Talk:Go God Go

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Go God Go 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.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.

Go God Go is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

For more information and how you can help click Show →

[edit] Nightline?

From the article: " The idea for this episode came after an interview with Nightline the creators did, in which they were asked if they were atheists. " Not only is this not a sentence, but it seems to be missing some key information. The creators of what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.18.150 (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erin Grey?

I don't know anything about this trivia reference, so I won't change it myself, but is the Erin Grey in the episode supposed to be Erin Gray the actress? If so, the spelling of her name should be fixed and wikified. Dihard 03:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and yes

[edit] Devout Catholic Family?

This should be removed from the "Mistakes" portion of the main article since there are plenty of individual Catholics who have a problem with evolution. The South Park writers weren't trying to make a statement about the proclaimed church doctrine of the Catholic Church thus they did not mistake its theology.

I think this point deserves mention in the article, thought maybe not labeled as a "mistake."

How is mention of this "irrelevant?"

Because it makes that instance of religious bashing seem slightly silly... duh...

If so, isn't it even more relevant?

This does not deserve mentioning. 'Creationists' are not the only religious denomination to oppose evolution: catholics logically SHOULD oppose it if they are committed to the Bible and indeed many do. This is perhaps the point that Matt and Trey were trying to make here. 81.107.159.5 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Creationists" are not a religious denomination. Regardless of whether you think Catholics should oppose evolution, the position of the Church is not to oppose evolution. I highly doubt that Matt and Trey were trying to say that Catholics should oppose evolution. More likely, they were mistaken about the Church's position.

No, Matt and Trey just wanted to show that over-worshipping can be illogical and creationist deny evolution, which has been pretty much proved.Orthologist 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right now the Official Name is Go God Go

Check the ref [1] The official episode guide is listing it as Go God Go. No Part II, no comma or bang. Tdewey 05:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I say move it. Bahati 11:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have requested that the page be moved; according to the official South Park Studios website, the episode's correct title is "Go God Go".Raider Duck 01:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the article Go God Go to this page, as the official name of the episode is Go, God. Go! Part II, and not Go God Go. -- Ubergenius 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know why it is called Part II?...LazyManJackson 20:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't, but being that the plot has something to do with time travel, I can only assume this is going to be a play on time shifts. Perhaps the end of the 2 parter will be shown first? Anything I offer would only be speculation, but the title definately has "Part 2" in it. -- Ubergenius 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be cool, part II first, but it might get confusing, anyway, can't wait!...

Now they changed back the title to TBA, maybe it won't be go god go..

Hmm... Interesting. I don't think I've ever seen them pick a title, and then change it back like that. Kinda neat! Will be watching vigilantly to change the article if necessary... -- Ubergenius 13:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In my DirecTV chanel, the creation part seems to be removed and it only mentions the game of cartman. I don't know. --SangP 01:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it will be an episode about wikipedia, and how freaks always think of some cultural reference about stuff in SP, but it's always wrong, and insist on minutiae, and fight about wheather it's Manbearpig or ManBearPig. It's Manbearpig btw! :))) They are setting us up! Bahati 08:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

has annonced that the name of the next episode is "Go God Go". Anyway, we'll find out the truth very soon.--Vitriden 14:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It STILL is said to be "TBA" on southparkstudios.com... Maybe the actual name of the episode is TBA? lol -- Ubergenius 16:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that the official name is uncertain should be mentioned in the description. Tdewey

Edited top. Will take out as soon as we have an official title. Tdewey 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impresson that "Go, Dog, Go! Part II" was the name of the video game Cartman was trying to get that the description mentions. Just throwing that our there as a possibility. --Rexisfed 00:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Cox's TV Listings it is "Go, God. Go! Part II" Toadthetoad 07:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently it is listed as TBA, it is for sure not Go, God, Go! Part II.

Maybe Part I as its a 2-parter.

