Jump to content

Talk:Trapped in the Closet (South Park)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Goofs?

This article is much different than the articles for the other episodes. For one, there's no Goofs section. For one, the president of Scientology says he's been waiting forty-two years for "this" (refering to finding Hubbard's reincarnation, Stan). However, Hubbard had only been dead for twenty years. Shouldn't goofs be in this article like the others? Mac OS X 09:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It never says that it is technically a documentary of Scientology, but rather a spoof, parody or satire, though it does represent certain bits accurately. Because it is a parody, I think the writers just took certain liberties. But if you can find a secondary source that discusses these "goofs", by all means. Cirt 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

User:Scorpion0422 recent edits

"Closetgate"

John Smith Credits

During The End Credits of the episode it seemes as if all the names are John Smit. Watch the episode youll see what im talking aboutMIMS SUX007 08:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? I think it's already mentioned in the article. -- Scorpion0422 13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
John and Jane Smith that isMallerd 19:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight error in OT III rendition

This passage, "When the 13.5 trillion spirits were being blown around on the nuclear winds, the electronic traps worked like a charm and captured all the souls in the electronic, sticky fly-paper like traps." is incorrect and according to the material written by Hubbard is, "An electronic ribbon came UP from the implant station, capturing the spirits, and drawing them down, to the implant station..." I would need to find a RS for this however. --Fahrenheit451 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is about the episode though, which doesn't neccassarly reflect the exact beliefs of scientoligists.--Swellman 22:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. If we ever were to find a significant amount of secondary sources comparing and contrasting the "official" Xenu doctrine and the doctrine as described in the episode, we could add that to the article. Until then, we'll just have to wait for the secondary sources. Cirt 22:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Some interesting potential dates for Wikipedia:Today's featured article

  • November 16, 2007 - This would be a neat date, because it would be 2 years to the date since the episode aired. (2005)
  • March 15, 2008 - 2 years to the date since the controversial day that the episode was scheduled to be rebroadcast, but did not. (2006)
  • March 17, 2008 - 2 years to the date since Matt Stone and Trey Parker commented in Daily Variety, calling themselves: "servants of the dark lord Xenu." (2006)
  • July 19, 2008 - 2 years to the date since Trapped in the Closet was finally actually rebroadcast on Comedy Central. (2006)

Anyone have other ideas, good dates for this to be "Today's featured article" ? If so, as the time gets closer, we'll have to look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and Wikipedia:Today's featured article and think about providing input there. Cirt 10:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

All of those dates sound good. I think the two-year anniversary of the episode would be best though, so I'd go with that one to propose.--Swellman 12:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
More interesting info here: User:Marskell/TFA considerations. Cirt 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
More good info. Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. Cirt 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

User:FMAFan1990 edits

Lead

The WP:LEAD as it stands is an accurate summary of the rest of the article. But I did move a sentence per an edit summary note of 66.57.44.247 (talk · contribs), so the second paragraph proceeds in more of a chronological order of events. Cirt (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Coming out of the closet

Great read! Just one question. I didn't read anything about the ambiguity of "coming out of the closet". Shouldn't it at least be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldrick90 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot detail

The plot was already cut down a bit in order to become a Featured Article. Let's not add to it any more. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

  • Subtopic w/in this thread, Intro/Lead detail: Don't really think we need this much detail from prev edit in this lede. It's explained in quite detail in the plot section already and elsewhere in the article. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it still being broadcast anywhere?

