This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The China Probrem article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
With the recent conclusion of season 12 of South Park, they normally don't waste any time in showing an episode in re-run. But for whatever reason, this episode THE CHINA PROBLEM has not been shown in rerun since it originally aired, even in scheduled re-rerun times of it leading up to the next original episode. THere are many rumors out there that a pair of film directors were not too amused by their portrayal in this episode, leading many to speculate that they had something to do with the episode not being in reruns. Whippletheduck ( talk) 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to wait until Season 13 airs to confirm it...it may be how George and Steven felt, but we cant prove that to be true until we here from Comedy Central. They usually dont address re-run information till a new season airs, or till the following year -- J miester25 ( talk) 02:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Did this episode not seem to be related to the film,Mystic River? I didn't see it mentioned in the cultural references. I'm talking about how the two boys saw their friend kidnapped, who was later raped and they had problems dealing with it. Just a thought. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.195.236 ( talk) 13:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Mystic River didn't involve anyone seeing their friend raped or kidnapped. Even if it did, it'd be a tenuous connection, since lots of films contain those elements. Nightscream ( talk) 00:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Uhh yeah...they kinda did see someone get kidnapped, they just didn't know it was a kidnapping until he was returned. They didn't see him get raped though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.240 ( talk) 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that Lucas and Spielberg rapeing a stormtropper may have been a rference to the latest Star Wars movie, The Clone Wars, which was almost universally panned? Just a thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.65.18 ( talk) 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You might be right, but I think it was more of a swipe at how the franchise was raped by everything that came out since 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.97.69.26 ( talk) 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It was probably a swipe at both, at Star Wars in general, but the Stormtrooper chosen specifically for the Clone Wars, as the symbol for CW was a Clonetrooper, which would be a "rape" of a Stormtrooper. -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 20:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The yoda puppet was reffering to prequels and stormtrooper to clone wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.224.81 ( talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
God damn peole. It was a reference to the Star Wars movies. Not Clone Wars. Even the basic nerds know theres a huge difference between Clone stormtrooper outfit and Non-clone stormtrooper. 121.221.92.62 ( talk) 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/10/south-park-vs-l.html - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The rape scene references to "The Accused" and "Deliverance" are obvious, but it is not clear to me that the first rape scene is in fact a reference to "Boys Don't Cry" as stated in the main article.
And I am not the only one--at least one article I've read ties it to "A Clockwork Orange" instead: "South Park rape episode draws record viewers"
Can someone point out the details that link the scene to one film or the other? (Or some third film?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellingman ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Upon further review, the consensus seems to be that it was in fact a third movie: The Kite Runner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellingman ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one thinking the image is not very suitable? I mean, there's nothing in it which distinguishes any elements found in this particular episode. As a matter of fact, it could represent any episode! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingspor ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It was put up before the episode aired when only the preview clip was available. I'll put up a new one. -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 00:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the image currently there needs to be changed to Cartman and Butters at P.F. Changs or something like that...not wat is going on in this picture now. The title of the article is "The China Probrem" and this current picture does not relate to it as much for somebody who is looking at this for the first time and never saw this episode. -- J miester25 ( talk) 14:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, the whole Indiana Jones-thingy was undoubtedly the more prominent element of this episode. Therefore, I think the current image suits this article and episode perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingspor ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree we should chance the picture to avoid spoilers. but on the other hand... if you dont want to be spoiled then dont wiki the episode. -Ixillius —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC).
Why is there no mention of the AFL? Cartman created the American Liberation Front, which is obviously a satire of the Animal Liberation Front. I think Cartman's message at the end is also a satire. While they might be fighting for a cause they believe in, it's not worth it if they do it via unethical means (shooting people in the dick/sabotage and violence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.128.97 ( talk) 14:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It is more likely a coincidence than anything else and is a stretch. There are many, many, many organizations out there- almost no matter what initials you select with the letter A being in the front, you're bound to double up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.161.196 ( talk) 06:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
But Matt and Trey have parodyed PETA and other organizations many times before, it seems unlikely to be a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobb ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
But then why the ALF? Why them in this episode? As an obtuse jab for no real reason? South Park pretty much says what it means up front. If the Animal Liberation Front was a target, then chances are it would have more bone to it besides the initials.
How is it that hard for people to understand? ALF, the Animal Liberation Front. Did you miss the "Liberation Front" part? Just saying "oh, heaps of groups have A in it" is idiotic.
