Talk:Chewbacca defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chewbacca defense is part of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to South Park. If you wish to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.
Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been assessed as low-importance on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] Endor

I just think it should be mentioned that in the Star Wars universe Chewbacca actually does not live on Endor at all, i'm not sure what made the South Park writers think that.

That was a joke son. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Understood.

--Johnston49er 06:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Actually in the Star Wars Christmas Special Chewbacca is shown living on Endor with a family so he does live on Endor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.85.229 (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy

Sorry im a newb i dont know how to make a seperate section so i would appreciate it if someone edited this for me. I think this page is inaccurate, it WAS mentioned in books that the wookie home world was kashyyk, i have proof in a book made in 2002 called Star Wars Role PLaying Book REvised Edition. YEah someone should fix that. Yes i realize that this episdoe of South park came out in 1998, but my book said it used other star wars books as references

[edit] Is this legitimate ?

Is this a legitimate article? Nothing links to it except the Wikipedia:Sandbox. I uderstand that this was an act in South Park, but is this term useful? All of the Google hits seem to be referring to or spoofing this South Park joke. If it is legitimate, shouldn't the lengthy quotes be cut down? -- Paige 16:24, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree. If it is legitimate, I'd like to see a better introduction than just "The Chewbacca Defense is a nonsensical legal defence" -Fernkes 17:43, Sep 29, 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps something like what was done with the Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead article from SNL? -- Paige 18:27, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that gives the reader a bit of history and gets him/her acquainted with what's going on. As it is now, I'm in the dark. - Fernkes 21:46, Sep 29, 2003 (UTC)
I first encountered the term "Chewbacca Defense" in an online debate re: Alan Derhowitz. I was very puzzled. The author seemed to think that everyone would understand what he meant. After a lot of searching, I found what it did mean. I thought, "why not put this on wikipedia?"
The wikipedia connects to more than itself. It connects to the outside world. My description is short but accurate. Einstein said that "Everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler."
I believe the article should stay. Add to it if you must.

I've tried my best to make this a little bit more encyclopedic. I wonder if this might be considered source text, but quotations (even lengthy ones) are often quite useful. Evercat 23:40, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, now that it's been explained a bit more clearly, and one of the quotes dropped, I can see where this is legitimate. (And I now regret not having added "First post!" to my original comments above.)  :oP Paige 02:29, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ditto! -Fernkes 12:06, Sep 30, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] VFD discussion from 2003

Moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion after a concensus emerged to keep:

  • Chewbacca Defense - nonsense, very specific, very unencyclopedic. TwoOneTwo 22:00, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- although there's plenty of genuine google hits, and it looks like a valid a piece of "internet culture", we don't have pages for other (better known) internet wonders like maher,hamsterdance, or tubgirl. Furthermore, if Chewbacca lives on Endor, this page must go :) -- Finlay McWalter 22:47, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • How could we delete a term in standard use with a lot of Google hits (and a clear, uniquely defined phrase at that . . . not a collocation like "Bush is an idiot")? We have a page devoted solely to Slashdot trolling phenomena, for crying out loud! Oh, and if we don't have an article for Hamsterdance yet, someone needs to make one! Wiwaxia 02:13, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I've tried to make it a little bit more encyclopedic. I think it's harmless. Don't delete. Evercat 23:41, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Much better. The wookie wins. Keep. -- Finlay McWalter 00:49, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I never watch Southpark, but Slashdot and others use the term so much, it's become part of our "cultural" landscape. Fuzheado 01:02, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Imagine if we started having lots of pages like this refering to Star Trek? We'd have pages for the Corbomite maneuver, dozens of MadLibs-esque Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a ___ pages, and Of course, the Russians inwented ___... ;) -- Bcorr 02:23, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. I questioned this earlier because it seemed like it was just a South Park ref, but it now illustrates how it has been applied elsewhere. (And frankly, I'm surprised there isn't a Dammit Jim article already!) Paige 02:38, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • "Dammit Jim..." and "Of course..." trail off and have (as you said) Mad-libs, wildcard type relevance, so they wouldn't make good articles anyway. Now Corbomite Maneuver, that I could get behind. The Chewbacca Defense article was actually useful for me, as lots of Slashdotters refer to it, and I find it agonizing to sit through even 2 minutes of South Park. :) Fuzheado 03:27, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Daran 15:01, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is decently written page about a term that is now used beyond just referring to South Park. It is more encyclopedic than a lot of pages people don't complain about. InanimateCarbonRod
    • Keep. It is just another innovative defense that desperate criminal defense lawyers should have available in their bag of wicks. Alex756 06:54, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Daniel Quinlan 07:31, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep. Look: Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed wiki, TwoOneTwo would certainly want you to believe that this article, Chewbacca defence, is an unencyclopedic article. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost fell for it myself!

