people are characterizing South Park as being Republican whereas the creators are self-proclaimed Libertarians. This contradiction is both significant and salient to the article. --kizzle 08:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the difference between the show's perceived political leanings and those of its creators has anything to do with the term "South Park Republican." Whether the show is "Republican" or the creators are "Libertarian" has nothing to do with how the term is used, its history, meaning, etc. (On which this page should focus) Dunne409 09:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

(moved comment)

Um... Trey Parker is a registered Libertarian, and Matt Stone doesn't vote. Neither of them are Republicans (this comment was left, unsigned, at the top of the page, moving to a more appropriate location)

The term still exists, regardless, and this article is about it. Bjsiders 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed.

"It has been said that South Park tends towards the center, depicting people on both the left and the right as self-serving and flawed in their logic."

And who was this said by? What relevance does it have to the following paragraph?

I propose that if a citation for this statement is not found, that the sentence can be simply removed with no ill effect to flow, or simply replaced with a sentence that indicates the following paragraph is a counter example. I do question what relevence the entire paragraph has to the topic at hand, but I leave that discussion for another day, and I merely wish to point out that the above quoted statement is unsubstantiated.

New York Times citation

This entry was cited by the columnist John Tierney in the New York Times on Tuesday, August 29, 2006. See: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/opinion/29tierney.html -- Mabuse 15:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Evangelical Left as Ideological 180 from South Park Republicans?

Would the evangelical left be the ideological antithesis of South Park Republicans? It seems that many South Park Republicans would be more liberal on social issues like abortions or pornography and conservative on war/peace, social welfare and economic matters. Evangelical Left would probably support the flop side on each and every issue listed above. --JNZ 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)