# Talk:201 (South Park)

Based on watching the episode I'm skeptical of the explicit claim in this article that the "CENSORED" box was added by Comedy Central. The episode "200" used Muhammad's name whereas this episode transparently censored it, which shows obvious tampering; the moral resolution was also obviously censored, as confirmed by the creators' statements; but "200" also featured the "CENSORED" box, and Tom Cruise's acquisition of the CENSORED box following his use of the machine seems too much like part of the joke and not part of the censorship. It was also consistently animated in the same manner as characters typically are in South Park. Can we at least agree not to make a claim one way or the other regarding the "CENSORED" box? Or is there additional evidence that I'm not aware of? Dcoetzee 13:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The Black CENSORED box was a joke. Comedy Central said right from the get go they refused to actually show Muhammad, and the censored box was making fun of that. Besides if the box was added by Comedy Central, Matt & Trey would have mentioned it in their statement.  Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is a non-404ing link that has the statement from Matt and Trey [1]. Here is the statement, as copied from that website:

In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it.
As Grapesoda22 mentions, the statement talks about Comedy Central censoring the audio but doesn't say anything about them censoring the video.
- Kerrick Staley (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 201 (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/20100426042405/http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/04/23/security-stepped-up-at-comedy-central-following-threats-against-south-park.aspx to http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/04/23/security-stepped-up-at-comedy-central-following-threats-against-south-park.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100509002328/http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/entertainment/article/516960--nobody-not-even-muhammad-is-off-limits-macfarlane to http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/entertainment/article/516960--nobody-not-even-muhammad-is-off-limits-macfarlane
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) 07:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We should add info (not URL) where the uncensored copies reside nowadays. Zezen (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The redirect Episode 201 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 19 § Episode 201 until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and notice lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)