This is not the first time Cartman said "I've learned something today." The first time was at the end of the 7th season premiere " I'm A Little Bit Country". What is said in this article is incorrect and needs to be changed. It is misleading and does not follow I'm A Little Bit Country's article. -- J miester25 ( talk) 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have made the neccesary corrections to this section -- J miester25 ( talk) 14:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
HEYYY WHAT HAPPENED TO MY SECTION???? -- J miester25 ( talk) 11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
According to [1] you're supposed to add {{fact}} tags before you move anything. A link to each episode on http://www.southparkstudios.com/ might be enough of a citation for most stuff and could be easily added.
I suggest you make yourself familiar with the contents of [2]. It is not a requirement to cite sources when describing synopsises of works because the work itself *is* the citation, in this case appropriate for television episodes.
Next step is to bring in an admin regarding your editing abuse/bias.
Another-anomaly ( talk) 22:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and your whole argument is rubbish since footnote 2 clearly tells of the film references. Yawn, read your sources before ignorantly editing sections out.
Another-anomaly ( talk) 22:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yawn, fixed it for you. Now cite your references. Anthony cargile ( talk) 23:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
few and far between. Alastairward ( talk) 13:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright Alastairward You said and NOW IM QUOTING : Nobody owns an article. You are the biggest hypocrite in the world. You have removed my references i have provided for Episode Continuity, you have provided your own Cultural References that i do not have a problem with, so why not add your section, and ill add mine IF YOU PROVIDE REFERENCES LIKE I HAVE? You do not have the right to completely erase cited facts in Wikipedia Articles. If, you do it again, i will report you for violation of standards to the admins. -- J miester25 ( talk) 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
lol, he was on the wtiquette page, and he has been tagged as being in an edit war. I was going to add this to the witiquette page before somebody deleted it:
On a commerical for this episode on Comedy Central, it was advertised as the season premiere. So wouldn't this be the Season 13 premiere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.117.242 ( talk) 10:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
no -- J miester25 ( talk) 11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Technically, this isn't the season premiere...Comedy Central lied to get more viewers/attention. This is merely the second "run" of season 12, and this episode was the mid season premiere, not the season premiere...
Aspiring chemist ( talk) 01:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Why does the episode summary refer to the Storm Trooper raping scene as influenced by Deliverance? It is clear that the third rape scene is a reference to this movie...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.61.30 ( talk) 01:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
In the newest SP episode, | Pandemic (South Park Episode), there is a reference to Indy being raped in Peru, and therein, to this episode. Should that be mentioned in this article? Perhaps in a continuity section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.53.252 ( talk) 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
If it is continuity, it should be only mentioned in the Pandamic article. I dont think it would be right to have foreshadowing information in this article because its not supposed to be about Pandamic. Now in the Pandamic article, it would be ok because u are talking about information that was in the episode Pandamic. In this article, u are not supposed to be talking about information that came directly from Pandamic, u are only supposed to be talking about what came from The China Probrem and ONLY reactions, not what occured in future episodes. It would set readers off course and contain spoilers for that episode. That line did not occur in this episode, it only occured in Pandamic. So there, in the Pandamic article, the continuity reference should be made. -- J miester25 ( talk) 22:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Citations and discussion here, blogs and fan sites don't really cut it as far as cites go;
Alastairward ( talk) 21:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Wondering what this has to do with continuity of any sort. It doesn't really seem to be anything of the sort, just another minor plot point blown up to give it's own section. Any reason to keep it? Alastairward ( talk) 16:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Look, I have provided 3 sources to show how this is continuity to two other episodes in the show. I have given reason as to how this is continuity. I understand that u want to keep Trivia out of the article. That is fine. But, you can not take out an entire section that has been source and it is reasonable to have sources that is streaming video on the website according to Anthony user whatever his number is. He is right. You can not do that. That is in violation of Wikipedia standards. I have edited the article and provided factual evidence to support the facts. You can not remove that information. Who are you to say what is regulated in this article? If, you remove it again, i will report you for WS regulation violation to the admins.
-- J miester25 ( talk) 03:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
FORGET EVERYTHING I SAID!!!!! THIS WAS A BIG SCREW UP ON MY PART. Alastairward i am horribly sorry for everything that has happened. Since you do not have a probrem with my section, i will not butt into the references. I conceide and again i am very sorry for everything i said to you.
The only reason why we should keep Continuity in the article is to show that it has been a while since Cartman provided a moral in the show...5 years actually. I think its important and should me mentioned. My references do verify the information and like Rogerbrent said, it is enough verification for information to be kept. --
J miester25 (
talk) 18:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
" http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_China_Probrem&diff=next&oldid=249229217"
Which administator suggested to remove it?-- J miester25 ( talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this work as a vaild reference, alistairward?
