Talk:The F Word (South Park)

"Harley Riders"

Nowhere in this episode do they say "Harley-Davidson." They only say "Harley."

hopefully...

... People listen to this episode and stop thinking that everytime someone mentions "gay" or "fag" that they're not necessarily targetting a whole group of people. Meanings change people! A shame some minority groups don't seem to grasp that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.202.40 (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for the first report of someone being beaten up over calling a biker fag after seeing this episode. - Redmess (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that according to "It hits the Fan" you have to be gay to say "the f-word" otherwise you get bleeped. That explains why Mr. Garrison and Jimbo can say it but Randy gets bleeped when he says it. I wonder why did they drop the idea? I mean Stan has a girlfriend and he can say it without being bleeped! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.142.157 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the word has changed.. in this very episode? did you watch with your eyes closed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.80.24 (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How did motorcycle groups react to this episode in the USA? No mention in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.164.151 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Modern Warfare 2 F.A.G.S

After seeing a thread in Giant Bomb about the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 F(ight) A(gainst) G(renade) S(pam) situation earlier in the weekend and relating it to the following episode (using the commercial as a conduit), it seems that the possible relation is more of a coincidence. If someone adds that to the page, please remove it.The Phantomnaut (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

^^ Who appointed this guy the expert on everything? I wouldn't be surprised if this was with reference to the COD4 video. Matt and Trey have turned episodes around faster: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/About_Last_Night..._(South_Park). Obviously if there is a source, it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.174.89 (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If they were both related, there would have been some hints besides having the word fag. If there was some footage of something like Modern Warfare 2 similar to The Ungroundable episode, it can be added. Right now, it seems like pure coincidence.The Phantomnaut (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank God!!!

I couldn't believe there were all these cultural references listed! I recognized the Jim Rome reference immediately after I saw it in the episode, but figured the SP wiki-nazis would NEVER allow that to be mentioned (no matter how obvious, but because it was not "officially" documented"). Glad to see all the SP wiki-nazis left it alone.

Well, at least for now anyways.... -- unsigned comment.

Citation needed. I'm not going to delete it but "alludes to" is a bit vague and some editors will delete even the most obvious reference just because there is no citation. (Other trolls pretending to be editors will delete it even with a citation and not give an edit summary.) By drawing attention to it the note might get deleted even faster. Best thing you can do if you really want that information to stay is find a review of the episode that mentions it and add that to the critical response section and also reuse the same reference to back up the claim about this guy Jim Rome. -- Horkana (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

what is a "1.5 rating"?

In the Critical response section, it says this episode got a 1.5 rating. I looked at the Ain't It Cool News page and it doesn't explain what this means. Is this a percentage? Or a rating on some kind of scale (like from 1-10)? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

point taken, I'll try and update when I can find a decent explanation of what those ratings mean. I think it means a very strong turnout from that part of the audience, which is particularly valuable to advertisers, more so than raw viewership totals. -- Horkana (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references

The editor of the dictionary is revealed to be Emmanuel Lewis,[2] who played the title character in the TV show Webster. This is an allusion to the popular dictionary, Webster's Dictionary. - OK. This is fine, as it helps the reader understand why Lewis was included in the episode.

When Father Maxi holds the sign that says "GOD HATES FAGS", it is an allusion to Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church (who are, ironically, staunchly anti-Catholic). Mr Slave holds a sign reading "GAYS AGAINST FAGS" which is coloured in the same way as Phelps' signs.[3] - OK too, though I would recommend other sources to better explain the comparisons. And I would remove the parenthetical element, as it's starting to advance information that has absolutely no relevance to the episode.

A couple of bikers are seen wearing World War I German Helmets with the Iron Cross symbol on their leather jackets and bikes. - Why is this significant? Bikers wear this. What is so important about this to better understand the episode?

When the reporter is trying to interview two bikers, and refers to them as fags, and the bikers threaten and then attack the reporter, the dialogue is very similar to and alludes to Jim Rome's incident with Jim Everett, where he repeatedly called him Chris to his face. - I definitely see the similarities, but still think it needs a source. It's original research and can easily be challenged; who's to say that it wasn't a reference to the movie Hancock, where the title character dared someone to call him an "asshole"?

The patches shown on the back of a biker when Emmanuel Lewis is captured, says "Hades Divinations" which is in reference to Hells Angels. Other patches seen are "0.1%", which is a play on motorcycle gang 1%er patches. These patches were created when the former president of the American Motorcycle Association once stated that "99% of motorcycle riders are not criminals and not affiliated with a gang". - Again, what does this teach the reader about the episode? Instead we're reading info about a biker gang that, if it weren't included, would not hinder the reader from having a good understanding of the episode.