Having the parts reversed might be a nod to the time travel showcased, since we know at the end of part II/I Cartman somehow wheels backwards through time. Mewchu11 04:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Southparkstudios still lists it as TBA. Also we don't know if this is a 2 or 3 parter (seems unlikely but I've seen speculation that it might be). Tdewey 16:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

I'm fine with the move to "Go God Go" that seems to be the final episode title. As an aside: I'm gonna guess that Trey and/or Matt must have decided they didn't like the part I/part II thing and went back to a more Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?/Probably. naming scheme. We'll know on Weds. Tdewey 03:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Support move considering the offical site now has "Go God Go" as the name. Maged123 03:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we have enough consensus to move the page -- but need an admin.

Agreed. It is now Go God Go on southparkstudios.com. I'll move it. -- Ubergenius 17:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Ubergenius 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please refrain

refrain from adding stuff like "this is the second time south park made two parts" because that is not a trivia but an uneccesary ordering. I could say anything like this is the first time Catman tried freezing himself.--SangP 04:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, wikipedia's trivia sections are full up of 'firsts' and 'seconds'. 82.41.120.60 14:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon reference? Seriously?

I'm removing the following from the article:

Mrs.Garrison often calls Richard Dawkins - Dick, which is an allusion to ex-president Richard Nixon who was also known as Dick.

-I thought the unfreezing sequence was kind of like the movie AI more than Futurama.

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? I'm pretty sure people named Richard were using Dick as a nickname long before Nixon. How is this an allusion? If anything, I thought Miss Garrison just liked to say that name. —TheMuuj ^Talk

Nevermind. Somebody else already made the change. —TheMuuj ^{Ta lk} 04:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garrison Dawkins - Battlestar reference?

I thought the music after they had brutal sex was the music from the end of Jurassic park...maybe i just heard it incorrectly?

On sps they say it is from the new Battlestar Galactica. Tdewey 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The post-sex scene mirrors scenes from the Battlestar Miniseries between Gaius and one of the cylons. The way their posed, the way Garrison has the sheet draped, and the talk of power. I had a good laugh at it. This probably belongs in the popculture section.

Yeah, my friend pointed that out to me. Awesome reference. Not only was the music similar but the entire relationship is very close to the 6/Baltar relationship. Six uses her sexuality to manipulate Baltar and boosts his ego. It blew my mind away the second time I watched it. Just added a segment on the reference. Feel free to make it better. --Phoenix Hacker 02:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable pop-culture reference

"New New Hampshire" might be a reference to the Free State Project's secession option.

I think that's kind of stretching it, and it's also worth noting that the Free State Project denies being a secessionist movement: Free State Project FAQ --Redeagle688 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It might also be a reference to a joke in Futurama, where New York has become New New York.

[edit] "EV" Games? Matt & Trey want a Wii?

Can anyone read the full name of EV Games? It's "Electronic V..." But I can't make out what the second word is.

And is there any proof that the show's creators are anticipating Nintendo's next console? --BPM 23:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Added citation for the statement the creators are anticipating the release, but I'm a noob and I'm not sure how to add it to the references section. If an experienced person could do it, here is the citation [2] --ObidAlor 00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't remeber the exact scene, but perhaps it's Electronic Video Games? That would probaly go under independent research though, huh.... Chocolate Panda 03:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

this article definately needs major clean-up. I have kept posting to stop putting "This is the 2nd time x happend" Seriously... this is extremely redundant... could work for anything like "This is the 2nd time Mr.Garrison is seen having gay butt sex"

[edit] Cleanup

This article is getting bloated with trivia and references some of which are unprovable or just not relevant. I've deleted and corrected some trivia and put some citation tags but this article still needs work. Gdo01 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So were you the one who removed the Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined) reference? The theme song that was playing in the background, while Ms. Garrison and Dawkins were laying in bed, is BSG music. Matt Stone and Trey Parker have publicly stated their adoration of BSG at the Peabody Awards. So the reference is notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.244.204.244 (talk • contribs) .