Twinsrulemlb ( talk) 13:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Below is my reasoning for not accepting the cites given in the "cultural references". I'd like users such as Stijndon to discuss them here rather than merely reverting my edits without reason.
http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_12/episode_1208/
Southparkstuff is a fan site, Southparkstudios is the actual producers site for the show. Only the latter is the word of the creators, the former is fan opinion.
http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/south-park-prem.html
A blog, no quotes from the creators of the show.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/10/south-park-whip.html
Just another blog, even if it is featured in a newspaper website. No reference to having spoken to the creators of the show.
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/The_China_Probrem
Southpark wikia is just another wiki, citing it is as good as citing another unreferenced wikipedia article. Copy their references by all means (if they have any), but remember they're subject to the rules about verifiability here too. Alastairward ( talk) 16:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
If you blatenlty did not undo a revision, you would have noticed that none of those sites were the references. What i provided all came from SouthParkStudios, a primary source. -- J miester25 ( talk) 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This section will discuss the issues brought forth by Anthony cargile, J miester25, Stijndon, and other users who have been affected by this. It will include reasons for said references to be included in South Park articles that have been removed by Alastairward. This will also discuss that nobody should have to present a cultural reference before Alastairward, seeking apporval from him. Wikipedia articles are not owned by anybody and therefore do not need approval for adding cited information regarding issues such as these. This section will also provide insight by administators Rogerbrent and Nightscream, to guide the issue and resolve it. This section does not permit hostile accusations, but permits a civil understanding of what Cultural References are and if information is referenced, it does not give someone the right to remove it completely before discussing the issue beforehand. After each case presented, a final compromise will be issued and it will be left at that. -- J miester25 ( talk) 22:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, the cites are already mentioned above, why didn't you discuss them before? Besides which, in a way there is little point in asking about "cultural references", it all boils down to trivia, plain and simple. My own request for this talk page and article would be that the three users named above would stop reverting my edits with no or poor reasoning given in the edit summary, or using the talk and edit summary to push abusiveness. Alastairward (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_China_Probrem"
“ | If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the {{ fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. | ” |
“ | A link to each episode on http://www.southparkstudios.com/ might be enough of a citation for most stuff and could be easily added. | ” |
“ | It is inappropriate to delete such information, or move it to a Talk Page. Please do not move it again. Thanks. | ” |
Okay, I haven't edited this article before now, so I hope that makes me "uninvolved". I don't know the exact record of every single edit here, but based on what I have seen, here are the points I would make:
If any of my opinions require further clarification, let me know. Nightscream ( talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Could not have said it better. On the Wikipedia Etiquette page, I offered two paragraphs summing up my views on the situation, and you are the second administrator to back us up. I don't care about continuity, since it is a TV show with seasons, therefore offering expected references between them, and placing the cultural references along with a fact tag seems like a perfect compromise, adding references as the creators comment on the DVD.
You know guys, I learned something today: We all were all wrong for our comments to each other, be it me and Jmeister's "douche", "satan", and the anonymous user's "F***Head", or Alastairward's editing war starting comments like "yawn", but if we can all agree on placing the cultural references on the article along with a fact tag (removed as the DVD verifies the source), we can all put this whole ordeal behind us and stop teh editing war. The cultural references section will *not* be a trivial list, as it is just as important to a South Park episode as the plot itself, so for the benefit of Wikipedia, its users, and the Wikipedia Policy, I think we can all finally settle this once and for all, and this is just my and Nightscream's recommendations. Another-anomaly ( talk) 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
When all of this is over, and we recieve feedback from Alastiarward, I will copy this entire section and post it under the Talk Page of the South Park article to inform users of this issue so that problems and speculation will not persist in the individual articles for episodes of the show. I will also post it in the List of South Park Episodes Talk Page as well. Since this discussion has administrative rules, users will follow the rules that Nightscream set out, again i thank you for your cooperation. -- J miester25 ( talk) 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
We all had this lined up and yet you are still complaining of bullying. Looked: we (or I) apoloized for the messages we sent you, I asked everybody to be civil, an administrator lined out what will happen, and yet you still are insubordinate. Why won't you just listen to Nightscream? -- J miester25 ( talk) 15:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thats it. Just forget about it. I'm out. Your so high and mighty, theres no point arguing. I'm done -- J miester25 ( talk) 19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Well it isn't a democracy, but Nightscream's insight into the matter is the best proposed, even if Alastairward does not like/agree/whatever with it. I'm going to re-add the cultural references, with a cite to the southparkstudios website, and if anyone feels it needs a fact tag, go ahead and put it in. I will also cite the DVD commentary when it comes out, and this should stop the edit war. At this point, as others including myself are getting tired of this, I don't even care what Alastairward has to say anymore, and if anyone has any more problems put it on my talk page if its directed at me, or create a new section here if its general (I'm not claiming ownership of this article, like some people). That's it, its over, We've heard what the administrators want and I'm going to follow it through. Another-anomaly ( talk) 20:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
What I don't understand, Alastairward, is why you insist that all sources must be from the creators of South Park, especially since Wikipedia encourages use of secondary sources rather than primary sources. 96T ( talk) 20:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Another-anomaly ( talk) 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a second, cites are needed, fact tags were not added, there is no compromise at all! You've not done anything in line with what the admin suggested! Alastairward ( talk) 12:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"Okay, I haven't edited this article before now, so I hope that makes me "uninvolved". I don't know the exact record of every single edit here, but based on what I have seen, here are the points I would make:
If any of my opinions require further clarification, let me know. Nightscream ( talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)"
Okay, first, I made a couple of edits to the section myself. Only the first word and proper nouns in a section title are capitalized. There was no "squeal like a pig" scene in Shawshank, and indeed, the actual rapes of Andy Dufresne were not seen on camera. It was Deliverance in which Ned Beaty was anally raped by another man who made him squeal like a pig. It's an iconic film scene. I also removed some unnecessary detail in the passage, such as the video game, the type of pinball machine, etc., but added the years of some of the films references.
