# Talk:The Coon

The episode had really obvious callouts to this somewhat obscure youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8 (Leprechaun in Mobile Alabama) 
I hope someone more experienced with inclusion of trivia can incorporate this into the main article. 70.17.66.176 (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hhahaha, that's hilarious. Yes, you're right, this should be in trivia, it is clearly related.
If it's not cited, including it breaks WP:SYNTHESIS, especially if the only cite given is a video unrelated to South Park. Alastairward (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Alastairward....If anyone has seen the episode and the Leprechaun in mobil albama video there is a clear reference to the latter in the episode.  The part of the youtube video where the man with the gold teeth says "who else has seen the leprechaun?" and crowd behind him cheers was clearly recreated in the southpark episode, the only difference being that instead of "who else has seen the leprechaun?" the question was "who else has seen mysterion?"  The cartoon even look like the one in the video.  You'd be doing a disservice to the readers of wikipedia to not include those trivia that don't have a formal citation but were clearly meant as allusions to popular culture, whether obscure or otherwise.  Watch the video and the episode and you will see. It isn't as though everything needs to be mentioned explicitly by the writers of south park, because most likely they wouldn't talk about every reference they included in their episodes given that they have so many...  Can you please give it a break?  20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.124.7 (talk) 
Wiki-scholars take this all the wrong way. The leprechaun reference exists, and Trey Parker and Matt Stone are "referencing" that (notice the quotes if you don't under stand what the hell it was suppose to mean) deliberately, just as they are referencing the way Batman in the Dark Knight would appear to the police and just as fast leave before anyone noticed.  This episode, like any episode of South Park, is loaded with "references" to real world culture and events. If you feel the need to remove cultural "references" stab your eyes out as you do the world no good as you can't see what is blatantly obvious (And, no, this is not an issue of POV when the rest of the world clearly sees it). Otherwise removing it shows you have never seen any other episode of this show.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.231.109 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 

Yup. You're probably right. Help find a review or news article that points out the reference, so we can include it on the main page.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
And look, I found one. As it's the online newspaper for an actual university, it warrants inclusion too. Anyone else wanna add it? [1] ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As Zythe points out, if it exists, then it's probably been referenced somehow somewhere else. Why not engage in a little content sourcing (and register an account while you're at it) instead of putting so much time and effort into arguing pointlessly here. If it's not verfiable, don't add it. That message is just above the edit summary box, why ignore it when it's so blatently obvious? Alastairward (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As similar as they are, stating it without a valid source is original research, pure and simple. Richard BB 20:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've finally found a valid source for this here. I'm going to add it to cultural references, so I think this should satisfy everybody. :D — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't seen that Zythe had already found the same source. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 18:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose this page be moved to just "The Coon".  The (South Park) at the end is unnecessary, since there are no other pages with the same title.  70.62.33.22 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a doubt. Everytime, I struggle with the time it is aired. When does it air in my time zone? I live in GMT timezone. Delete this message after 5hours from now, provided someone answers my query. 
Its 19 March already. When is this episode going to be released?Dragonballdbz (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Today.  70.62.33.22 (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It just aired.--71.207.24.196 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
stop comparing 2 every comic  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.238.146 (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 
Who keeps deleting my piece on how Kyle is similar to Harvey Dent? It isn't vandalism, it's a valid point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.76.224 (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 

This article is almost completely unsourced and the "Suspects for Mysterion" section is nothing but original research and needs removing! 84.13.183.197 (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Alastairward (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Forgive this possibly newbish question, but so? Is the episode itself not a reliable source? Also, forgive my presumption, but have you even watched it? There's a scene where The Coon meets up with Professor Chaos and General Disarray at their "lair" and they discuss who Mysterion might be. At the very least, the article could list the suspects that are named in the episode. Hell if it were up to me I'd even list the people whose faces were crossed out of the list of suspects, but I guess I have a radically different idea than most people of what kind of information I consider "encyclopedic" versus "trivial". ;) --74.192.53.44 (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty clear, above the edit summary box is a link to the verfiability info. Alastairward (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we add these in yet? The whole episode is a parody of The Dark Knight, even down to the point of Professor Chaos being videotaped telling everyone he is going to blow up a hospital  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.247.243 (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 
Should the reference to the "Ginger Kid" and the AIDS-Rally at the Hilton be mentioned? 92.104.202.54 (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the Dark Knight references 213.249.247.243 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