I cannot vouche for whether this user changed it or not, but I can speak on behalf of, well, the article. You have to understand that the section was getting overrun with a ton of references that weren't really references (IE: just because something looks or sounds like something doesn't really make it a reference and, with several of them, could easily have just been a coincidence).

The first assumption should be made that the reference was irrelevant to the article and be deleted. After that, it should be cited and then put back in as a true reference and not "This weapon looked similar to a weapon in this game". If it can't be referenced, it can't be included and, the majority of those points in the article, could not be referenced and, as thus, were considered original research and had to be deleted. If it can be cited, go ahead and put it back in. If not, don't. Well, that was lenghty, but I hope you got my point. --pIrish 21:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As you can see here, I did not delete that. Either way, PIrish is right that lots of the stuff violates WP:OR and the only sources that were even attempted were entries by fans at a South Park forum. Needless to say, those are hardly convincing sources. Gdo01 22:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who deleted that info. WP:EPISODE is quite explicit on the subject. The article should contain info on how this particular episode has impacted pop-culture, not a list of pop-culture things that an episode refers to. The references to pop-cult, references to other episodes, and trivia sections are proscribed by policy and guideline. So they should not be in the article in the first place. Please remember that this is a general purpose encyclopedia and not a fansite or collection of indiscriminate trivia. ALL the lists need to written up as prose and incorporated into the body of the articles to conform with: WP:AVTRIV, WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:RS. Cheers. L0b0t 23:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If your assertions are true, then there are Wikipedia articles for certain reference-heavy shows, such as The Venture Bros. or Family Guy, that should have long ago had major portions either excised completely or extensively re-written--yet there they stand, most with quite large sections for pop culture references. I'm not saying that South Park always samples pop culture at the level of those shows, but it does on the average make more references than most shows currently on television, and the article should reflect that to a reasonable extent. -- Pennyforth 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the information itself, rather, the way the information is presented. ALL edits have to conform to established policies and guidelines. I would however add that if a piece of trivia or reference is just something that anyone can see by watching the episode then it has no place in the general purpose encyclopedia. There are many, many, many outlets for fan critique and analysis but Wikipedia is not one of them. Cheers. L0b0t 18:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go, God. Go! Part II, not Part I

Could people please stop changing it to say Part I? The official title of the episode is Part II, not Part I. Yes, there is confusion because there was no Part I, but that doesn't mean the title is incorrect. It likely does have something to do with the whole time travel thing that someone else mentioned in the article. Just please stop changing it, otherwise some poor editor has to go and revert your edits because you decided to take it upon yourself and decide that it was Part I, instead of the official Part II. --pIrish 13:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The official title on South Park Central's list of episodes has now been changed from "TBA" to "God God Go" Mapache 16:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The way the titles are names seems to be a spoof on sequels in general, at least that's how i percieved it. either way, the title is listed via my tv guide as Go God Go Part II. Unless somebody has a valid reason to object, it should be changed. --DMW 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to pop culture

Didnt the UAA (United Atheist Alliance) have hairstyles that resembled that of the Elois' from "The time Machine"? hmmmmmm.

don't know, but their whole appearance (clothes & hair) reminds me of some cheesy SF movie/tv show from the 70s or 80s. I don't really think (in part due to the hair) that they look like Jaffa.

[edit] Do not remove

"The year 2003-2006 is also the year 2546 in Thailand. The reference point for Thailand's calendar is Lord Buddha's birth, 543 before Jesus Christ " This is indeed a trivia. It shows that the creators didn't just come up with a random number in the future.