Now, onto your concerns:
I didn't see any fact tags in the article, but you're right that fact tags should not be used as a substitute for sources, and that it should not be seen as a license for speculation. The fact that someone thought the Shawshank was the origin of the pig-squealing line is an example of why references should be absolutely unambiguous. If editors slinging it out cannot agree, then the entire section should be moved here pending a finding of sources. As for the southpark studios cite, I looked though the Edit History, and it does not make any mention of Deliverance, or any other cultural reference.
I also notice that the wording in the section was "It is alleged...". Alleged by whom? The editors who wrote this? Uh-uh, sorry, that's not gonna fly. It's one thing to interpret a reference via the intent of the creators. It's another thing to claim that this was "alleged" by a reliable source. You can't just fabricate an "allegation". And yes, if you're arguing that a given reference was intended as such by the creators, then that's precisely why it does indeed have to be sourced by the creators, unless you're just reporting what a critic or reviewer said. This is what happened with the source for the Cloverfield reference in " Pandemic". The source is an episode reviewer, so the passage is properly worded to reflect that.
What I would suggest is this: Invite others to this discussion, including other admins, and ask them if they favor leaving the section with fact tags, or moving it here until the DVD comes out, and see if a consensus can be reached. Make sure that you do not violate WP:CANVAS when doing this. I personally don't have a problem with leaving it in with fact tags, but if it indeed gets out of hand, as you suggest it might, Alastair, then a different action may have to be taken, such as another discussion, page protection, or moving the section her.
I'd also point out that I'm still seeing personal comments being made here. Please stop it. I don't want to have to give warnings on your Talk Pages. Comment on why you agree or disagree with the other person's arguments. Not on the person themselves. Nightscream ( talk) 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Another-anomaly ( talk) 20:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
In the words of Eric Cartman, Alastairward, "You take your American Liberation Front and you shove it up your ass." -- J miester25 ( talk) 03:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I AM PULLING MYSELF OUT OF THIS. Since my section that i provided, Episode Continuity, was not removed by Alastairward, but by 24.174.130.135, I am deeply sorry for everything i have said to Alastairward and since he does not have a probrem (lol) with Episode Continuity, i will not butt into this anymore. I BUTT OUT (again, South Park humor) -- J miester25 ( talk) 18:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
All fine and dandy, until I found this, and adding cultural references to South Park articles are certainly grounds for improving Wikipedia. Another-anomaly ( talk) 22:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
YAYYYYY!!!!!!!!! THE CULTURAL REFERENCES ARE SOURCED WOO-HOO ITS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- J miester25 ( talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just removed some reference that said the Indiana Jones figure was supposed to be Harrison Ford. They constantly refer to the figure as Indiana Jones (the character himself) and nothing more in this episode. Also, the whole idea of the metaphor "they're raping Indiana Jones" refers to the character and franchise not the actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestBounce ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Where? Jparks13 ( talk) 00:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Jparks13
Sorry, correction: I removed a reference on the South Park Fan Wiki that started with a body of the original episode but that article is long gone now.