Several of the bikers bear resemblance to characters from the television show Sons of Anarchy, such as Jax Teller, Clay Morrow, Tig Trager and Bobby Elvis. - Speculation and interpretation from a primary source. Needs a secondary source.

We cannot have every minute allusion to something unless there is significant content to explain its inclusion.

• Phelps is a well-known religious figure who protests against homosexuality. South Park spoofs this behavior by having Father Maxi. - It makes good sense to include this.
• The Bikers wear helmets German helmets and the Iron Cross. - And.....?

And there's no need to state that Pomp & Circumstance is played in the episode. We've been over this before. Explain why it was used and place it within sourced content to explain the significance of its use in the episode. Just because a song is used in a television episode is not reason enough to simply list it as such. - SoSaysChappy (talk)

Some of the above are pretty weak, but you didn't delete just the weak ones you deleted the whole section. There are some that can be cleaned up, weasel words and speculation removed without removing the substantive point, the Webster reference needed changes for example. Some of the items that might not seem notable to either of us could arguably be notable if an editor go ta source. If you don't want to trim sections gradually and push editors to improve what's left then maybe just cutting the lot and putting them on the talk page is the way to go. I'd prefer to keep things in the article tagged if there are problems to get the most editor eyeballs trying to fix and improve the article but just deleting whole sections discourages editors from trying to improve things, so few editors even check back into the edit history and just re-add what you've deleted so better to try and push at least a few of the items into the proper shape to be worth keeping. -- Horkana (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No mention of character looking the same but this review article might be enough to mention Sons of Anarchy but I'm not going to add it back myself. It also provides another source drawing attention to Emmanuel Lewis a cultural reference that definitely did need context. http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/11/05/south-park-the-f-word-emmanuel-lewis/ -- Horkana (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CTJF83 chat 06:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please add alt text to the image.
  • Added. — Hunter Kahn 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• In the lead Nielsen Ratings it says "Dances with Smurfs" Is it just the wrong title, or the wrong ratings also?
  • It's a mistake. I sometimes copy-and-paste text from the other SP articles and replace the numbers and titles to keep consistency in the prose. I forgot to replace the title here, but I've fixed it... — Hunter Kahn 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Is there any DVD commentary available to expand the production section?
  • No DVD commentary yet. It's not atypical for GANs of the early episodes to be without the DVD commentary, but I will go back and add them when it comes out. — Hunter Kahn 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok, it isn't enough to fail it, I guess I should know commentary isn't out already. CTJF83 chat 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• This is a references to Webster's Dictionary and Lewis' most famous role, the title character in the sitcom, Webster.
  • I've added the IGN source. I think this is sufficient; the IGN article mentions Lewis and the dictionary and compliments the pun, but doesn't overtly explain it. Some readers think these references should go in unsourced, but I believe in sourcing. However, in a case like this, when there is a source that leaves it half-explained, I think applying a little WP:COMMON is not unacceptable. However, if you have a real problem with it, we can remove the part about the Webster role and just leave in Lewis. — Hunter Kahn 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The IGN reference is ok. CTJF83 chat 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about using http://www.aintitcool.com/ as a reference
  • I've removed the citations for everything but the review. AICN (which is a site I despise, by the way, lol) is a pretty well-established site, and I believe has been considered acceptable in other stories. And, in this case, it's now only being used for the review, so I don't think it's harmful. But if you still feel it has to go, we can get rid of it... — Hunter Kahn 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it's fine for a review. CTJF83 chat 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything else looks good. CTJF83 chat 18:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There really should be an automated warning when images don't have WP:ALT text same as when citations aren't given title text. It is just such a basic essential.

Dances with Smurfs looks a lot like someone made an edit to the wrong South Park article.

Only a few months since the episode first aired, too early for DVD commentary. Other sources may be available.

aintitcool not only provided the ratings but commentary that suggests they were notable because South Park beat Jay Leno with this episode.