Where's the cite to this? I think it should be pulled -- 2546 is also the year Buck Rogers is supposed to have retired from duty. Also buck was frozen for 504 years, Cartman for 540 -- perhaps they slipped up? 2546 is also the word length of a Dawkins articles -- there is just no clear evidence for why Trey & Matt picked that number [As an aside -- 2546 is actually in the 26th Century, Buck Rogers showed up in the 2491 -- in the 25th Century Tdewey 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC

I had the site reference next to it. Stop removing it. I am pretty sure this wasn't random unlike ur sarcastic word lengths --SangP 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with Tdewey on this one. I think it's a bit of a fetch to assume Matt and Trey were trying to link to Buddism with the episode. Also, the reference you have just says stuff about Buddism...ZERO about South Park. By adding it in without a proper citation (meaning, it clearly shows the link between the two, not just information about one side of it), you have violated Wikipedia's policy on no original research. For now, it can't be included. I'm removing it. Please do not add it back until you can find a reference that actually links it to South Park (this does not include fansites, forums, and the like). Thank you. --pIrish 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please do not attack another editor. Your last phrase was unnecessary and was likely only included to incite drama and I can see something like this quickly escalating and becoming very heated. Please keep it civil. State your side and why you disagree with theirs, but don't made snide remarks. --pIrish 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two items that were removed that I believe should remain in. One of them, I added; the other, I didn't.

The reference to Star Wars Ep. III is quite clear and transparent. It is an inappropriately high standard to say that any reference to pop culture must be cited. There is such a thing as common sense, even on Wikipedia.

The same can be said for the split of the different Atheists, although they have almost identical names. Clearly a reference to Life of Brian. How about discussing it on this page instead of just hacking away? In the meantime, I've read all of the WP articles about these, and I STILL have not found one iota of evidence that either of these references violates any protocol. Stusutcliffe 02:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Stusutcliffe

[edit] Article cleanup

I've begun cleaning up the South Park episodes per the following guidelines and policies: WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:WAF. Allow me to quote from the relevant pages.

WP:EPISODE, a guideline, instructs: "* Content about television episodes must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Avoid excessive trivia and quotations.

Extensive quotation from episodes is a violation of copyright and unlikely to be fair use.
Here are some ideas for what information to include about a television episode, where possible:
- The plot summary of the episode
- The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any
- How the episode was received by critics
- The episode's impact on popular culture
- Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
Elements which are best avoided in any episode article:
- A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show
- Particularly for comedies, no attempt should be made to recreate the humor of the show. This rarely works, and is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia."

WP:NOT, a policy says: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

WP:V, a policy, is clear: "The policy:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

WP:OR, a policy, states: "

This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.

That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

WP:RS, a guideline, reads in part: "Popular culture and fiction

Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."

WP:WAF, a guideline, tells us: "Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves. Consider this analogy: Would it be acceptable to write an article on flight based solely on watching birds flying? Furthermore, much of this analysis might seem on the surface to be quite sound. For example, assume that an editor creates an article on a starship recently introduced on a science fiction TV show. Using the episodes as reference, he or she writes, "Finn-class starfighters have purple shielding and can fly faster than Mach 3." But how do we really know that all Finn-class starships have purple shielding? What if there are green ones that just have not been introduced yet? And what if later episodes show that Finn-class starships come in slower or faster varieties, too? The editor has made an inference, based on limited fictional information. Framing things from the perspective of our own universe eliminates the problem altogether: "In Episode 37, Commander Kinkaid obtains a Finn-class starfighter with purple shielding. Vice Admiral Hancock calls the ship 'a real space ripper' and says that she can 'make it past Mach 3'."

Please understand that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and just not the place to repeat jokes from the episodes or say what product placement you have happened to notice. If you want to write a deconstruction of the episode's use of narrative and novel juxtaposition of cultural memes, that's fantastic. Find some reliable 3rd party sources and show us what you've got. Adding more items to a bulleted list of things you can see when you watch the episode is just not acceptable. Take a look at the Featured articles, that's some good writing, that is what we're shooting for here. Cheers. L0b0t 04:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

