Talk:South Park Republican

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Park Republican article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animation: South Park Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the South Park task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Politics: Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

The External links

I'm wondering, are the entries in the external links section actually the sources used for the article? If so, I'd like to reclassify them as such using the layout at Template:Reflist. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the {{External links}} tag on the article, those links need to be cleaned up. If they're references, please work them into the article as footnotes. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messy and Needs Sources

The "Meaning of Term" and "Usage" sections neither cite any sources and both, especially the prior, are sloppy. Someone want to take a try at rewriting them? --Col.clawhammer 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullhorn

I'd like to find the source with the quote from the creators about their "bullhorn to yell at America." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.197.51 (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much

Way too much of this information pertains more to the show then actual South Park republicans. While reading it I almost forgot that I wasn't on the show's page. The information needs some serious editing as a huge amount of the information is not relevent to the topic of the article. Glassbreaker5791 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits != notable

Just because you can google and get 'a lot' of web hits does NOT mean the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. WP:NOTABLE TheRedPenOfDoom 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, they can't "prove" anything, but it can be used to "confirm roughly how popularly referenced an expression is". See WP:GOOGLE. нмŵוτн τ 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Not fans of extremists'

I've removed this bit: "They are simply not fans of extremists, and enjoy 'roasting' those on each side." The article had already mentioned that they consider themselves to be in the middle ground. (Trey Parker is quoted in this interview as saying, "And we're both just pretty middle-ground guys.") But whether they actually are or not is a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are many who consider their views to be extreme, even if they don't think so themselves, so I think that saying they are not fans of extremists is rather misleading in that respect. -- Oliver P. (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe another title

Perhaps the title of this article could be changed to "Politics of South Park" or "Political Views of Matt Stone and Trey Parker". Gtbob12 (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Politics of South Park" is a very different topic than "South Park Republican" which was a short lived neologism that was applied to people (primarily Stone, Parker and perhaps 3 others in reliable sources) who maintain a certain political view. That is not to say that "Politics of South Park" should not be created (oh, it already has been), but it is a different article. I am not sure that "Political Views of Matt Stone and Trey Parker" is a notable topic outside of the label "South Park Republican" (and I am not even really a supporter that SPR is a notable topic). -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are those views portrayed

"...center-right political beliefs that are, in general, aligned with those portrayed in the popular animated television show South Park." What are those views portrayed? Niew (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favourite of the anarcho-left

In the U.K. South Park seems to be very much a favourite of the libertatian hard left, if anyone has come across a source for this fact I would very much to add it. It would be a good addition given Stone and Parkers disquiet with "South Park Republican" term. Pete the pitiless (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't Parker and Stone aligned to the Libertarian movement? [1] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange comments to make, as both are mentioned in the article and disproved with citations. Pollythewasp (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing Republican Views

Yes they certainly do. Is everyone forgetting what Kyle says at the end of the Bin Laden episode? "America may have its problems, but it's our home, and if you're not gonna root for your home team, you might as well get the hell out of the stadium." Paraphrased, this means that you're not allowed to disagree with what America's doing if you live in America. This is a very Republican thing to say. Parker and Stone are pushing this viewpoint on young people yet they deny they have a political agenda. Of course they do! Why would that line be written into the script if they had no political agenda? This quotation by Kyle is an important point and should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htahpoahf (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, Bush has been shown a few times on the show. Normally when Bush appear in a popular cartoon, he is made fun of for his incredible stupidity. Bush has NEVER BEEN MADE FN OF ON SOUTH PARK. They rarely give him lines, and when he does speak, Parker and Stone do not make him say anything stupid. This is implicitly pushing a Republican viewpoint on the audience and makes them believe Bush really isn't all that bad when it is historical fact that he is hands-down the worst American president ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htahpoahf (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find both of the above posters to be extremely biased, not actually contributing anything to this discussion. One could argue that the aforementioned quote from Kyle is not so much about loving war, but rather, loving one's country. As quickly as you mention the Bin Laden episode, you neglect "I'm a Little Bit Country...", whose message is one of harmony through opinionated discord: America, and its microcosm, South Park, are split between supporting and being against the war. The aforementioned quote can be seen as a reinforcement of "You don't have to love the war, but show some respect for the troops who are representing [y]our country overseas." Furthermore, Bush is not only a boring and easy target, but I direct you to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/That%27s_My_Bush! , a show by both men lambasting the Bush Administration in the form of political satire.

I love how not lambasting Bush on South Park is a marker for implicitly pushing a Republican viewpoint anywhere. You realize implicit and pushing are opposites in their nature, since to push require explicitness (one has to be able to identify what's being pushed; if such a viewpoint is mentioned, that would be an explicit example of a viewpoint.) Also, what the American people of the modern day think of Bush is not historical fact. There have been a medley of presidents who have been deemed America's worst president (the correct answer is Andrew Johnson, by the way) and have been redeemed through historical analysis.

I could sit here and slander why the two of you are wrong, why you need to stay in school, and cue into a little less South Park and focus a bit more on your studies, but I won't. That wouldn't be fair. Instead, I ask you to re-watch the series and find as many "liberal" messages as you can.

South Park insults everyone equally. 14 years of watching this show, and spending my time talking and writing about it, constantly analyzing and reanalyzing has caused me to come to this conclusion. And to finish this off, I'm Canadian. So I have no reason to find and agree with anyone's American political side.

'Cause I reaaaaally fucking hate Republicans. 74.12.7.20 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Joe Caron[reply]

The episode entitled "ManBearPig" is rather open climate change denialism. Bisaknospus (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have they really distanced themselves from the GOP?

I added a citation needed tag because I don't think they have really distanced themselves. They satirized the GOP with the "use the Republicans" scene and of course NPR was all over that. Well that's neither here nor there my point is they make fun of everyone that's good humor and that line should be removed unless it is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnedfaceless (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore (stuff below) I don't think you can infer allegiance or non allegiance to a party. I think it's obvious they're kind of against that shit so I don't think any of that should be added.

Because nobody did shit I took the whole sentence out. I can explain why I did but don't put that shit back up there.just not now lazy Burnedfaceless (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

This article as it is now is little more than "here's a word, here's what it means, and here's its origin." Does something like that really deserve its own article? I doubt it. NotTheInferno (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of edit

Removed WP:UNDUE claim by WP:GUNREL Daily Wire. Never take seriously the word of irreverent comedians. Doesn't seem to have been more than a joke. See also the earlier discussions at Talk:Matt Stone#Republican? and Talk:Matt Stone#Politics? and Talk:Trey Parker#"We're Republicans". Platonk (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro Abortion"

the article states "but more moderate or liberal in regard to social issues such as LGBT rights and abortion. " Isn't that a odd assumption since if we are talking about people whose views reflect or are influenced by those of the show since it has seemed to be fairly critical of abortion? 71.236.151.125 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]