Article needs (badly) to state, in the first couple paragraphs as well as under "Controversy", whether the episode is still being broadcast, either on Comedy Central or any of the syndication outlets. Or is it being suppressed? Tempshill (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

TFA template

Trey Parker

"Trapped in the Closet", the twelfth episode of the ninth season of the Comedy Central series South Park, originally aired on November 16, 2005. The plot of the episode centers on the South Park character Stan Marsh, as he joins Scientology in an attempt to find something "fun and free". After the discovery of his surprisingly high "thetan levels", he is recognized as the reincarnation of the founder of the church, L. Ron Hubbard. Tom Cruise, who is featured in the episode, reportedly threatened "to back out of his Mission: Impossible III promotional duties if Viacom didn’t pull a repeat of the episode." Though the episode was originally scheduled for rebroadcast on March 15, 2006, the episode "Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls" was shown instead. Comedy Central representatives stated this change was made as a tribute to Isaac Hayes, however South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone thought otherwise. Stone and Parker issued a satirical statement saying they were "servants of the dark lord Xenu". Isaac Hayes, the voice of Chef, quit the show shortly before the start of the tenth season. The reason for his departure, as reported by Matt Stone, was due to his faith in Scientology and this episode, which he claimed to feel was very offensive. "Trapped in the Closet" was nominated for an Emmy Award in the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program (For Programming less than One Hour) category in July 2006, but lost to The Simpsons episode "The Seemingly Never-Ending Story." The episode was featured among Comedy Central's list of "10 South Parks That Changed The World", spoofed by Conan O'Brien in the opening segment of the 58th Primetime Emmy Awards, and mentioned in the Scientology critique film, The Bridge. (more...)
  • Thanks for saving this here! This may yet come in handy. Cirt (talk).

Removed "This is what Scientologists actually believe"

They just re-aired this episode on March 7, 2008, and I noticed that in the Xenu section, the original overlaid text "This is what Scientologists actually believe" was no longer shown. Is that a long time change, or just recent? --24.0.204.37 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I really have no idea about this change, but without a citation to a secondary source that satisfies WP:RS and WP:V, this is just original research. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode referred to in UK press

Nick Cohen's column in today's Observer mentions that this episode has never been broadcast in Britain, during a part of his article in which he complains about the UK's very fierce (by US standards) libel laws. The column can be read freely here. 86.132.140.45 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look and incorporate that. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. (Yes, I know it's an FA, this is just to make sure all is still appropriate for GA sweeping). Regards, MASEM 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaping hole

Okay, maybe not that gaping but how is it there is no reference to Trapped in the Closet in this article, given the extensive parodying of this work of genius in the episode? 86.141.4.199 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I will see if I can find analysis/comparison of this in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'm astonished there's not even a fleeting reference to the origin of the episode's title, let alone the parody of the song cycle. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 01:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I understand and I will try to find some WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that mention that, and add it to the article. Cirt (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Page move

After today is done with, I suggest that the page is moved to Trapped in the Closet (South Park episode) in order to conform with the naming conventions of other SP episodes (e.g. Volcano and Death). All the best, Steve T • C 13:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, those two are improperly named. The conventions are that it just go by whatever series the episode is from. -- Scorpion0422 16:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough! Excellent article, btw. All the best, Steve T • C 17:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


congrat.s and a question.....

congrat.s for being on the main page, folks - and rather than edit on a day like today, I thought I'd drop a question in here.... The lead says "The title is a reference to the R. Kelly song of the same name." but doesn't it also mean something else? - Privatemusings (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Closet" has connotations of latent homosexuality, see Closeted. As for how it relates to this article, I don't know enough about R. Kelly's work to comment. Raul654 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
well not to disparage hip hopera (and I'm sure you're a secret connoisseur!) I suppose it's possible that the title of the episode might relate to the former as well as R Kelly's Magnum Opus? I'll try a slight reword later, and see what folk think.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotations

This article uses far too many quotations and they need to be trimmed down. Just about every single paragraph outside of the plot section has at least one quotation. I have already attempted to do this, but I have been reverted several times. -- Scorpion0422 23:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please don't remove the quotation from Trey Parker in the Production section about going forward with doing the episode, and the quote from Stone and Parker in Daily Variety. Those are integral pieces of the article, and the sequence of events. Cirt (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The article before yesterday was fine, but pretty much the entire production & controversy sections have been rewritten to include many quotes. -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, as long as these 2 quotes I alluded to above stay in, I'm fine with it. I suppose I'll have to go through it later on at some point. Cirt (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats to the main editors of this article making to a featured page. The series is excellent, the episode also excellent, and the article even better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk • contribs)

It's no coincidence that this FA coincides with the worldwide antiscientology protests taking place tomorrow March 15 (also L Ron's birthday). Anonymous is legion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.145.25 (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
A very timely selection indeed. Great article! Sidar (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection?