Although the dispute is not as huge as the warcraft episode, I find it extremely unneccesary to fight over whether such trivia such be put in. Still I do have some opinions. First of all, if "This is the second time professor chaos" trivia should be put in (or any of the such '2nd time' kind) I could find probably at least 9 things to think of to be the 2nd time. Some other trivias, which are extremely subjective should be removed. My point is, which I've been evoking a lot, is that the 'second time' trivia SHOULD NOT be added at all or else, all the trivia section for South Park would be redundant. --SangP 05:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

btw, I still think my 2546 trivia deserves a spot. First of all, it is a fact that 2546 is 2006 in Thailand. Second of ll, I believe it is not a coincidence South Park picked 2546 as the year when Cartman was unfrozen because the chance would be extremely small. 2546 wasn't a random number that the creators just got out of no where. I think this is just common sense. If someone explains why this isn't a trivia please reply. I have plenty of websites that show 2546 is 2006 in the Buddish calendar. Next finding a common sense and then find the probablity of picking 2546 out of 2007~2999--SangP 05:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The probability is just the same as in case of any number from 2007 to 2999, so what's your point? 83.11.69.168 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've highlighted the relevant passages above in green. I must stress that articles have to be based on criticism and analysis that reliable 3rd parties have already published. You can't just include scene X looks just like scene Y in some other work unless the authors, directors or the like say that's what they reference in that scene, or a 3rd party publisher who says that's what they reference in that scene. To determine which scene references what other scene on your own is called original research and not allowed in the encyclopedia. there are many, many outlets for fan critique and observation but wikipedia is not one of them. Cheers. L0b0t 06:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All right, stop it whoever...

I've seen decent and fair enough trivia added to this and recent episodes articles taht have been constantly removed, the trivia makes the article more worthwhile! So whoever keeps doing it, stop it! Honestly!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.160.179 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2006

Please read the relevant policies and guidelines posted above as to why I remove all the OR cruft. Please also see WP:SIG. L0b0t 02:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Seriously, thank you, thank you, thank you. --pIrish 04:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I seriously think some of the trivias are indeed relevant and need to be added. If you are going by strictly rules, please consider that Wikipedia is a distinctive enclyclopedia unlike others. Some of the trivias are COMMON SENSE but not sourced. All though those would not be included in normal encyclopedias, Wikipedia is unique in that it is able to have those COMMON SENSE materials that are unfournantely unsourced. If you insist on abiding by the rules all time, I know plenty of articles that has information of common sense so you can delete them all. Please consider that not everything has a source and wikipedia can be the source for the data, because IT IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Thanks --SangP 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Unsourced factoids and OR personal opinions masquerading as "common sense" have no place in an encyclopedia whatsoever. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, that sounded harsh; sorry. But please do review WP:OR and WP:CITE so that you'll have a better idea of the kind of content that is, and is not, going to be reverted right away. BTW - Thanks for bringing it up on the Talkpage; that was the right way to handle things :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

please see WP:V, Wikipedia can NEVER be used as a source for info in its articles. Please see above, no source it gets deleted. That's all there is to it. We can not contribute anything to the encyclopedia unless it has been written up already by a 3rd party source. L0b0t 14:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Whatever dude" commentator was a tad rude, but he/she has a point. As I note above on this page, there are indeed a great number of articles on episodes, not only of South Park but other shows, that cite cultural references with little more evidence than a link to a Wiki article. Do you really plan to go forth and edit every episode article for South Park, Family Guy, The Venture Bros, Drawn Together, Futurama, etc., not to mention every article for, say, albums by parody artists like "Weird Al" Yankovic, the great Luke Ski, etc., or films like Kevin Smith's View Askewinverse series, that also have multiple references that don't fit your quite narrow definition of what is valid? More importantly, is it really your place to do so? -- Pennyforth 18:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Please see above for the relevant rules, this is not "my narrow definition" but rather, established editorial policy. Yes, we know there are many articles that need work and we are slowly but surely getting to them. Citing other articles that are poorly written as an excuse to write poorly in this article just does not hold water. Cheers. L0b0t 18:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think the position of your so-called WikiProject: Trivia Cleanup is completely at odds with the concept of Wikipedia itself, however you want to re-interpret the rules to back it up, and have sent an e-mail to Wikipedia management saying so. I urge others who agree to do the same. -- Pennyforth 18:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has management now??? L0b0t 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever dude, you do know there's 150 more articles with trivia, wanna go remove those for this stupid reason too?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.160.179 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2006