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed wiki, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen of the wiki, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me, I'm a geek editor defending a noted geek joke article, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in your computer rooms deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed wiki, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must keep! The defense rests.

I think it is kinda trollish to ask for a informal vfd in the talk page, where not a lot of people are going to stumble upon AFTER the "official" VfD ended with a major win for Keep. It's like trying to pull a slight of hand.

i'm removing the vfd notice. If you want to delete the article, i suggest you put it up for vfd a second time. Project2501a 20:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martha Stewart

Martha Stewart's defense is using something similar:

On Monday, Strassberg called the prosecution's case a house of cards, repeating "it makes no sense" 23 times in the first hour of his closing argument.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/02/news/companies/martha/index.htm?cnn=yes

67.113.40.155 18:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Chewbacca Defense" as a chess strategy?

doesn't the term also have to do with the film scene where chewbacca is playing chess? (at least this lead someone at everything2 to define it as An unorthodox strategy in chess consisting of threats of violence after the game.) even if not, the scene should still be mentioned. regards, High on a tree 01:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I misinterpreted it that way originally, too. C-3PO: "I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the Wookiee win." Although ... perhaps that would be more of a Chewbacca offense! — Dan Johnson TC 17:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Well a 'Chewbacca Defense' in chess would presumably be one in which you deliberately lose the game, in defense of your limbs retaining attached... Sfnhltb 19:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The bloody glove

I don't think that the Chewbacca Defense has anything to do with the bloody glove, other than the phrase "you must acquit". The glove is actually a relevent piece of evidence. It's the rest of Cochrane's distractions that it's parodying. I've removed that bit.

The defence's main point is parody of the phrase "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"; this is quite a famous phrase, there are 744 google hits. To explain the joke (which is what encyclopaedia is for), tt's important to explain the context of the phrase. - ASN 15:56, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to put that it's 'likely' a reference to Cochrane's like 'if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit', because that's EXACTLY what the reference was supposed to be. An encyclopedia isn't supposed to be ambiguous. Fix it. 74.12.0.243 19:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slashdot

Have your Slashdot aside if you must, but the "see also" should be part of the usage section, not a separate section. --ihatepotsmokinghippies 05:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I stand by that. --ihatepotsmokinghippies 09:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Ewoks

I'm not sure how the "Note on Ewoks" is relevant to the rest of the article:

"It is inconclusive as to whether George Lucas created Ewoks out of budget constraint or as a marketing scheme."

It looks a bit gratuitous to me. --Lorem Ipsum 06:21, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to actual copyright infingement case

When I saw the original South Park episode, I assumed the Chewbacca argument was a reference to an actual copyright infingement case, Dean Preston v. 20th Century Fox Canada Limited et al (1990), but the article makes no mention of this. Essentially the plaintiff claimed that the ewoks were taken from a script he sent to 20th Century Fox, rather than being adapted from the Wookiee concept. Some details in this pdf Zoganes 14:01, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

The connection doesn't seem likely to me... Evercat 23:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD notice

Moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion after a concensus emerged to keep

So, what you're trying to say is that someone VfD'd the article, concensus emerged to keep the article, but since that's not the outcome you wanted, you're going to have an informal vfd poll. Am I right?

Yes, hi, how are you, this is 2005 calling you about that vfd in 2003. wtf?

As I said: I think it is kinda trollish to ask for a informal vfd in the talk page, where not a lot of people are going to stumble upon AFTER the "official" VfD ended with a major win for Keep. It's like trying to pull a slight of hand.

I'll wait for a responce, but the VfD is over and the label should be removed.

Project2501a 00:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


INSERT(FOOT, MOUTH); APOLOGISE();
I'm sorry, I didn't RTFWA  :( Project2501a 09:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, the vote was closed two years ago. Why is the notice back up? Mgw 05:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

New VfD Project2501a 11:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Which ended in the same answer: keep, keep, keep, keep! — Rickyrab | Talk 23:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That makes NO SENCE! Project2501a 23:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political Commentary?

The section stating that the Chewbacca Defense has become an accepted part of political commentary is misleading; all of the examples provided are still nothing more than glorified blogs (or not-so-glorified blogs). They just happen to be talking about Dan Rather or Michael Moore, but they are no more legitimate than any of the examples in the previous paragraph. This term has very little meaning outside of the Internet and the South Park fan base. I'm altering the paragraph to keep the examples but remove the implication that this has somehow come into common usage.Kafziel 18:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chewbacca Gambit

I'm moving that to its own article... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Switch with Chef Aid?

Currently the Chef Aid article is just a redirect here, and the South park episode template thing at the bottom go to this page of course, as effectively there is no episode article at all except this (presumably from a merge at some point). It might seem more beneficial to have this article located as the Chef Aid southpark episode, with an explanation in the opening paragraph that this episode introduced the term 'Chewbacca Defense' which is explained in the article. Having the two things merged makes sense, as to explain the Chewbacca Defense in full requires virtually explaining the meat of the entire episode anyway, but as southpark episodes are part of a set, and Chewbacca defense isnt, it would seem more logical to me to have the episode as the title. Sfnhltb 19:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I Agree. --Ballchef 04:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete the Extensive Transcript?

