Talk:Pandemic (South Park)

Nobody else noticed this?
The fact that they are musicians is irrelevant, the bands are there simply because they are from Peru, where they eat guinea pigs. 24.19.80.138 (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture Reference
The song being played by the first pan flute band confronted by Cartman and the boys (the one whose panflute Cartman flings into the street) plays "Beef and Lamb" (the melody from Little Brown Jug), the song supposedly made famous by Terrance and Phillip as children (when they restart playing after Stan speaks). 71.100.1.201 (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The camp that they send the Peruvian's to is, infact, the same camp that Tony and Manny are sent to in Scarface. It is an exact replica of the camp, under the highway, and they even pan the camera the exact same way as they do in the film. Only thing missing is the Giorgio Moroder synth playing in the background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spettacolare (talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For a second when the military came and took them all the people into the camps, and the guard refuse to talk to them and then shot the other guy cause he wanted to sell the CD, felt like a spoof of BLINDNESS. They are also all taken to a camp and then one of them gets shot. But might not be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.150.9 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the camcorder-view thingy also a reference to 2007's "REC" horror? It's very similar... 77.254.226.233 (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What's REC horror? Nightscream (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Spanish horror movie. Article on Wikipedia: REC // 77.254.226.233 (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe its more of a reference to Cloverfield, given the giant monster attacking the city 72.141.160.35 (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed a correlation between wiping out the peruvian pan flute bands and wiping out polio (in the real world) - which is currently a high priority of the Rotary international club. I wasnt sure until I saw the name of the television correspondent in this episode: "Paul Harris" who was the founder of Rotary in 1905. Swiftrate (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the human looking lizard and the whole stuff about an "hybrid" that could save the world really looks like the 80's "V" tv-show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.166.159 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The part when Kyle (South Park) states that their friend was raped in Peru is a reference to Indiana Jones being raped in The China Problem. Bugalaba08 16:01, 25 October 2008


 * Yes, but that's an episode continuity issue, not a pop cultural reference. Also, please sign your posts. Nightscream 01:53, 26 October 2008 (''Note: I noticed that I myself forgot to sign this post initially. Sorry! I added the timestamp info to this post and the one above. Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC))


 * The shaky camera work might also allude to Quarantine, the remake of REC, given that it's still in theaters. Tgzuke (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For each cultural Reference's, provide an Asterik before each reference when editing. It will form a Bullet before each reference. This will provide the article with a better outline and structure. I will do so after i save this edit --J miester25 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Homeland security guy (monster) --> David Icke's theory?
Isn't the military guy being a monster a reference to David Icke's theory about reptiles ruling the world in secret? --Thekryz (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In the "Britney's New Look" episode, doesn't one of the reporters make that same face and noise as they're chasing down Kyle and Brittany? -B Murph-


 * That's a reference to Invasion of the Body Snatcher 209.106.203.252 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * @@@***Sorry for the improper placing, I couldn't find the right place to write this: The writing on the police car that was thrown by the the first guinea pig that appeared is "To Patrol and Annoy". Again, sorry for the improper placing, I hope someone can find the right place to put it.***@@@***

Political Reference
When the Department of Homeland Security is discussing the crisis of the Peruvian Pan flute bands sprouting up all over the world, Michael Chertoff informs the members that they need to take out the Peruvian Pan flute bands around the world. One member of the Department stands up and asks: "Shouldn't we worry about the Peruvian Pan flute bands in our own country instead of taking them out in other countries. Shouldn't we worry about our own problems first instead of the problems of other countries?" It might not exactly be that but its along those lines. Then Chertoff walks over to him and says "You little bastard. Don't you realize that we need to take care of other countries so that they can look up to us and establish us as the greatest country in the world?" Again, not exactly what he says but its along those lines. I can get the exact quotes of these lines and submit them because i think that some people are missing the point here: This is a DIRECT REFERENCE to the Forgein Policy of the Bush Administration and why we think we should be in Iraq. Think of the Peruvian Pan flute bands as dictators around the world. The Department of Homeland Security took out Saddam Hussein, and taking out the Peruvian Pan flute bands that SEEM like a threat to the US has to be taken out? Nobody sees the connection here? Its a classic satire on the Forgein Policy of the Bush Administration. It should be included so that readers understand what the satire is all about because South Park is a satire comedy. If i include it, i can also get the reference from where this information came from. --J miester25 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Such a reference is somewhat subjective. Criticism of Bush's policies is not that we shouldn't go to other countries, but that we supposedly went to the wrong one. But if you can source it as you say, then yeah, that's fine. Nightscream (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would make sense that that's what they were saying, I mean, I basically got that it was making a statement about America's foreign policy as of right now, but without a cite it's all original research, so it really can't be included in the artical. 68.60.136.43 (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