Please see WP:SIG. I'm very disappointed that you would consider writing a decent well crafted article that follows editorial policy stupid but to each his own. Yes we will be claening up the other articles. L0b0t 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't post that "whatever dude" his speech seems that he's trying to impersonate me...--SangP 02:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

still.. my last statement would be: it's not neccesary to always push with all those rules because those rules mostly apply to absurd materials. This is an episode and some of the trivias are just not sourced, but still is known by everyone who watched the episode. The "3rd party source" refers to articles that need some source, not this, which requires common sense. If you insist we need a source for every trivia for each episodes, and you delete all the trivias in previous episodes according to the rule, I'm sure that would be vandalism. All though the rules that you gave are all probably correct (didn't find it neccesary to read any bit of it) the trivias are definately correct and it will stay that way with or without a source. Good luck on deleteing everything that goes aganist the rules because I'm sure it will be considered vandalism if you do. --SangP 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You have no obligation to post on Wikipedia. If you're not willing to follow the rules, then don't bother posting here. Everyone has a learning curve, I made plenty of mistakes as I learned (and still make them), but the seasoned editors will show you the error, and you learn the new rules and correct them, and move on. Don't try to fight them, OR if you DO want to fight them and try for change, do it properly. -- Ubergenius 14:21, 7 November 2006

I don't understand this. You guys didn't seem to give two shits about the trivia, but now all of a sudden your removing it because the information isn't verified? I mean, who cares? It's the South Park fans that watch the show. THEY know the refferences in the show. Well, whatever. Go ahead and remove the trivias. I don't care.- Lord Lonic (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Colbert Report

I believe my post about the reference to the 17th October 2006 episode of colbert report is paradied in this episode. 1) Stephen Colbert interviewed Richard Dawkin, whom in the interview, mentioned about disproving god with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The exact same claim was used in the date scene. 2) Quoted from Colbert whom said human should all act like monkeys and throw feces around. It was exactly paradied in the classroom scene where Mrs Garrison acted like an ape and threw his(her) feces.

The monkey thing is a common act that dates back to Scopes Monkey Trial and the Spaghetti Monster is also immensely popular and well known. Colbert had nothing to do with this. Gdo01 08:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed worthless "See also" info

Much of the links in "See Also" were worthless so they are gone. Pacman 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The hell?

I've only seen this episode once, but was that scene of Cartman's mom pulling him out of the freezer added in on later airings?

As far as I know that scene was in there all along. SimonWhiteley 20:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw it the first airing, it was always there.

I guess I just missed it then.

I missed it the first time, too. I think it was always there, and also never included. You see, after the first airing, there was controversy over why Cartman had to go all the way into the mountains. To avoid the controversy, Matt's grandson from the future called him on a prank time-phone and asked him to alter the episode to make Cartman's reasoning more clear. So the scene was added later to be included in the first airing of the episode, and so was there all along. Professor Chaos 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mrs Garison can prove god's existance?