WestBounce (
talk) 00:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)WestBounce
I don't know what the two topics China and Indiana Jones have in common to be in one episode.-- 89.14.74.28 ( talk) 20:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The controversy of Indiana Jones is described in the article and what about China? Nobody seems to care about that. Besides, it's the Japanese who say "r" instead of "l". There is an "l" in Chinese.-- 2.245.134.165 ( talk) 20:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The China Probrem article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
With the recent conclusion of season 12 of South Park, they normally don't waste any time in showing an episode in re-run. But for whatever reason, this episode THE CHINA PROBLEM has not been shown in rerun since it originally aired, even in scheduled re-rerun times of it leading up to the next original episode. THere are many rumors out there that a pair of film directors were not too amused by their portrayal in this episode, leading many to speculate that they had something to do with the episode not being in reruns. Whippletheduck ( talk) 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to wait until Season 13 airs to confirm it...it may be how George and Steven felt, but we cant prove that to be true until we here from Comedy Central. They usually dont address re-run information till a new season airs, or till the following year -- J miester25 ( talk) 02:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Did this episode not seem to be related to the film,Mystic River? I didn't see it mentioned in the cultural references. I'm talking about how the two boys saw their friend kidnapped, who was later raped and they had problems dealing with it. Just a thought. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.195.236 ( talk) 13:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Mystic River didn't involve anyone seeing their friend raped or kidnapped. Even if it did, it'd be a tenuous connection, since lots of films contain those elements. Nightscream ( talk) 00:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Uhh yeah...they kinda did see someone get kidnapped, they just didn't know it was a kidnapping until he was returned. They didn't see him get raped though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.240 ( talk) 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that Lucas and Spielberg rapeing a stormtropper may have been a rference to the latest Star Wars movie, The Clone Wars, which was almost universally panned? Just a thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.65.18 ( talk) 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You might be right, but I think it was more of a swipe at how the franchise was raped by everything that came out since 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.97.69.26 ( talk) 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It was probably a swipe at both, at Star Wars in general, but the Stormtrooper chosen specifically for the Clone Wars, as the symbol for CW was a Clonetrooper, which would be a "rape" of a Stormtrooper. -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 20:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The yoda puppet was reffering to prequels and stormtrooper to clone wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.224.81 ( talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
God damn peole. It was a reference to the Star Wars movies. Not Clone Wars. Even the basic nerds know theres a huge difference between Clone stormtrooper outfit and Non-clone stormtrooper. 121.221.92.62 ( talk) 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/10/south-park-vs-l.html - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The rape scene references to "The Accused" and "Deliverance" are obvious, but it is not clear to me that the first rape scene is in fact a reference to "Boys Don't Cry" as stated in the main article.
And I am not the only one--at least one article I've read ties it to "A Clockwork Orange" instead: "South Park rape episode draws record viewers"
Can someone point out the details that link the scene to one film or the other? (Or some third film?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellingman ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Upon further review, the consensus seems to be that it was in fact a third movie: The Kite Runner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellingman ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one thinking the image is not very suitable? I mean, there's nothing in it which distinguishes any elements found in this particular episode. As a matter of fact, it could represent any episode! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingspor ( talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It was put up before the episode aired when only the preview clip was available. I'll put up a new one. -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 00:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the image currently there needs to be changed to Cartman and Butters at P.F. Changs or something like that...not wat is going on in this picture now. The title of the article is "The China Probrem" and this current picture does not relate to it as much for somebody who is looking at this for the first time and never saw this episode. -- J miester25 ( talk) 14:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, the whole Indiana Jones-thingy was undoubtedly the more prominent element of this episode. Therefore, I think the current image suits this article and episode perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingspor ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree we should chance the picture to avoid spoilers. but on the other hand... if you dont want to be spoiled then dont wiki the episode. -Ixillius —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC).
Why is there no mention of the AFL? Cartman created the American Liberation Front, which is obviously a satire of the Animal Liberation Front. I think Cartman's message at the end is also a satire. While they might be fighting for a cause they believe in, it's not worth it if they do it via unethical means (shooting people in the dick/sabotage and violence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.128.97 ( talk) 14:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It is more likely a coincidence than anything else and is a stretch. There are many, many, many organizations out there- almost no matter what initials you select with the letter A being in the front, you're bound to double up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.161.196 ( talk) 06:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
But Matt and Trey have parodyed PETA and other organizations many times before, it seems unlikely to be a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobb ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
But then why the ALF? Why them in this episode? As an obtuse jab for no real reason? South Park pretty much says what it means up front. If the Animal Liberation Front was a target, then chances are it would have more bone to it besides the initials.
How is it that hard for people to understand? ALF, the Animal Liberation Front. Did you miss the "Liberation Front" part? Just saying "oh, heaps of groups have A in it" is idiotic.