Odd that the section about "Webster" survived without a citation, yet other items that were properly cited (notably but controversially "God hates Fags") were removed. (See versions of article from early Decembers 2009.) The edit claimed source didn't support and deleted a long running point (which shoes a rough consensus) instead of requesting a better citation or ask other editors to be more specific. The citations did explain that the phrase is associated with and made infamous by the Phelps family, I'm not sure what else the editor was expecting them to explain beyond that. Rephrasing of the section prose makes readding that information all the more difficult. I'd oppose this being marked a good article if that cultural reference was whitewashed or ignored. South Park can be offensive at times, that is no excuse to ignore relevant references. -- Horkana (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Were you just basically giving an answer to my concerns, and not fixing them or what? Not every cultural reference needs to be listed. If Hunter felt it should be removed, that is probably a good decision. I'll let him fix my other concerns. CTJF83 chat 19:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus some wacko and his loony church don't constitute a cultural reference. CTJF83 chat 19:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You too are welcome to make the fixes to the article if you want, I was helping you by providing information to allow you do that if you were interested.

I was interested in checking how much the article had changed since I last looked at it and thinking about restoring any cited material that had been deleted. Intermediate edits have made difficult so I'm might do it later.

Those wacko's are infamous wacko's, picketing soldiers funerals with such banners is pretty outrageous and offensive and got a lot of news coverage. It seems more notable than the pun on Webster and reference to an old tv show. The remove was explained by source not supporting the point, but editors had acted in good faith trying to find suitable sources. The better/good faith response would be to challenge those sources and request better ones by marking the point as citation needed but it was just deleted making it a lot more difficult to try to fix or improve it. -- Horkana (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• You can see the Fred Phelps stuff because, even though I think it's probably true, it's sadly not really supported by the citations. The source mentions Phelps, but doesn't mention any reference to him in the episode, nor anything with regard to Father Maxi. If there was even a vague connection, I'd support it, but as it was, it was bordering on original research. — Hunter Kahn 01:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Passing the article CTJF83 chat 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dethroning Moment of Suck

why no mention of this episode airing only a few days after the Matthew Shepard Act was passed? Or that Emmanuelle Lewis was (nearly) dragged to his death via chains like James Byrd, Jr.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.227.26 (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You could add those references but some editors would insist you find reviews or articles that make that connnection otherwise they would say it was coincidence and remove the points you make for being orginal research. I don't recall any of the reviews I read mentioning Matthew Shepard Act or James Byrd, Jr. but if you can find newspaper commentary on South Park episodes perhaps they might have gone into greater depth than some of the usual online sources I read. -- Horkana (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church References

Why no mention of the WBC references in this article? Seems quite clear.. Outback the koala (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Talk page in the section marked "GA Review" (see above or in Archive section) I objected to that section being removed, despite it having citations and other sections having none at all. The section was deleted when the good faith thing to do would have been to challenge request a better citation, since I and others had all made good faith efforts to find suitable citations. I encourage you to try and add again it despite my failed efforts and deletionist editors who seem to want to keep this information out of the article.

The rest of the section was rephrased making it awkward to add that point back in. The "God Hates Fags" banners are show in the episode, but perhaps they aren't as well known as we think they are, it is so massively offensive to picket funerals I suppose it makes some sense that it might not come up in some people conversations or news sources. The phrase was referenced but the reviews I looked through (the usual source of references) didn't make note of it, which makes establishing notability more difficult.

I think it is unfortunate the article doesn't mention WBC and their hateful "God Hates Fags" slogan, it is an important - if offensive - cultural reference point. -- Horkana (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying fag

Should it be noted that in the episode It Hits the Fan, it's stated that if the character is not gay that when they say fag that they get beeped. Yet in this episode, everyone seems to say fag yet don't get beeped which somewhat contradicts the episode. Should this at least be noted somewhere on here? --Victory93 (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It hits the fan was aired in 2001. in 8 years some things have changed. Outback the koala (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on The F Word (South Park)

Cyberbot II has detected links on The F Word (South Park) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/should_south_park_get_away_with_using_the_f-word

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The F Word (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/20091107225343/http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/11/glaad-protests-south-park-fbomb-episode.html to http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/11/glaad-protests-south-park-fbomb-episode.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5u4nX7i9y?url=http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/11/10/sons-of-anarchy-still-riding-high-soa-beats-foa-episode-of-south-park-crushes-mad-men-finale-with-adults-18-49/33277 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/11/10/sons-of-anarchy-still-riding-high-soa-beats-foa-episode-of-south-park-crushes-mad-men-finale-with-adults-18-49/33277

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) 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"Generally mixed reviews" or "generally positive reviews"

The lede says the episode received generally mixed reviews, while the body of the article says it received generally positive reviews. Which one is correct? RobotGoggles (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)