also, they made an obvious reference to the Crichton Leprechaun "spotting" in March of 2006. proof 76.252.31.88 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, maybe I'm the only person who went out and saw the crappy movie The Spirit, but the episode is definitely centered around it. He keeps referencing "the city", talking about it like it was a female he loved (like The Spirit did). He hops around buildings like The Spirit. Anyone else with me on this? I feel that this is the main cultural reference they were going for. --Sideshowmel0329 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this worthy of inclusion in this article?  Is Carlos Delgado an authority or someone whose opinion is afforded more value than the casual observer?  I followed the link to his article in the cite and it had several typos.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 
I doubt it ,delete it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.108.31 (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 
Only Trey Parker would be a verifiable Source regarding this, as he actually wrote the Episode, but we'll have to wait till the Season 13 DVD comes out.  Cartman's a racist, so of course he slams Obama for being black.  But since Cartman is also an Author Avatar for some of Treys more controversial opinions, he may actually believe that Obama has failed.  The title was probably meant to be offensive, but not exactly toward Obama, since there was literally one joke about him the whole Episode.  I see it more of pointing out the Double Entendre of the word "Coon."  But whoever this Carlos Delgado guy is, seemed to like the Episode, so I won't delete it from the Article myself.  TBone777 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not his opinion is valid, due to writing for a notable and established online magazine, his reaction and presumptions form some of the immediate real-world relevancy of "The Coon" and, validity notwithstanding, form part of the article's basis for inclusion. This article should be as much about people's varying reactions to the episode as it is about the 22 minutes of animation.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Is his magazine notable and established?   I have no idea.  I'd never heard of it before today.  What are the traits that make it notable?  Lack of a WP article doesn't prove lack of notability, of course — plenty of very notable subjects lack one — but having an article would be a sign of notability.  -- Zsero (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous episode references and real life locales do not influence the plot in the way that super hero stories have, hence I removed them as "cultural references". Alastairward (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, any reference to real life within work of fiction can be considered cultural references. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Which would simply lead to a long list of "real life" items and events in every television show. Cartman speaks to policemen for example, is that a cultural reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastairward (talk • contribs) 
No, for obvious reasons. If Cartman would have specifically spoken with, say, William J. Bratton, that would have been a valid cultural reference. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If it's obvious, then tell me why? Why should it not be removed as trivia, given that it's a minor plot point and not a general theme? Alastairward (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Simply because "minor" is your own personal opinion, as usual. Mentioning real-life names (brands, people etc.) constitute cultural references and shall remain as such. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
With reference to which policy is that? Alastairward (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm... how about no POV pushing? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
These episode pages used to be an interesting source for finding out cultural references made in South Park and some of the thinking that went into the episodes. Now they're just enormous plot summaries. I believe I'm making a valid point when I say this can't possibly be the intended structure of Wikipedia, a plot summary that's too long to read and NOTHING else? It seems that certain obsessive editors (I've seen the name 'Alastairward' like a million times) are patrolling them and destroying anything that doesn't fit their personal view of what Wiki 'should' be. I'm only a casual user/ editor, but this kind of militaristic approach annoys me. To me, this kind of editing is as bad as vandalism. It annoys just as many people, and takes the fun out a series that is supposed to be about just that, fun. Perhaps we should move for a variety of editors on these pages, people who know the rules of Wikipedia well but don't put their enforcing over other people's interest and enjoyment of the show. Let me know what you think before this post is removed as well, or I get a condescending citation of 'the rules' with a link Wiki:how to or something, or get told to use the sandbox... I think this is a constructive post for freedom of speech.Joncheetham88 (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a personal view, it's Wikipedia's policy. Perhaps you should read up on those before you make accusations about other editors' motivations. Grsz11 02:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the response I predicted. I'd like to say that Wikipedia's policies work extremely well: if someone adds some crap, it gets taken down, and the site stays trustworthy. However, there is room for a little flexibility, as there is in any good system, otherwise we end up with tyranny! IF, for example, I went to Princess Diana's article and changed the date of her death to 2011, or added a section to Gandhi's profile about his hate crimes, I would fully expect to be thrown out of the site as a vandal. However, when it comes down to South Park's cultural references, who is it really hurting? No-one. There's clearly a lot of people who feel like they are being discouraged from editing, and made to feel like inferior editors, and you must admit that the policies are what they are but there is such a thing as staying close to the rules and making people miserable...religious fundamentalism, for example! And this cultural references thing does feel a bit like a  crusade on the part of some. Anyway, hope you look at my response on the Fishsticks page as well.Joncheetham88 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Danger Will Robinson! Danger! We are approaching the Godwin's Rule. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'd recommend you try editing the South Park Wikia site instead. I'm not too familiar with it, but I believe it allows for a bit more flexibility in its rules, so maybe you'd prefer the way they do things. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 18:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Redpen guy, very constructive. I know the kind of people who criticize the way you say something to try and belittle you instead of even attempting to respond to your argument, it's the lowest form of response, so get stuffed. Hunter Kahn, I appreciate your recommendation, I had a look at the site but I have to admit I was talking about Wikipedia itself, as that allows for inter-topic links instead of limiting it to the series itself. Thanks for your time in giving me a serious response though, and I'll see what I can do about adding some decent sourced material on Wiki. Cheers, Joncheetham88 (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