This is not the first time Cartman said "I've learned something today." The first time was at the end of the 7th season premiere " I'm A Little Bit Country". What is said in this article is incorrect and needs to be changed. It is misleading and does not follow I'm A Little Bit Country's article. -- J miester25 ( talk) 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have made the neccesary corrections to this section -- J miester25 ( talk) 14:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
HEYYY WHAT HAPPENED TO MY SECTION???? -- J miester25 ( talk) 11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
According to [1] you're supposed to add {{fact}} tags before you move anything. A link to each episode on http://www.southparkstudios.com/ might be enough of a citation for most stuff and could be easily added.
I suggest you make yourself familiar with the contents of [2]. It is not a requirement to cite sources when describing synopsises of works because the work itself *is* the citation, in this case appropriate for television episodes.
Next step is to bring in an admin regarding your editing abuse/bias.
Another-anomaly ( talk) 22:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and your whole argument is rubbish since footnote 2 clearly tells of the film references. Yawn, read your sources before ignorantly editing sections out.
Another-anomaly ( talk) 22:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yawn, fixed it for you. Now cite your references. Anthony cargile ( talk) 23:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
few and far between. Alastairward ( talk) 13:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright Alastairward You said and NOW IM QUOTING : Nobody owns an article. You are the biggest hypocrite in the world. You have removed my references i have provided for Episode Continuity, you have provided your own Cultural References that i do not have a problem with, so why not add your section, and ill add mine IF YOU PROVIDE REFERENCES LIKE I HAVE? You do not have the right to completely erase cited facts in Wikipedia Articles. If, you do it again, i will report you for violation of standards to the admins. -- J miester25 ( talk) 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
lol, he was on the wtiquette page, and he has been tagged as being in an edit war. I was going to add this to the witiquette page before somebody deleted it:
On a commerical for this episode on Comedy Central, it was advertised as the season premiere. So wouldn't this be the Season 13 premiere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.117.242 ( talk) 10:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
no -- J miester25 ( talk) 11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Technically, this isn't the season premiere...Comedy Central lied to get more viewers/attention. This is merely the second "run" of season 12, and this episode was the mid season premiere, not the season premiere...
Aspiring chemist ( talk) 01:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Why does the episode summary refer to the Storm Trooper raping scene as influenced by Deliverance? It is clear that the third rape scene is a reference to this movie...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.61.30 ( talk) 01:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
In the newest SP episode, | Pandemic (South Park Episode), there is a reference to Indy being raped in Peru, and therein, to this episode. Should that be mentioned in this article? Perhaps in a continuity section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.53.252 ( talk) 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
If it is continuity, it should be only mentioned in the Pandamic article. I dont think it would be right to have foreshadowing information in this article because its not supposed to be about Pandamic. Now in the Pandamic article, it would be ok because u are talking about information that was in the episode Pandamic. In this article, u are not supposed to be talking about information that came directly from Pandamic, u are only supposed to be talking about what came from The China Probrem and ONLY reactions, not what occured in future episodes. It would set readers off course and contain spoilers for that episode. That line did not occur in this episode, it only occured in Pandamic. So there, in the Pandamic article, the continuity reference should be made. -- J miester25 ( talk) 22:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Citations and discussion here, blogs and fan sites don't really cut it as far as cites go;
Alastairward ( talk) 21:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Wondering what this has to do with continuity of any sort. It doesn't really seem to be anything of the sort, just another minor plot point blown up to give it's own section. Any reason to keep it? Alastairward ( talk) 16:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Look, I have provided 3 sources to show how this is continuity to two other episodes in the show. I have given reason as to how this is continuity. I understand that u want to keep Trivia out of the article. That is fine. But, you can not take out an entire section that has been source and it is reasonable to have sources that is streaming video on the website according to Anthony user whatever his number is. He is right. You can not do that. That is in violation of Wikipedia standards. I have edited the article and provided factual evidence to support the facts. You can not remove that information. Who are you to say what is regulated in this article? If, you remove it again, i will report you for WS regulation violation to the admins.
-- J miester25 ( talk) 03:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
FORGET EVERYTHING I SAID!!!!! THIS WAS A BIG SCREW UP ON MY PART. Alastairward i am horribly sorry for everything that has happened. Since you do not have a probrem with my section, i will not butt into the references. I conceide and again i am very sorry for everything i said to you.
The only reason why we should keep Continuity in the article is to show that it has been a while since Cartman provided a moral in the show...5 years actually. I think its important and should me mentioned. My references do verify the information and like Rogerbrent said, it is enough verification for information to be kept. --
J miester25 (
talk) 18:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
" http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_China_Probrem&diff=next&oldid=249229217"
Which administator suggested to remove it?-- J miester25 ( talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Does this work as a vaild reference, alistairward?