looking at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/photos/Chertoff_S060607JB2-0087.jpg it seems pretty clear its intended to be Michael Chertoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hl1978 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that, as usual, Matt and Trey have made a complex, two-sided episode here. The boys represent America with its well-meaning insistence on getting involved in things, while Craig is an isolationist, but just when you think that's the side the episode is arguing, Craig ends up being forced to interfere, so it can also be interpreted as saying that that IS "just the way it is.".. that sometimes it's your destiny to solve things even if it's not any of your business, etc. User:75.73.70.113 02:25, 31 October 2008


 * And without a source, it's a moot point. Also, can you please sign your posts? Nightscream (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And why is this? Nightscream (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Health Parody
editsemiprotected The Peruvian Flute pandemic is incredibly similar to the Avian Bird Flu Pandemic that health officials are concerned will sweep across the world in the near future. The reference in the episode of the boys being "hybrids", a combination of Peruvians and Americans is also relevant to this because the strain of bird flu is a mutated or hybrid type of flu strain which to date has no vaccine. "Peruvian Flute" is also very similar in sound to "Avian Flu", just adding to the cleverness of the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJeff96 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC) --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Without a source, that would be Original research. Also, please sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~) at the end of your post. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Unsourced.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference to previous episode
editsemiprotected After attempting to escape, the boys are held in an interrogation room. When Michael Chertoff tells the boys that they must go to Peru, Stan and Kyle lament the rape of a friend in Peru. This lament is a reference to Episode 175 "The China Problem," when Indiana Jones is raped by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.225.107 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles on SP episodes do not have to detail references to other episodes. Such little mentions of continuity are not that salient a point when summarizing the episode. Also, please sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~) at the end of your post. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No consensus for change.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit requested
editsemiprotected really minor, i know, but the link Craig Tucker should be changed to Craig Tucker in order for it to work properly —Preceding unsigned comment added by CptnHadock (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cliffhanger
I'm not sure it's a cliffhanger, the joke here seems to be that there is no joke. Kakun (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well whats the significance to the Peru players, is the episode dealing with the economic state right now (i think so)


 * Oh, come on, this was obviously a cliffhanger. Also because the story wasn't resolved at all.


 * And with the new episode title, it is proven that this really was a cliffhanger. - 84.27.9.117 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Translating "Furry Death"
Furry Death should be translated as "La Muerte Peluda", with the "e" at the end of "Muerte". "La Muerta Peluda" means "Furry Dead". --Ejosr (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This person is right, this is important. You guys have it typed wrong. "Muerta Peluda" in Spanish means "Hairy Dead Woman". "Muerte Peluda" is the right translation for "Furry Death". Muerto=dead (masc); muerta=dead (fem); muerte=death. I would fix it myself but the page is semiprotected now and I'm too lazy to create myself an account, sorry.


 * Sorry, one more thing. It DOES sound like they're saying "Muerta Peluda" when you watch the episode, but it's ungrammatical. It might be because the voice actors are not native speakers, or it might be deliberate... I don't know what you guys do in cases like these.


