Talk:The Return of Chef

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Return of Chef article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
To-do list for The Return of Chef: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

[edit] Scientology Content

Hi, I am not an experienced Wikipedian, but when I visited this article, I was shocked to see that it contained almost no references to Scientology. I am quite certain that anyone who has a passing knowledge of Scientology and has seen this episode would agree that it is a blatant parody of Scientology. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are known opponents of Scientology.

When reviewing the edit history, I noticed that the article previously contained a good amount of information explaining the parallels to Scientology. However, in this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Return_of_Chef&diff=prev&oldid=90725896) made by Michaelas10 and marked as "reorginazing, expanding, clean up," all of this information was discreetly and systematically removed without explanation. I do not know why this happened, but it is clearly biased.

I realize that my edits may not be in perfect Wikipedia style, so feel free to revise or clean them up, but please do not revert them or remove the content. Thank you. 129.59.99.134 07:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Notice that in my edits I've integrated the most of the trivia inside the article, but I'd prefer the Scientology connection to be excluded. Unlike in Trapped in the Closet, this connection has never been reported or confirmed, and therefore is original research done from your personal point of view. A Scientology symbol here or there is much of a trivial detail. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding, Michaelas10? There is definitely grounds to mention scientology in this article due to the actual-life battle between the South park creators and Chef. Mentioning these "trivial" symbols illustrate the subtle details put into the episodes by the creators as signs of their craftmanship and creativity. Should we omit all commentary Mona Lisa's smile because it is "trivial"? User:bigbadman

  • Once again, no connection between those has been ever confirmed by media outlets, and any connection one would do is his own original research. We must conform the verifiability policy. Besides, an entire seperate section for a possible connection established by a symbol is completely unnecessary. Please refer to this discussion over a similar connection in a different article. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking. The similarities between Scientology and the Super Adventure Club are numerous and obvious. Do a quick Google search and you will quickly see that there is not even any discussion as to whether or not the Club is meant as a parody of the Church of Scientology. It's just taken for granted. Removing all the references to Scientology from this article (except for your miniscule note making it seem like a minor coincidence) would be as perverse as pretending that Austin Powers was not a parody of James Bond. Additionally, the manner in which you removed all the information that the article previously contained was beyond suspicious. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Return_of_Chef&diff=prev&oldid=90725896)

I will shortly be adding this information back to the article with extensive sourcing. If you again revert my edits without serious discussion or consideration of the cited sources and the utter lack of doubt that the episode is a Scientology satire, I will be forced to seek arbitration. I believe there is some sort of 3-revert-rule that concerns removal of content? 129.59.97.165 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:V states that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources". As long as this hasn't ever been reported or confirmed, it shouldn't be included even if seems obvious. No need to compare to the similarities between Austin Powers and James Bond since that has been reported plenty of times (e.g. [1]). Personally, I don't think such a report will ever be made, since the episode mostly parodies Chef rather than Scientology in general.
The information I removed was plain original research and wasn't a valid encyclopedic context. Similar trivial additions added by fans are being continuously removed from South Park articles, and shouldn't be taken as harmful. See WP:AVTRIV. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Similar trivial additions added by fans ...?? Can't you see the whole point of that episode or may it be that you don't want to, for whatever reason? I hope you guys'll simply put back in the parallels SuperAdventureClub - Scientology as the main theme of the episode. It is that obvious that pointing it out isn't "original research", but stating what lies in the broad daylight. If you really need a source to back that up, i have the New York Times for you:
-Yet the creators of "South Park" didn't make fun of Viacom's pliability on the premiere of the show's 10th season Wednesday night. Instead, Matt Stone and Trey Parker reserved their scorn for Mr. Hayes and the Church of Scientology: the episode was entirely devoted to portraying Mr. Hayes's character, Chef, as the victim of a sinister brainwashing cult.
-So once Mr. Hayes left and Comedy Central canceled the offending episode, it seemed natural to expect its creators to poke fun at Viacom as well as Scientology.
-It seems that the only way "South Park" could tweak its parent company was to make even more fun of Scientology, almost daring Viacom to censor it. "The Return of Chef" was funny, and it was even more savage about the religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard, than the first, much-contested episode,
-The parallel to Scientology could not have been more obvious.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/24/arts/television/24chef.html?ex=1172120400&en=b2fc6fecba02059c&ei=5070
Leclerq 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


If there's no further objection, i'll reestablish the version that Michaelas10 altered in the next couple of days. Leclerq 13:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Although if added back, it will need a throughout referencing and cleanup from trivia such as the Scientology symbol slightly visible in the episode. Descriptions of Chef's departure also seem redundant with what's already written in Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Michaelas10 suggestions are clearly biased. he is the only reason that the scientology content was even questioned. we have a scene with 'darth chef' that is an obvious reference to star wars . adding a citation to some news report that confirms that the reference was indeed directed to star wars would be ludicrous and superfluous. the suggestion that the parodies need to have excessive referencing is absurd, and any attempt to move to such ridiculous standards would render the project void and meaningless. michaelas10 seems very up to date on many guidelines, perhaps he should review the conflict of interest policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Very funny. No, it's not any reference to Isaac Hayes and Scientology! It's just an original story with no figurative content at all! I think it's pretty clear that the main point is Hubbard got to the "religion" game a little late. The founder of the SAC was disappointed that other explorers had gotten ahead of him, so he distinguished his club through exploitation and abuse, based on weird, laughable theories involving transfer of "marlocs" -- or in other words, thetans. --Mujokan (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
At any rate it is best if we stick to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources for all this stuff. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)