Twinsrulemlb ( talk) 13:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Below is my reasoning for not accepting the cites given in the "cultural references". I'd like users such as Stijndon to discuss them here rather than merely reverting my edits without reason.
http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_12/episode_1208/
Southparkstuff is a fan site, Southparkstudios is the actual producers site for the show. Only the latter is the word of the creators, the former is fan opinion.
http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/south-park-prem.html
A blog, no quotes from the creators of the show.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/10/south-park-whip.html
Just another blog, even if it is featured in a newspaper website. No reference to having spoken to the creators of the show.
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/The_China_Probrem
Southpark wikia is just another wiki, citing it is as good as citing another unreferenced wikipedia article. Copy their references by all means (if they have any), but remember they're subject to the rules about verifiability here too. Alastairward ( talk) 16:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
If you blatenlty did not undo a revision, you would have noticed that none of those sites were the references. What i provided all came from SouthParkStudios, a primary source. -- J miester25 ( talk) 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This section will discuss the issues brought forth by Anthony cargile, J miester25, Stijndon, and other users who have been affected by this. It will include reasons for said references to be included in South Park articles that have been removed by Alastairward. This will also discuss that nobody should have to present a cultural reference before Alastairward, seeking apporval from him. Wikipedia articles are not owned by anybody and therefore do not need approval for adding cited information regarding issues such as these. This section will also provide insight by administators Rogerbrent and Nightscream, to guide the issue and resolve it. This section does not permit hostile accusations, but permits a civil understanding of what Cultural References are and if information is referenced, it does not give someone the right to remove it completely before discussing the issue beforehand. After each case presented, a final compromise will be issued and it will be left at that. -- J miester25 ( talk) 22:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, the cites are already mentioned above, why didn't you discuss them before? Besides which, in a way there is little point in asking about "cultural references", it all boils down to trivia, plain and simple. My own request for this talk page and article would be that the three users named above would stop reverting my edits with no or poor reasoning given in the edit summary, or using the talk and edit summary to push abusiveness. Alastairward (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_China_Probrem"
“ | If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the {{ fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. | ” |
“ | A link to each episode on http://www.southparkstudios.com/ might be enough of a citation for most stuff and could be easily added. | ” |
“ | It is inappropriate to delete such information, or move it to a Talk Page. Please do not move it again. Thanks. | ” |
Okay, I haven't edited this article before now, so I hope that makes me "uninvolved". I don't know the exact record of every single edit here, but based on what I have seen, here are the points I would make:
If any of my opinions require further clarification, let me know. Nightscream ( talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Could not have said it better. On the Wikipedia Etiquette page, I offered two paragraphs summing up my views on the situation, and you are the second administrator to back us up. I don't care about continuity, since it is a TV show with seasons, therefore offering expected references between them, and placing the cultural references along with a fact tag seems like a perfect compromise, adding references as the creators comment on the DVD.
You know guys, I learned something today: We all were all wrong for our comments to each other, be it me and Jmeister's "douche", "satan", and the anonymous user's "F***Head", or Alastairward's editing war starting comments like "yawn", but if we can all agree on placing the cultural references on the article along with a fact tag (removed as the DVD verifies the source), we can all put this whole ordeal behind us and stop teh editing war. The cultural references section will *not* be a trivial list, as it is just as important to a South Park episode as the plot itself, so for the benefit of Wikipedia, its users, and the Wikipedia Policy, I think we can all finally settle this once and for all, and this is just my and Nightscream's recommendations. Another-anomaly ( talk) 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
When all of this is over, and we recieve feedback from Alastiarward, I will copy this entire section and post it under the Talk Page of the South Park article to inform users of this issue so that problems and speculation will not persist in the individual articles for episodes of the show. I will also post it in the List of South Park Episodes Talk Page as well. Since this discussion has administrative rules, users will follow the rules that Nightscream set out, again i thank you for your cooperation. -- J miester25 ( talk) 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
We all had this lined up and yet you are still complaining of bullying. Looked: we (or I) apoloized for the messages we sent you, I asked everybody to be civil, an administrator lined out what will happen, and yet you still are insubordinate. Why won't you just listen to Nightscream? -- J miester25 ( talk) 15:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thats it. Just forget about it. I'm out. Your so high and mighty, theres no point arguing. I'm done -- J miester25 ( talk) 19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Well it isn't a democracy, but Nightscream's insight into the matter is the best proposed, even if Alastairward does not like/agree/whatever with it. I'm going to re-add the cultural references, with a cite to the southparkstudios website, and if anyone feels it needs a fact tag, go ahead and put it in. I will also cite the DVD commentary when it comes out, and this should stop the edit war. At this point, as others including myself are getting tired of this, I don't even care what Alastairward has to say anymore, and if anyone has any more problems put it on my talk page if its directed at me, or create a new section here if its general (I'm not claiming ownership of this article, like some people). That's it, its over, We've heard what the administrators want and I'm going to follow it through. Another-anomaly ( talk) 20:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
What I don't understand, Alastairward, is why you insist that all sources must be from the creators of South Park, especially since Wikipedia encourages use of secondary sources rather than primary sources. 96T ( talk) 20:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Another-anomaly ( talk) 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a second, cites are needed, fact tags were not added, there is no compromise at all! You've not done anything in line with what the admin suggested! Alastairward ( talk) 12:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"Okay, I haven't edited this article before now, so I hope that makes me "uninvolved". I don't know the exact record of every single edit here, but based on what I have seen, here are the points I would make:
If any of my opinions require further clarification, let me know. Nightscream ( talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)"
Okay, first, I made a couple of edits to the section myself. Only the first word and proper nouns in a section title are capitalized. There was no "squeal like a pig" scene in Shawshank, and indeed, the actual rapes of Andy Dufresne were not seen on camera. It was Deliverance in which Ned Beaty was anally raped by another man who made him squeal like a pig. It's an iconic film scene. I also removed some unnecessary detail in the passage, such as the video game, the type of pinball machine, etc., but added the years of some of the films references.