 * Perhaps in this case we should use (sic) after "La Muerta Peluda" ? Thoughts? 72.141.160.35 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Using "sic" wouldn't be an entirely bad idea, but I think a better idea would be to relate the exchange in a way that sidesteps the entire issue of it being grammatically incorrect, namely, something like this: "As the boys are prepared for their mission, Peruvian musicians still interned in the camp warn guards that their captivity will unleash the "Furry Death". Since a plot synopsis is just a summary of the episode's most salient points, there is no reason that it absolutely has to have what he literally said and the translation. The translation--that is, what the writers intended him to mean--should be enough. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. - 84.27.9.117 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, my brazilian ears clearly hear the Peruvians saying "La Muerte Peluda". The Translator in the story heard that too, for he translated to "Furry death". "La Muerta" would sound like like "muertah", if my fonetic english is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.11.226 (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've listened to the Episode again (I'm the same guy who made the "This person is right, this it important" comment), and it does, indeed, clearly say "La muertE peluda". Both "La Muerta Peluda" and "La Muerta Peluda (sic)" would be wrong. I guess you should either write it correctly, or remove the translation altogether. My apologies on considering the possibility of there being a deliberate ungrammaticality. No such thing. It's "La Muerte Peluda", that's it. I'm a native Spanish speaker, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.172.66 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dios mios... this is going to consume us all. What ever the translation for "furry death" is, it's that.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.170.129 (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Discuss all cultural references here
We should discuss them here before adding anything flaky to the main article. Feel free to discuss.

Alastairward (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The guinea pig monsters and shaky cam techniques are a reference to the 2008 movie Cloverfield.
 * The holding center in Miami appears to be identical to the one in which Tony and Manny are held in the 1983 film Scarface.
 * In the interrogation room Craig tells the boys that "(they)'re always coming up with some stupid idea to do something, and then it backfires, and then (they) end up in some foreign country or outer space or something." This is most likely a meta-joke referring to previous South Park episode plots, such as Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants and Starvin' Marvin in Space.

I can't speak for the other stuff, but the Cloverfield parody is obvious, and is also properly cited... why'd you delete it? Vechs (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted, it's all here. And the review didn't actually seem to contain anything in the way of an interview with the South Park producers, just repeated one person's opinion. Alastairward (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, in order to read about all the absolutely obvious cultural references in the south park episodes I view, I have to check the talk pages now because someone demands citations for every single word that appears in the article? Fine, I'll remember that. It's kind of sad though that you have to check the article AND the talk page to get all the information.--Treublatt (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry - me and a group of other fed up South Park fans are currently trying to put an end to this. He's already been warned by an administrator once, so as long as we cite the references with respectable sources he can't touch them :). Took him that long to realize WP policy.Anthony cargile (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as something is properly cited, I'm happy with it being in an article. Problem is, there are few properly cited "cultural references". I was asked (not warned) by an Admin to regard a cite for one such "cultural reference" as acceptable. None of the other edits I made was queried, the same Admin backed me up on another removal that I made. If Anthony Cargil and his unnamed band of fans really wanted to help, they could dig out some cites for what they've alleged.
 * Treublatt, if what you seen on screen is obvious, so be it, but please remember there are people for whom it doesn't appear so and would like some sort of verification. Alastairward (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Scarface reference is obvious, whether its cited or not. I think it should be noted. Let's not get back to the Imaginationland discussion. Jay794 (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Guinea pigs, or cuy, are known to be a delicacy in many Central and South American (including Peruvian) cuisines.

