From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.
Click [show] for further details |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale. |
Assessment comments
The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh)
- Article needs expansion, with references from reputable citations. Smee 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
|
 |
South Park controversies is part of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to South Park. If you wish to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as high-Importance on the importance scale. |
|
[edit] Steve Irwin
This comment: "However, what many people failed to realize is that when Steve Irwin turns up at Satan's party he is dismissed by the Devil who says that it is too early to be satirizing Irwin's death. Thus, Parker and Stone are attacking those people who did mock Irwin's death". Actually, Irwin is finally dismissed in the episode for having "no costume", because he's only got a stingray through him. I don't think it's this double satire mentioned earlier - I think it's just a joke at Irwin's expense.
- I haven't actually seen the episode in question, but I think the description needs to be revised anyway. Just based on the description as given in the article, I don't see how it "attack[s] those people who did mock Irwin's death." I don't have to see the episode to be confident that this description is pretty far off base. If anything, it sounds like the episode is acknowledging its own offensiveness, but furthermore lampooning the standard taboo against making fun of recent tragedies. At any rate, and regardless of whether the description and my interpretation are accurate, the wording of the passage plainly betrays its vested interest in defending the episode. The one thing I can say without doubt is that it desperately needs to be rewritten. Chalkieperfect 05:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree that this whole paragraph needs to be rewritten. It is most definitely not NPOV 84.13.149.104 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Shit" episode
In the discussion of the excessive swearing in "It Hits the Fan," do we really need the quotation of an entire lyric from Mr. Garrison's "shitty fag-fag" song? Wouldn't it suffice just to say that Mr. Garrison sings a song called "Shitty Shitty Fag-Fag" to the tune of "Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang"? The way it's currently written smacks of the kind of meandering descriptions of TV shows we give our friends who missed the show last night. While that kind of "So then it was like..." has its proper place, I don't really think this is it. Chalkieperfect 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disabilities
I tagged this section on the basis that is is pretty biased and unencyclopedic. Although really, the whole article isn't a beacon of a great wikipedia page, I think that section suffers from poor writing the most. Razorhead 10:02, 28 December 2007
I have removed this section. Having seen the episodes in question, I doubt that that are biased (they discribed plot points rather than opinion) but they have nothing to do with the topic of the page. The page is about Controversies, and neither of the episodes cited in the section (as I think the original post stated) caused any contravesy TimothyJacobson (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's back, and I suggest removing it again, though not on the basis that it might contain original research (it doesn't, as far as I can tell; the events discussed actually did happen in the episodes). Rather, it doesn't state how the episodes were controversial to anyone, whether disabled persons, advocates or the general public.
- Other sections of this article explain how it was controversial, as opposed to just rattling off a laundry list of events which readers may or may not find controversial. It's the difference between the two following statements:
- Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights protested the season finale episode, "Bloody Mary", for its depiction of a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding from her rectum.
- The season finale episode, "Bloody Mary", depicts a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding from her rectum.
- I'm in no edit war mood, but I think I'll remove (like, in a week of so if noone responds and if I remember to do it) the section unless someone adds references mentioning public outcries to the issues in the section. --92.104.130.4 (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rainforest Schmainforest
I don't know if this deserves to be in the controversy section or not, but this episode in particular was criticized by the Costa Rican Government early in 2007(despite the episode airing in '99) over their satirical POV of this country. Vic729 02:27, 08 January 2008 (UTC)[1]
Hilarious that there's a whole article dedicated to this. Leopold Stotch (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Criticism of South Park"?
Why isn't the article titled Criticism of South Park, like the articles on the other fictional works (Criticism of Family Guy, Criticism of Torchwood, Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code, Criticism of World of Warcraft) are titled? --DrBat (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