Based on what? Personal experience? A personal experience is not valid scientific proof. All Mrs Garison could do is that she experienced something which she herself believes to be the revelation of god. This part of the article maybe needs to be rewritten or removed. I'd do it myself, but I don't like removing things and I'm not sure how to reword it so that it's not making a statement of proof. Perhaps something along the lines that "Mrs Garison's atheism is odd because she was present during God's self-revelation." or something along those lines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.163.104 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Does the "References to other episodes" even need to be included? The writer is just talking about other episodes in which God and/or Jesus appear, but South Park has, from the very beginning, NEVER claimed any sort of continuity to exist in the show (Kenny, anyone?). The episode doesn't actually refer to any other episode (except for the fact that it's a two-parter), and there's no need for some pseudo-argument about whether God exists in the South Park "universe". 24.69.166.250 00:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant, a statement of proof was made and that statement of proof is based entirely on a personal experience. It is entirely subjective. The fact that South Park doesn't really bother with continuity, as you provide the example of Kenny's repeated and varied deaths, just further goes to say that such a statement of proof shouldn't even be made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.163.104 (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] k-10

The last point of Cultural references (the word play with k-10) doesn't fit in this article, because k-10's first appearence is in the second part of the episode. I have already changed that. Big-B_36 18:45, Dec.26th 2006 (CET)

[edit] Good work

Great job guys, the Nintendo and that other English guys responses are brilliant, they really add to this web page. Keep up the good work! JayKeaton 00:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new picture

Since someone deleted the picture of cartmen in the freezer at the top of the article, can someone put in a new one? maybe one of him travelling through time in the montage or frozen beneath the ice. This needs to be adressed since all the other episodes have pictures.

[edit] harold bishop

The article states "Dawkins then performs a harold bishop on Garrison"

Is this a reference to the Neighbours character? If so, why is the name not in capital letters, why is it not a direct link, and (never having watched Neighbours) what does that reference infer?

Is this a sexual pecadillo? If so, can someone please explain, or rephrase? - an encyclopedia should inform, not exclude

Never be afraid of looking ignorant = Arjayay (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Talking Otters

Were they a pop culture reference of something? Or were they purely the South Park made —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.252.201 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Atheism Naming Debate

I apologise if this has been mentioned before, I could not find it in the talk page.

This article attributes the idea of Atheists bickering over their name to the Monty Python scene from Life of Brian (which I'm sure is at least partially correct, it does remind me of that). However, I fear this article may be missing a phenomena of somewhat more cultural significance: This may also be a reference to the real-life debate regarding what Atheists should call themselves.

As an illustration of this, in Feb 2002 (although this video was not posted online until 2007), Richard Dawkins gave the following talk at TED Talks: Richard Dawkins: An atheist's call to arms, in which he urges Atheists to be more open about their position. In this talk, Dawkins says;

If we want to attract deep-down Atheists to come out publicly, we're going to have to find something better to stick on our banner than Tooth-fairy or Teapot Agnostic. So how about Humanist? This has the advantage of a world-wide network or well-organised associations and journals and things already in place. My problem with it is it's apparent anthropocentrism. One of the things we've learned from Darwin is the Human species is only one among millions of cousins, some close, some distant. There are other possibilities such as Naturalist - as opposed to Supernaturalist - Darwin would have confused it with the other sence of Naturalist which of course he was, and I suppose there would be others who would confuse it with Nudism. Such people might be belonging to the British linch mob which last year attacked a Paediatrician in mistake for a Paedophile.

I think that the best of the available alternatives to Atheist is simply Non-theist. It lacks the strong connotation that there is definetly no god and could therefore easily be embraced by Teapot or Tooth-fairy Agnostics. it's completely compatible with the God of the physicists - when Atheists like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein use the word 'God' the use it of course as a metaphorical shorthand for that deep mysterious part of physics which we don't yet understand. Non-theist will do for all that yet unlike Atheist it don't have the same phobic, hysterical responses. But I think the alternative is to gasp the nettle of the word Atheism itself preciscly because it is a taboo word.

Atheists have also suggested other terms such as Secular Humanist (as opposed to just Humanist), Bright, Rationalist, amoung others such as more extreme/particular labels as: Scientismist (NOT to be confused with Scientologist), Objectivist and more.

I think there is a strong possibility that in addition to referring to the Python scene, Trey and Matt may have been referring to what might seem like name-nitpicking in the Atheist community. --84.92.62.165 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)