When you start throwing around accusations of "religious fundumentalism" you shouldnt really be surprised if you dont get serious responses. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sympathetic not unsympathetic to what you're saying here, and at times I find it frustrating too; I also update The Office pages and there was a reference to Benjamin Button, and although that's clearly a reference to that film, it hasn't been able to be included so far because it's not cited. Since I try to bring these articles up to GA status, which more strictly requires everything be cited and verifiable, I've probably ended up being stricter on it that I might otherwise be. But for the most part, I would argue that it's not hindering the quality of the article. Yes, there are a few cultural references that maybe can't get included even though they're obvious, but for the most part you can usually find a source for them somewhere out there. And we've been able to include info like production, themes, reception, all that good stuff with sources and citations, not just plot summaries. Even though it can be a pain sometimes to stick to these rules, I'd argue the articles are better for them, not worse, since they aren't riddled with speculation... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
(Note: I meant not unsympathetic above. In other words, I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. lol! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
An article talk page isn't really the right place for a complaint about freedom of speech and other such demands. Alastairward (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hunter Kahn: Yeah, I agree with what you say, the recent seasons of South Park have articles that are getting really good...I guess it's time to go back to the older ones which are looking a little sparse by comparison! Red Pen, not an accusation, example (again, with the focusing on HOW people say things, you need to work on that). Alastairward, not a complaint/ demand, constructive discussion. Thanks. Hunter Kahn I'll take a look at those old pages some time :)Joncheetham88 (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Cirt (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


### Episode continuity
The location for the "Coonicon 2009" is the same as the "ginger pride" event in the episode "Ginger Kids" and the AIDS benefit in the episode "Tonsil Trouble". Butters dresses up as Professor Chaos, and Dougie dresses as General Disarray, both of which are the super-villain alter egos they first take on in the sixth season episode "Professor Chaos".

It's explicitly stated in the episode, as for Chaos/Disarray - the respective episode is a source. Other opinions please? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The same issue was raised on the talk page for Pandemic. Consensus (here) was that as a minor plot point, it did not need repeating. An admin also pointed this out to you on your own talk page. Alastairward (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The issue is no longer "unsourced" now, is it? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Sourcing has nothing to do with it, it's a minor plot point and does not need pointing out. Alastairward (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a good thing you agree that it's not the issue, since the original excuse for moving this section to the talk page was "Unsourced, moved from article to talk page." NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I never said it was an issue because of that. Alastairward (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone who has access to good screenshots find a better picture for the infobox? I don't know why Pro. Chaos is there when the Coon and/or Mysterion would work much better for obvious reasons.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Better? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 22:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's great. Thanks!--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander
Implying that the writers of the show were using a racist term towards the President based on one poster is a rather weak position. I dont think the article can be considered neutral when including such unsubstantiated material.
Quanticles (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
As I said earlier, only Trey Parker, the Writer, Director, Lead Actor, & Executive Producer, can say whether this was a racist term against Obama.  I don't know who this Carlos Delgado person is, or why someone decided to add his opinion to this Article.  Personally, I just think the The Coon is making fun of the duality of the word Coon.
TBone777 (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Reliable source, wrong or right, warrants inclusion. The same we include the opinions of Focus on the Family and Fred Phelps for various issues, despite them being obviously crackpot.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
"Reliable source", wrong or right, warrants inclusion No it doesn't. Just because something is in a realiable source doesnt mean should/have to/ need to /want to include it in the article. For example see WP:COATRACK, WP:IINFO, WP:UNDUE. Being published in a reliable source is the first criteria, not the only criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again, is Carlos Delgado a reliable source?  What makes him so?  Is his magazine at all notable?  Does it do fact checking, which is allegedly what separates "reliable" sources from "unreliable" ones (though this bears no relation to reality)? -- Zsero (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Mysterion is none other than Clyde Donovan and anyone who doesn't think so is delusional!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's so obvious and it should be in the article but these whimisical unhealthy Wikipedians won't add it in!!! Sign the petition here!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.70.129 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 
Duh, Anyone who's older than 12 knows it's Clyde, it's not exactly a big mystery. (76.10.169.150 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
Proof? Jay794 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's strongly implied to be Clyde, but there's enough evidence against Clyde to keep it from "definaetly" being him. Most likely Mysterion is nobody and M&T purposely mixed character traits to make him impossible to identify. --71.194.238.135 (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your personal analysis, but we need a third party source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The Coon is either Bruce Vilanch or Harvey Fierstein. [2] :) Alastairward (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Mysterion is Kenny! —Terrence and Phillip 09:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Mysterion is not supposed to be identified.  This is exactly what Matt and Trey would want, everybody spending all day trying to guess who Mysterion is, when in reality no hard evidence is given.  Mysterion is nobody, he wasn't meant to be idenfitied.  Matt and Trey probably don't even know who he is.  We shall never know!  Never!!!  63.81.133.153 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Remeber Clyde was tired and falling asleep in class? (75.119.234.110 (talk))  —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC). 