Isn't the homeland security guy a reference to Harold and Kumar: Escape from Guantanamo Bay? They look alike and they act the same.--ShadyStan (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a vote about the Scarface reference, its gettin out of hand? Jay794 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jay, we don't vote on whether or not something is obvious to decide whether it's to be placed on the page, you either cite it or you don't. The only one escalating this is you, trying to start an edit war over something blatantly unverified. Alastairward (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:VOTE - we don't do votes here on Wikipedia to decide something like this. ≈  The Haunted Angel  13:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jay794, your incessant edits are pointless and you're trying to start an edit war. You have plenty of space to discuss adding uncited speculation to the article here. Alastairward (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you looked closely you'd have seen I actually found a source, http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_12/episode_1210, I'll let you check it and re-add the cultural references. Jay794 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's a fan site and just doesn't cut it. Alastairward (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, is this source ok, thats two I've found, fansite or not. http://www.tv.com/south-park/pandemic/episode/1234960/trivia.html?tag=overview;trivia;see_all_link#trivia Jay794 (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, another user editable cite. No better than an uncited Wikipedia article. The number of sources you come up with is irrelevant, it's their verifiability that counts. Alastairward (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
Can a peruvian provide proof that this episode caused a fair amount of controversy, at least inside Peru? I read so in a forum but can't find sources. --dicttrshp 13:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception
Would it be okay if I wrote a reception section based on the reference or is a reception section only included for episodes with large numbers of views, such as the mid season premiere, "The China Problem". Aspiring chemist (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you going to say about it? Alastairward (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Aspiring chemist - Of course! Read up on WP:BB. If it doesn't work, or doesn't fit, it can always be changed later. Vechs (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, be sure to get Alastairward's permission before adding it since he owns every single SP article.Anthony cargile (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, if you'd like to help Anthony, why not dig up cites, instead of just adding fluff to talk pages? Alastairward (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making personal comments. Comments like "he owns every single SP article" and "fluff" (which smacks of "fancruft") can be interpreted as uncivil, and therefore, a violation of WP:Civil. Please comment on ways to improve the article, and respond directly to the substance of each other's positions and arguments, and not on each other. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I asked at Jimbo Wales' Talk Page, and was told that indeed, we do need sources, even for satire and parody, lest we violate WP:SYNTH. I did restore the Cloverfield reference passage, but modified it to reflect the the fact that the reference was interpreted by the reviewer cited, and not the intent of the show's creators. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, I do understand that we are not supposed to make personal attacks, but users are now unsure if they can add information or not, and they think it has to be verified by Alastairward, as if he owns the article. I take offense to the position he has established and i simply will not follow his rules he has made for every South Park episode --J miester25 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not have to be verified by Alastairward. It has to be verified by reliable sources. From the edits I've seen (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Alastairward has only removed unsourced material, which is not a violation of WP:OWN, but perfectly in keeping with WP:Verifiability. That is not Alastair's rule, it's Wikipedia's rule. I understand the frustration you feel, since, as I mentioned in the last post, I used to favor a more lenient interpretation of WP:V with regard to parody, but the pertinent policies have been made clear, in particular WP:SYNTH, with which I was previously unfamiliar. Nightscream (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pandemic.png
Can someone upload another image more related with this SP episode? May be screenshot with kids when they playing because current image has poor related. 91.77.93.85 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll upload one in a moment - if it contravenes fair use policy, then feel free to revert. Burningmace 16:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield
Hope nobody minds, but I found a cite (from Southparkstudios.com) for the Cloverfield reference. See what a little diligence does? Alastairward (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kudos. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous/Next Episode Box
The previous ep / next ep page footer is missing from this article, I'm not too sure on how to add it, can someone fix that up? Ezicdmucddrakesa (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely missed that when I was adding the external link! It's now been added. Alastairward (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue Similarities to Cloverfield
In the attack sequence, lines spoken by background actors in the episode are identical to those spoken in Cloverfield, in terms of actual wording and inflection. This is irrefutable evidence that the episode was designed to be a Cloverfield parody. I made an edit to the article regarding these similarities, but it was reverted as I wrote it in a way that was in relation to the parody itself (and not the plot) which therefore required a source. However, as the episode and film are the only possible sources for this, I couldn't quote one. Thank you Nightscream for spotting my mistake. I propose that this information be worked into the article in some way. Any suggestions on a good way to add this? Burningmace 13:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningmace (talk • contribs)
 * First, you can sign and date your posts more easily by typing four tildes (~) at the end of them. As for the parody issue, can you list some of the dialogue sequences here so we can take a look at 'em? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I make edits to my talk posts I usually forget to delete the last sign and put ~ on the end. Anyway, when they first attack in the episode, you hear a guy in the background scream "Oh my god! Oh my god!". In the movie when the first bit of the attack happens outside in the street (around the time of the statue of liberty's head flying by) you hear that exact line spoken in the same way. The "some day you're gonna want this footage" is clearly a parody of the "they're gonna want to know... how it all went down" line, which is considered by most people (and in an article two that I've seen about) to be really corny and quite comical. However, I can't really cite that so it's not a great example. The shaky camera work and the fact that a good proportion of the episode is shown from the camera is a massively obvious one. Another obvious similarity is that the camera avoids looking at the guinea pigs for quite a while and tantalises the watcher with Randy saying "What is that? Oh my god what is that!?" when it would be really easy for him to just point the camera at it, just like the suspense is set up in Cloverfield. That's the basic gist of it, there are a few other small bits but you get the point. Burningmace 17:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There already exists a cite that this episode is based on Cloverfield, a FAQ produced by the show's writers themselves. I think that's "massively obvious" enough. What do we gain from an uncited suggestion that certain lines are taken from the movie and then rewritten for the episode? Alastairward (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Rape comment
User:NotAnotherAliGFan insists on mentioning the rape comment in the Synopsis section because it's noteworthy, because it explains their reluctance, and because not doing so is confusing for viewers. My position is that it is not necessary or appropriate, as this is an encyclopedia, and not a viewing guide whose role is to explain such things to viewers, and a synopsis is a basic summarization of a plot, and not an excuse to mention continuity trivia, which is not noteworthy. Reluctance at being sent to a foreign country when you're a kid is not something that needs to be explicitly explained. I'm going to request a Third Opinion, and post here my exchanges with AliGFan and myself from our respective Talk Pages for context:


 * ''The rape comment seems pretty much out of the blue without pointing out the episode continuity from The China Probrem. Therefore, this clarification belongs in the article - moreover, it is being mentioned on the SouthParkStudios FAQ page exactly for this reason. Please explain why you aggressively removed this edit without at least trying to discuss the matter - I'd very much appreciate some good faith. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The rape comment seems pretty much out of the blue without pointing out the episode continuity from The China Probrem." Which is why I removed the rape comment altogether. It's not like I removed the continuity but left in the comment. I removed all of it. Your comment implies that one was left in and the other removed, which is obviously not the case, which you can see if you look closely at the edit. Its removal was not "aggressive" nor without discussion. It had been removed countless times before when people kept trying to reinsert it, ever since the night that episode premiered. I will explain it one more time: A synopsis is a summarization of a story's most salient points. It is not a blow-by-blow account, and does not need to highlight specific gags, one liners, or bits of continuity trivia. Whether it's mentioned on the FAQ page (though for some reason that was not the page I was directed to when I first tried that url) does not change this. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This, of course, applies when you watch the episode - I never said the rape comment was in the article. It's unusual and pretty much throws you off unless you get the connection. It's as simple as that - why do you fight so hard to keep these seven measly words out of the article? It's properly referenced and also notable, please stop removing. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not the job of the article to explain every reference or gag to viewers when they watch the episode. This is an encyclopedia, not a viewing guide or viewing companion, and it is not the role of a synopsis to mention such things, it's to summarize the plot. As such, that level of detail may fall under WP:Fancruft and WP:Trivia, as it is not noteworthy. If you insist on this, then we can get a Third Opinion, or have a consensus discussion. Nightscream (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)''

Third Opinion request
I agree that there's no need for this to be mentioned. You might as well list every joke in the episode. Basically I agree with Nightscream, in that it could count as Triva and turn into a fansite. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus discussion
Now that we've had our Third Opinion, I was going to ask NotAnotherAliGFan if he accepted that the material be removed, or if he still insisted on keeping it, in which case I was going to suggest to him that we have a consensus discussion. But I see now that he has been blocked for violating the 3RR rule, apparently because Alastairward reverted the article, and NotAnotherAliGFan continued to revert it back. This is unfortunate, but since the block will eventually expire, I think we should discuss things here, in case NotAnotherAliGFan still insists on that material.

First of all--and I say this to both NotAnotherAliGFan and Alastairward--it is not permissable to continue editing a conflicted portion of an article when a discussion is ongoing and unresolved. It is for this reason that I did not continue reverting the passage, once it became clear to me, with AliGFan's February 12, 08:21 edit, that he was not persuaded by my arguments. Continuing to edit under such circumstances constitutes edit warring, and this is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Alastair, I don't know if you were unaware that there was an ongoing discussion, or if you thought that a Third Opinion necessarily constitutes a resolution to it, but in any event, there is such a discussion, so to both of you, please do not engage in such warring. We can discuss the matter here. If and when we reach an agreement or consensus, we can then improve the article.