I think it's kind of sketchy to transcribe the South Park scenes in its entirety here. It would be akin to making a page on a song (say, "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction") and then providing all of the lyrics. I'm taking them out and then providing a link to the transcript.

  • We can certainly make fair use of some of the transcript, tho! BD2412 T 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity names

When you watch South Park, it begins with something like: all celebrities are impersonated... poorly. I believe this article requires some disclaimer of the form: "Johnnie Cochran, Alanis Morissette, Elton John, Meat Loaf, Ozzy Osbourne as mentioned in this article refer to characters in _South Park_ and are 'entirely fictional'."

Also, links to articles by these names should be removed, since this page's Cochran is refering to the South Park fictional character Cochran, rather than the Real World Johnnie Cochran.

It is very likely that my suggestions are not the proper approach to fix this quirk. However, I believe something is needed to make this article meet the professional standards of Wikipedia.


Full Decent 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Who voiced Cochran? We can just say it that way. BD2412 T 04:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I honestly disagree with this sentiment. I don't believe it was implied within the article that these were the real characters, merely parodied versions thereof, with wikilinks provided to give more information about whoever was being parodied.Darquis 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Some recent edits have removed valid information from this article - please discuss on this page before making drastic changes. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for trying to edit incorrect information into the article (that Chef was the plaitiff), thanks for correcting me. ;) I last saw the episode years ago, and obviously forgot some details. After reviewing the episode, I now see I was wrong.
I still think that another part of my edits - shortening and streamlining explanation of the Star Wars reference - should not be reverted.
The Star Wars reference explanation is unnecessarily expanded. For instance , the fact that South Park writers are aware of Kashyyyk should be obvious by earlier sentence in the article ("Cochran begins by noting that although Chewbacca is from Kashyyyk"), there's hardly any need to use half of paragraph to drive the point home with nitpicking.
Also, the sentence "This claim is a reference to an argument between Cartman and Kyle in the episode Pink Eye." explains nothing to people who didn't see the episode (the argument is not explained in Wikipedia article on Pink Eye). I suggest changing this to sentence to reference that mistaken claims that Wookies live on Endor is part of longer South Park series joke.
All in all, in this case, less is more. The article is about wining legal arguments by talking nonsence. Star Wars references are not all that important here - you can change the nonsence Cochran speaks from Chewbacca's whereabouts into anything else, and the lawyer-winning-by-talking-gibberish joke would still work. So obscure Star Wars trivia - and obscure South Park trivia - should be kept to minimum here.
I'm sorry for my bad grammar/spelling, I'm not an English speaker. - ASN 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It's generally better to include more information when there is more to be included - in this case, the reference to the Pink Eye episode is informative, and if the Pink Eye article lacks pertinent info, that article should be expanded. Although you could indeed change the Star Wars refs to something else (e.g. the "silly monkey" reference), the fact that South Park's creators chose to use Chewbacca (in keeping with many prior star wars refs) is significant, and may well be kept in. BD2412 T 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A slight point that Kashyyyk was actually first named in the Star Wars Holiday Special (created by George Lucas himself), not in the novels or other spin-offs. --Werthead 12:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate

This article is very inapppropriate. General Eisenhower 21:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for minors. JoshuaZ 21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Legal terms

I know South Park isn't exactly accurate in its use of legal terminology within the episode this occurred, but wasn't Chef suing the record label (thus making them the defense) in the episode? And further, in civil trials, there isn't a prosecution at all, is there? this is probably a minor thing in the grand scheme of things, but getting it a little more accurate would be nice. Darquis 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Errors in the argument" section

This whole section reads like original research and commentary, and is uncited. I was tempted to remove it, but didn't. Perhaps there should be something like this for those people who just don't get it that the whole point is that it's not supposed to make sense, but I think that section should be re-written. For now I'll leave it for someone else. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Is it really required to list all the star wars and legal faults in the chewbacce defence. It was made to be ridiculous, so pointing out the faults in it is useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.85.180 (talk • contribs)

I've put the Pink Eye reference back in for a few reasons. First, it points out a running joke in the series that few people still get. Second, while the above argument about Star Wars faults is valid, people keep adding "Chewbacca did not, in fact, live on Endor" notes anyway. The article may as well explain that this discrepancy is part of the joke. ironyage 03:33 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiLaw

I added this article to WikiProject Law. In case someone objects, here's my rationale: Even though this is a fictional legal defense, I think it has some legal value as a popular criticism of the legal system (regarding the use of legal jargon, the OJ trial, and the RIAA lawsuits). --2Snazzy (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)