We are not a chatroom to analyse the episode. Any further discussion not directly related to how to improve the article will be removed per WP:TPG. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
What in God's name is this, a forum? Please kids be grown ups. This is a page for discussion about the article, not aboput THe Coon or Mysterion Sickboy3883 (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

All, please stop removing the info under cultural references about the Airport Hilton, Ginger Kids, Tonsil Trouble, Bruce Vilanch and Harvey Fierstein. This is not simply fancruft; all of this is included in the A.V. Club source, which specifically refers to the "Ginger Kids and AIDS episodes". The Hilton is not named specifically by name, but is referenced with relation to those previous episodes, which is enough for inclusion. Vilanch and Fierstein are also specifically cited by name in the article. And more importantly, this information was screened through a GAN process and deemed worthy enough to stay in the article. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 22:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you give each claim that is supported by this source its own footnote? Otherwise as cruft gets added to the article it is more and more difficult to identify which content was originally properly sourced. Thank you!-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 22:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This plot point is critical to the story and the current plot phrasing didn't illustrate this point clearly.  I don't want to get into the speculation of who it is (why I didn't list the boys on Butters picture board) but the question of Who is Mysterion is in every scene from the news reporters story and the central goal in Cartmen's vendetta to eliminate Mysterion.  Hopefully this wording will qualm any more objections from the fans.  I made as active a voice in the wording as I could; someone could check my grammer, plz. 
Did some more bulky sentence streamlining, adjusted tenses and removed unnecessary ellipsis.  Made the action sequence more active and added the police quip about Prof Chaos aluminum foil armor being impenetrable (hee hee)(I absolutely loved this episode for Butters rulz and it brought me out of Wikipedia retirement just to edit this page) 
I'm not saying that Butters is correct in saying that Mysterion is from Mr. Garrison's class but it is what happened in the plot.  Alatari (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mysterion himself said to Kyle "Ive come to you as your the smartest kid in class." Again pointing to the fact that he is in Garrisons class. Not the smartest kid in YOUR class, but the smartest kid in class.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.59.85 (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 
Kevin didn't show up in the next several episodes; was he in jail?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.156.73 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC) 

That was what I predict but didn't want to continue the debate, but since you said it.  I agree whole heartily. Alatari (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It's Kenny 81.68.255.36 (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It's Kenny indeed as we find out in season 14. However, this info should be removed as the article is about the episode 02 season 13 ONLY. Any spoiler from the next episodes can't appear in this article. Most people visiting the page have just seen The Coon and they're going to watch The Coon 2 afterwards so don't ruin the intrigue. That sucks and that does it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.175.189 (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) 

Please read WP:SPOILER. — Hunter Kahn 15:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So what? Those guidelines say nothing about spoiling future episodes. That revelation has spoiled the identity of the superhero for me, and I am furious. This is unacceptable and unprecedented. The revelation should be removed and the individual responsible should be permanently banned from editing wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.212.78 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This phrase: "Cartman now perceives that he, the Coon, is the "super hero" in South Park and that every town should have a Coon like him." goes straight to the heart of his narcissism and is what he states.  Alatari (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Edited plot to make all references state 'The Coon' as in the one and only Coon.  Otherwise we could remove all the 'the's because we wouldn't say 'the Batman' or 'the Superman'.  Alatari (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Cartman wanting to franchise The Coon to other towns is part of the lampoon of comic book industry.  Alatari (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)