Since this is linked to from the front page as a featured article and in anticipation of Scientology backlash (due to their current affairs with Anonymous), wouldn't this be eligible for some type of protection? DiamondDragon talk 00:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:TFA stuff is rarely protected while on the Main Page, to encourage the "anyone can edit" principle. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the article is protected against being moved by anyone but sysops, but otherwise Cirt is right. Today's Featured Article is almost never protected or even semi-protected against editing. But we do need extra eyes watching out for and reverting vandalism. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Curious that most of the the second para, with the business about Tom Cruise, is not on the main page. So the excerpt on the main page reads poorly for flow and jumps right into Isaac Hayes with no transition. As it stands, the portion opening the main page reads rather poorly because it's taken out of context. Was there a reason not to include the Cruise business on the main page? When something is a featured article, but reads poorly on the main page, that does not speak well for Wikipedia. 71.175.28.121 (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Shut up. Noone really cares. The first paragraph is on the front page. If someone wants to read the rest, they can click on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Why does Noone care so much? 24.3.209.59 (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the timing of this page's promotion to TFA rather humorous. Purely coincidental, I'm sure, but humorous nonetheless -- RoninBK T C 03:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

March 15, 2006 was the date the episode was scheduled for rebroadcast, but was pulled by Comedy Central after reports of complaints made to Viacom, which set off the controversy known as "Closetgate". So it's been 2 years to the day since the start of that controversy. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd normaly criticism this choice for a featured article... but today is the anonymous protesting day against scientology. It's great to see Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica converging on something :) Daniel de França (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it unusual that given the worldwide protests that are set to take place today and Wikipedia's stance of neutrality, especially on controversial issues, this - dealing with Scientology and parodying and criticising it - is the featured article for this one particular day.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The article was originally suggested at WP:TFA/R back in November 2007, but another WP:FA took precedence, as it was about something for a 100-year anniversary. This was the next potential date, 2 years to the date since March 15, 2006, the beginning of the controversy surrounding Closetgate. Cirt (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI - Potential dates listed on the article's talk page, back in October 2007. Cirt (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Cirt is right, this is one of the dates we originally had in mind. It is just a huge coincidence. -- Scorpion0422 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It just works out much more interestingly this way. Had it aired on the November date, it would not have coincided with Hubbard's birthday, Coincidence on top of coincidence... -- RoninBK T C 14:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The November date was proposed by Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs), but was not chosen because a 100-year anniversary for a different article was selected instead. This was the next available date. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article on 3/15

Thankyou, wikipedia. Good game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tar7arus (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Church of Scientology to sue Wikipedia in 3 ... 2 ... 1! 130.49.212.156 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If CoS was gonna sue, it would hit Wikinews first, n:Scientology protest group celebrates founder's birthday worldwide and others -- RoninBK T C 14:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Article views

The article received 80,500 views the day it was on the main page, and 24,500 the next. This wilkl likely put the article on the Top 10,000 list for March. -- Scorpion0422 18:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this here, it's really interesting. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources to use

  • Weatherford, Mike (April 11, 2008). "Interviews: Back in the Spotlight - Isaac Hayes taking Las Vegas stage with 10-piece band". Review-Journal. Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Hubert, Andrea (June 14, 2008). "The incredible sulk:Following Ed Norton's fallout with the makers of The Hulk Andrea Hubert reveals Hollywood's stroppiest stars". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2008-06-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Will get on these soon. Cirt (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia

Many thanks to PopularOutcast (talk · contribs) for your work on this. Cirt (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. :o) PopularOutcast (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ref 7

is dead... 89.0.35.5 (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed the dead link, kept the info in the cite itself. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image of the credits screenshot

Regarding [1], the article already has enough fair use images and this screenshot of the end credits does not add any value to the article - the text description of this occurring is sufficient. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Paramount UK

They are still not showing this episode, supposedly for "legal reasons". Anyone in the UK can observe this when they show the season 9 episodes in order but skip this out; it's also complained about regularly on their message boards. Any way this can be included in the main article, i.e. anything that can be cited? --Leperous (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In order for it to be in the article it should be backed up to a secondary source that satisfies WP:RS/WP:V. Merely stating an observation that it is not shown on television at certain times is a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevant free-use images

Regarding [2] - both are free-use images, and they are both free-use from Wikimedia Commons. One was even selected for WP:TFA. They should remain in the article. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Legacy vs. "Influence"

Regarding [3] - the change of subsection title from Legacy to "Influence" is inappropriate. The subsection is meant to note instances where other programs have later referenced the episode specifically - but simply being referenced in other programs does not mean this episode "influenced" those programs. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the episode is controversial due to its impersonation of Scientology. But I'd configure it a bit to see what happens. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 06:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It does have some influence on them. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 06:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources discussing that? Cirt (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean that. I just mean that it is unnecessary, not inappropriate, to rename the "Legacy" section to "Influence". -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay no worries. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Good. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Credits listed as John Smith and Jane Smith

In the episode, all credits are listed as "John Smith" and "Jane Smith". So, technically, according to the credits, it was written and directed by John Smith and the info should, really, say that.

Also pseudonyms are listed on wikipedia. Check out the entry for any movie directed by Alan Smithee.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.154.49 (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is mentioned already in the body of the article. Cirt (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing last paragraph of "Isaac Hayes's Departure"

Hey editors of this page - the last paragraph of the "Isaac Hayes's Departure" section was very confusing and convoluted for me to read through, not knowing about his stroke to begin with. It was not clear from the wording whether the stroke was suffered in January 2006 (before the episode was aired) or January 2007 (after he left the show), and following that if the stroke forced him to leave South Park or Scientology. I had to re-read the paragraph a couple of times (before checking the sources) and this seems to be a valid ambiguity in the article. 68.255.24.149 (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The dates mentioned in the sentences in the last paragraph are merely attributing when those news reports came out. Cirt (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Closetgate

Regarding the stated reasons Comedy Central initially chose not to re-air the episode, a comment in the article Comedy Central Cooks Up a Cover in Television Week, 3/20/2006, Vol. 25, Issue 12, page 2 by James Hibberd, it says "But in a bit of PR eloquence that spins so fast its practically a blur, Comedy Central described the decision ... as an impromptu tribute to Mr. Hayes' character." Personally, I find the "spins so fast its practically a blur" to be a quotation which deserves inclusion somehow. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can cite it (as you seem to have above) by all means include it. Alastairward (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The question is how to alter the existing text to accomodate it and not perhaps call into question the article's FA status somehow. I'm still a bit leery about tinkering with FAs, I'm afraid. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I will try to access a copy of the source and take a look. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"I'll sue you in England"

Tom shouts this to Stan at the end of the episode. I was wondering if anyone knows what this is a reference to (I'm sure it has some significance). I have looked but I can't find a definitive answer. If anyone knows, I'm sure it would be relevant to the article. Monkeymox (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It was probably just for comical affect. I doubt it had any real significance.--Swellman (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
just fyi - england (sadly) has a bit of a rep. for 'libel tourism', this may relate to that. Privatemusings (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Without secondary sources backing up any ideas, best not to assume. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Closetgate