Now, onto your concerns:
I didn't see any fact tags in the article, but you're right that fact tags should not be used as a substitute for sources, and that it should not be seen as a license for speculation. The fact that someone thought the Shawshank was the origin of the pig-squealing line is an example of why references should be absolutely unambiguous. If editors slinging it out cannot agree, then the entire section should be moved here pending a finding of sources. As for the southpark studios cite, I looked though the Edit History, and it does not make any mention of Deliverance, or any other cultural reference.
I also notice that the wording in the section was "It is alleged...". Alleged by whom? The editors who wrote this? Uh-uh, sorry, that's not gonna fly. It's one thing to interpret a reference via the intent of the creators. It's another thing to claim that this was "alleged" by a reliable source. You can't just fabricate an "allegation". And yes, if you're arguing that a given reference was intended as such by the creators, then that's precisely why it does indeed have to be sourced by the creators, unless you're just reporting what a critic or reviewer said. This is what happened with the source for the Cloverfield reference in " Pandemic". The source is an episode reviewer, so the passage is properly worded to reflect that.
What I would suggest is this: Invite others to this discussion, including other admins, and ask them if they favor leaving the section with fact tags, or moving it here until the DVD comes out, and see if a consensus can be reached. Make sure that you do not violate WP:CANVAS when doing this. I personally don't have a problem with leaving it in with fact tags, but if it indeed gets out of hand, as you suggest it might, Alastair, then a different action may have to be taken, such as another discussion, page protection, or moving the section her.
I'd also point out that I'm still seeing personal comments being made here. Please stop it. I don't want to have to give warnings on your Talk Pages. Comment on why you agree or disagree with the other person's arguments. Not on the person themselves. Nightscream ( talk) 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Another-anomaly ( talk) 20:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
In the words of Eric Cartman, Alastairward, "You take your American Liberation Front and you shove it up your ass." -- J miester25 ( talk) 03:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I AM PULLING MYSELF OUT OF THIS. Since my section that i provided, Episode Continuity, was not removed by Alastairward, but by 24.174.130.135, I am deeply sorry for everything i have said to Alastairward and since he does not have a probrem (lol) with Episode Continuity, i will not butt into this anymore. I BUTT OUT (again, South Park humor) -- J miester25 ( talk) 18:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
All fine and dandy, until I found this, and adding cultural references to South Park articles are certainly grounds for improving Wikipedia. Another-anomaly ( talk) 22:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
YAYYYYY!!!!!!!!! THE CULTURAL REFERENCES ARE SOURCED WOO-HOO ITS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- J miester25 ( talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just removed some reference that said the Indiana Jones figure was supposed to be Harrison Ford. They constantly refer to the figure as Indiana Jones (the character himself) and nothing more in this episode. Also, the whole idea of the metaphor "they're raping Indiana Jones" refers to the character and franchise not the actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestBounce ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Where? Jparks13 ( talk) 00:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Jparks13
Sorry, correction: I removed a reference on the South Park Fan Wiki that started with a body of the original episode but that article is long gone now.
WestBounce (
talk) 00:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)WestBounce
I don't know what the two topics China and Indiana Jones have in common to be in one episode.-- 89.14.74.28 ( talk) 20:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The controversy of Indiana Jones is described in the article and what about China? Nobody seems to care about that. Besides, it's the Japanese who say "r" instead of "l". There is an "l" in Chinese.-- 2.245.134.165 ( talk) 20:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)