Talk:South Park Republican/Archive 1

message: Thankyou for your feedback.
I did not remove the neutrality note someone else did that.  As you can see on the history page about eigth other users have made improvments to this page in the past few weeks.  
There is really no need for this to be a personal matter Flying Hampster.  You have misunderstood me when I was not trying to be condesending, any certainly not ambiguous.  I'll try and be clearer this time.  I disagreed with your arguement that the political satire in South Park "is funny because it parallels a common conservative tactic of arguing against what liberals say by referring to them as liberals."  I now state quite clearly, that in my entirely subjective analysis (for all analysis is subjective, not least yours) that I consider your assertaion that this is the case (for that is what you said above, you didn't say it was a possibility, you siad The reason it is comical without any of the qualification you would like me to preface my remarks with) so far fetched as to be total hogwash, and since you are clearly an inteligent person I can't for the life of me understand why you would say this. Do you really think that two people who claim to be republicans, who produce shows with predominantly conservative/libertarian views, mock liberal celebrities on a regular basis over eight years (often mocking thier views allongside/through them), do so to mock conservatives for mocking liberals?  No doubt you would argue that when they have a hot-dog munching Michael Moore take the role of a suicide bomber in their new movie and then describe him as a "giant socialist weasel", they are mocking conservatives.  Though I respect you, Flying Hampster, I think your assertation is absurd and strange.
But lets not jump to the conclusion, then, that this means that South Park is a "republican show". Just because the creators of a show have certain political leanings does not mean that the show itself has those leanings. That's My Bush is a great example of this, as it was critical of Bush by definition. However, for the same reason that South Park is not Republican, That's My Bush is not liberal, although the subject matter is critical of the Bush administration.
Neither myself, nor any other wikipedian, that edited this page before or after me, is advocating the idea that South park is a republican show.  That point was made by Andrew Sullivan and many many others since.  All this article does is report this issue.  Since some people disagree with the basic premise, a list has been set up, so political references from the show can be seen together.  Some of the points are liberal while others are more conservative.  If you disagree with the idea that South Park is a republican show your critique must be aimed at Sullivan and those who agree with him.
It cannot possibly be the point of this article to debate this issue.  The point must be to report the issue, allongside differing mainstream views.
If you feel the first part of the article is POV then go ahead and edit it so it is not.  If you do not wish to edit out the POV you percieve in the article then there is really no need for the caution.  As I see it, if you dispute it, you have got to be willing to fix it.  I dont see any POV in the article, but if you can spot something go ahead - this is wiki!  It can't be right that your contribution is merely to cast the neutrality or the article in doubt.  Make whatever chabges you feel are neccesary to remove POV, remove the POV warning, and so long as no-on else disagrees with you that can be the end of this correspondence.  
Yours gratefully
jucifer 21:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: GRider - So, I'm a rogue individual? :|. I have modifications in mind, but I didn't want to alter the page until it could be discussed in this room. I am afraid my contributions would be reverted, so I wanted to discuss them... that is no reason for you to treat me as hostile. Whether you believe there is or not, by wikipedia rules this current phrasing is not NPOV, and the notice is appropriate. I've read them (the rules). I will go ahead and make my POV changes as you seem to suggest that I should, but if they are immediately reverted, like I supposed they would have been, then you have essentially destroyed all debate on this issue. My qualm is not absurd or rediculous. I just wanted to establish that there was POV in the article before I modified it. In fact, I only want to alter the wording of one section. I didn't mean to offend anyone... I didn't realize that the NPOV label was such an offensive thing. Oh and one other thing... I do not spend all my time arguing on talk pages. I contribute to wikipedia as well, and I am just trying to get the best POV possible.Flying Hamster 17:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Jucifer, its Flying Hamster not Flying Hampster. I throw laundry in a hampster, and I feed my pet hamster. Many people I know spell it that way, so the misspellings are not uncommon, but it is an important difference. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine... Flying Hamster 17:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you throw your laundry in a "hamper". ;) -- El Duderino 20:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: -) Juicifer\talk  18:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Þ Flying Hamster 01:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi 

message: Given the level of argument about whether or not this article is NPOV, I decided to flag it as NPOV-disputed.  Since I forgot to log in first, though, I'm stepping up here and taking the credit and/or blame.
Technogeek 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Flagged as NPOV-disputed

message: The only person to make a coherent challenge to the POV status of this article was Flying Hamster, and he edited the article to his satisfaction, and his edits remain unchanged.  As I wrote above I dont see any POV in the article, but if you can spot something go ahead - this is wiki!  It can't be right that your contribution is merely to cast the neutrality or the article in doubt.  Make whatever chabges you feel are neccesary to remove POV.
In the meantime, I am taking doen the NPOV warning.
Juicifer\talk 02:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Level of arguement?

message: What is he doing in the 2nd paragraph?  It doesn't seem relevent at all.
*Indeed, it must be a leftover from old edits. Removed the sentence ("Andrew Sullivan has often been very critical of the Republican Party (mostly for social libertarian reasons and for lack of fiscal responsibility) and endorsed John Kerry in the 2004 United States Presidential election.") completely since it had nothing to do with the whole paragraph. 203.144.160.242 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Andrew Sullivan

message: An anon user removed this link, i couldnt see any clear reason to or talk on it so i reverted. However It does seem to be trying to re-inforce the previous sentence perhaps it should be reworded? Discordance 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Team America Link

message: I followed a link from the article here on Bill White (neo-Nazi): http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=1736 and a sample from "Blame Canada!" plays.  Weird! Шизомби 04:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South Park Fascists?

message: What percentage of the text in this bloated, rambling article actually deals with the term "South Park Republican?" Are the views of the show's creators really even relevant at all when discussing this term? What IS important how it is used, what exactly it means, and perhaps a history of the term itself, not lengthy descriptions of the premise of the show "South Park," or explanations for why "That's My Bush" was cancelled. Can we focus a bit and remove some of this completely superfluous text? Dunne409 08:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their views are relevant because other people are characterizing South Park as being Republican whereas the creators are self-proclaimed Libertarians.  This contradiction is both significant and salient to the article. --kizzle 08:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how the difference between the show's perceived political leanings and those of its creators has anything to do with the term "South Park Republican." Whether the show is "Republican" or the creators are "Libertarian" has nothing to do with how the term is used, its history, meaning, etc. (On which this page should focus) Dunne409 09:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length/Focus 

message: Um... Trey Parker is a registered Libertarian, and Matt Stone doesn't vote. Neither of them are Republicans
(this comment was left, unsigned, at the top of the page, moving to a more appropriate location)
:The term still exists, regardless, and this article is about it. Bjsiders 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (moved comment) 

message: This entry was cited by the columnist John Tierney in the New York Times on Tuesday, August 29, 2006. See: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/opinion/29tierney.html
-- Mabuse 15:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New York Times citation

message: Would the evangelical left be the ideological antithesis of South Park Republicans?  It seems that many South Park Republicans would be more liberal on social issues like abortions or pornography and conservative on war/peace, social welfare and economic matters.  Evangelical Left would probably support the flop side on each and every issue listed above.  --JNZ 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evangelical Left as Ideological 180 from South Park Republicans?