Second, to AliGFan, you made a number of statements arguing your position in your Edit Summaries and on my Talk Page, and I responded to them on your Talk Page and here by explaining why they did not justify the inclusion of that line. What you should do is respond by explaining why my counterarguments are not cogent, or do not lead to the conclusion that I am promoting, etc. Not by simply repeating the arguments over and over. I will respond to some of your other comments here:

"The rape comment is in the episode..." The fact that it is "in the episode" is not a valid basis for inclusion. Lots of things are "in the episode", and you did not see fit to include them, did you? The amount of time Stan spent observing the bands, the amount of money he saw them make, the costumes they wore, the flute player who got shot and killed at the Florida prison camp, the fact that the Head of DHS killed his subordinate, etc., are all in the episode. We don't mention those, do we? If you argue that the presence of some info in an episode, in and of itself, is grounds for mentioning it in the Synopses of episode articles, then it would not only violate the purpose of a synopsis, but it would cause the length of those sections, and the articles, to spiral out of control.

"...it's unusual..." How? It's a throwaway line that establishes continuity with another episode, which is found in lots of episodes. "Pre-School" makes a references to the Barbara Streisand mecha monster in "Mecha-Streisand", but this is not mentioned in the synopsis in that article. The closing lines of "Cartman Joins NAMBLA" references all the time Kenny has died, and while the synopsis, includes those closing lines, it does not explicitly cite what that reference means. That this is unusual is entirely your POV.

"...and as such, needs clarification."...This clears the confusion as for the boys mentioning the rape (being the very cause for them being reluctant)" No, it does not need clarification. The scene depicts the boys being coerced to go to Peru in exchange for their freedom, and they reluctantly agree. Details beyond that do not affect a reader's ability to understand what the scene or the episode is about. The only one asserting any "confusion" is you. If a reader who hasn't seen the episode reads this article, and reads that "the DHS only agrees to release the boys if they agree to go on a mission to overthrow the country of Peru, in order to stop the pandemic of Peruvian flute bands at its source.", do you really think it's going to be difficult to understand why a group of nine-year-olds would be reluctant to be sent, without their parents, to a foreign country where they don't speak the language, and are expected to overthrow that entire country??? The plot is clear to anyone who reads it. Even if someone watching the episode were confused by that line, what makes you think that somehow it's Wikipedia's job to explain to them? It isn't. Wikipedia's job to summarize the most salient information in the episode, and the Synopsis' job is summarize the most salient points of the plot. That's what a synopsis does. It does not make notes or point out the meaning of bits of continuity Trivia, as this violates WP:Fancruft and WP:Trivia. Anything that, if taken out, does not make the passage confusing to the reader is not necessary to include. A regular South Park fan will understand the reference, and a casual viewer confused by it can simply go to SouthParkStudios for clarification.

"It's properly cited so leave it alone...There we go again... you've been warned as for tampering with CITED references!...Leave cited references alone, thank you." I don't know where or when Alastair was "warned" about this, but the fact that a passage is referenced does not prohibit one from removing them if circumstances warrant it. Being supported by cites is one thing, but not the only thing. Material must also be relevant for inclusion, and satisfy other aspects of the Manual of Style. In any event, if you disagree with an another editor's edit, you should discuss with them, as I've attempted to do so with you, and/or use other polite methods of resolution. Please do not presume authority to order other editors not to revert you, because you don't have that authority.

Now if the reasoning I've presented here does not satisfy you, please explain how it's wrong or fallacious or whatever. Or, let me know if you want to have a consensus discussion. Or both. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nightscream, I didn't realise you had requested a third opinion, I had only looked at the edit history for the article itself, which is why I reverted and then reported the 3RR.
 * With regards the rest of the above, from an outside point of view, South Park isn't really a show where you need to know the plot from one episode to the next to understand what's going on (save the two parters), the characters are what count.
 * Taking the Wikipedia point of view, I believe you have to draw the line somewhere and WP:Trivia does that for me. There's a wealth of minutae that is well suited to fan sites and wikis that just isn't suitable on account of notability and verifiability. A lot of the South Park articles were quite bloated at first. Alastairward (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I figured you didn't know about it, so no sweat. We appear to be in agreement about the inclusion of that passage, but let's wait until NotAnotherAliGFan's block is lifted to see how he'd like to proceed. Nightscream (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Grand, although I'll be away for a few days from tomorrow evening. Hopefully it'll be sorted when I return. Alastairward (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I got a message that NightScream wanted my opinion so here I am. I've skimmed through the comments and I think that because it references a previous episode it should be noted, but not in great detail. Jay794 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree- using this source in this context is WP:SYN - the source makes no connection between the boys statements/fears in Pandemic to the previous episode. Having to extrapolate from the source material to get to the content included in this article is not allowed. -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the side of not putting it in. Here's why: It is not a "cultural reference". It does not refer to something that has happened in real life or in the news. I agree with Alastairward that it is simply a "reitteration of the plot". It is uneccesary and simply redundent to state that as a "reference" to a previous episode. Neither should it be mentioned in the High School Musical episode article. It is not important and has no real connection to the main point. It is simply a small detail that need not be mentioned. --J miester25 (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to state that people need to think about what really belongs in an article and what doesn't. Remember that this show is a satire, meaning it makes fun of things that happen in real life. This also insists that cultural references that are brought forward on Wikipedia should ONLY be about what the show is making fun of, or what is being parodied from another show. A reference on Wikipedia should NOT be what previously happened in an episode if it has no connection to the main point simply because Wikipedia is not meant to be a story book, it meant to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA. ONLY if the episode is a CONTINUATION of the previous episode, a BRIEF synopsis that leads up to the second or third part should be included in the introductory section of the article. Yes it would REFERENCE a previous episode, but in that case, it should not be in the Cultural references because it does not belong there. In this case, it does not belong anywhere in the article because this is not a continuation of The China Probrem. It is a completely different plot and main idea. --J miester25 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was requested by Nightscream to comment here. (Not sure why, I don't remember interacting with him before.) After reading the article, and the above comments, I don't see that the continuity reference adds anything to the article. Just because something can be included doesn't mean it should.--Aervanath (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

When watching the episode, I didn't even make the connection to the China Probrem episode. I don't know if it's our place to say what would cause a character to behave a certain way in a work of fiction. Vechs (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just have to say this is a massive wall of text for such a minor thing. Vechs (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but NotAnotherAliGFan insisted, so I thought it best to have a discussion instead of edit warring. It looks like we have a consensus against putting the material in there, so I think that's that. Nightscream (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was also asked by Nightscream to drop in here. I've got to say that the way AliGFan is attempting to include the reference is rather unclear... honestly if it's to be included it should say something along the lines of "The boys are reluctant to participate at first, remembering the events in "The China Probrem"..." Whether this reference to a previous episode should be mentioned is debatable. I see it as a good faith attempt by AliGFan to include a piece of information that would otherwise be relegated to a trivia section in an appropriate fashion. Furthermore, as evidenced by the source provided, it's clear the joke isn't well understood and that the minor connection between the two episodes isn't well known.
 * That said, as I recall it's a pretty minor joke/reference. It's not connected to the themes in the episode, nor does it really say anything about "The China Problem" other than make fun of Indy 4. Honestly, we might invoke WP:NOT here as it does seem like indiscriminate info. As a sidenote, South Park Wikia does cover the reference, and it might be a good idea to include a link to it in the external links section. The other solution would be to change "cultural references" to simply "trivia" and include it there; honestly it's just another name for the same thing. (of course noting that trivia sections are discouraged) &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode was hard to understand
Someone please find a good sourced explanation of the episode and then post it. I coulnd;nt make head or tail of the show and want wiki to explain it to me. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The episode is self-explanatory, and the article summarizes it just fine. Which aspect of it do you not understand? Nightscream (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, man. I didn't get why they had gerbils running around.  And it didn't seem funny or have a political point like most SP.  I sorta got the impression they had a tongue in cheek, but could not figure it out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.129.8.47 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The appearance of the gerbils, much of the plots of SP eps is arbitrary, and intentionally so, though the explanation of the gerbils' origins is given in Part 2. As for it not seeming funny, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be funny. They're merely supposed to summarize the topic for people researching. Whether an episode is funny is the domain of the show, not Wikipedia, and is a question of each viewer's personal taste. Nightscream (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)