This section is horribly cluttered with images and a quote box. At least one of those three things really needs to go. If you take out the quote box, then just find a way to paraphrase the quote into the section (no reason the text should be removed). I cannot find any specific commentary on the Variety advertisement next to the image's location. So, unless critical commentary can be provided, then the fair use criteria won't allow the image to be used anyway, and thus you'll have one of the things removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed quote box. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Still need to do something about the ad image. Find a source talking about it. WP:FUC doesn't all non-free images without some form of critical commentary. That extends to promotional material.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It is discussed already in the article text. See Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park)#Aftermath. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Then one needs to decide if that image is better than the Parker and Stone image. It must be beside the text it is illustrating, otherwise you would have a hard time arguing that it helps to "increase the understanding" if someone does not even see it when they are reading about it. Some other things I noticed as I was cleaning up the sources, this statement "which started airing at September 24, 2006 in anticipation for the premiere of the second half of South Park's tenth season," is sourced with "news.awn.com", but no url is actually listed. You cannot claim a webpage as a source and not provide the url. Also, there are some issues with punctuations within the quotations. Per WP:PUNC, the basic rule of thumb can be boiled down to this: If you quote a full statement, then put the punctuation inside the quote marks (e.g. John said, "How can this be happening?"). If you are quoting a portion of a statement, then put the punctuation outside the quote marks (e.g., John made the comment to me that it was not his "brightest move".).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
At first you said "At least one of those three things really needs to go." I removed the quote box. Then you said "Find a source talking about it." I noted to you that this is already discussed in the article text. Now you seem to be changing your opinion on what needs to be done with every new comment you make. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
My final words in my first post were: "I cannot find any specific commentary on the Variety advertisement next to the image's location. So, unless critical commentary can be provided, then the fair use criteria won't allow the image to be used anyway, and thus you'll have one of the things removed." -- I clearly indicated that was I was going through I also found that there was not text next to the advertisement, and if that could not be found then THAT would be the one object that would need to go. I was assuming that someone would either recognize that is the thing to pull out, or pull out something else and find the appropriate text to place next to that image. Maybe that was me over assuming, but I did not change my opinion on anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I moved the image placement. The images are now next to the relevant text. I added a url to the ref you mentioned above. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Merging the sections is fine, but you cannot have two images on opposite sides of prose like that. It's bad style formatting. You seem really determined to keep both images, so I would suggest taking the information about the Variety ad, moving that up next to the other Variety information (so you can talk about Variety is one nice breath). Ditch the Parker image. Yeah, it's free, but the section is cluttered with images, and you have a free one of Hayes just above it. Then make the ad image "left", and default the Stone image back to the right (in other words, collate all of the images: Hayes (right), Variety ad (left), Stone image (right).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I like the style formatting at present the way it is - the material is presented in a chronological format. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Then you have to ditch an image, because you are smooshing the text, and that is not acceptable formatting. See Wikipedia:Layout#Images: "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in". Geeze, man. I'm sitting here trying to work with you, but you seem like you just don't want any assistance. Whatever then. (P.S. The article still has an issue with WP:PUNC). Last I'll say on the matter. Good night.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry you are getting frustrated. If you look back at my responses and actions, you will actually see that I have implemented many of your suggestions shortly after you suggested them, and then noted it here on the talk page:
  1. You suggested This section is horribly cluttered with images and a quote box. At least one of those three things really needs to go. - I removed the quote box.
  2. You said that was not enough and that the images must be discussed in the article's text. I noted to you that the images are discussed in the article text.
  3. You said that the images must be displayed next to the text discussing them. I moved the images so that they are next to the text.
  4. You noted that a ref was missing a url. I added it and fixed the ref.
  5. You mentioned issues with punctuation in a comment above. I am working on improving punctuation in the article.
I am responding to your points as you raise them. If I do not agree with one hundred percent of everything you say, that is not ownership, that is discussion. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Date linking and date formatting

Regarding [4] - I thought we were supposed to hold off on this sort of disputed practice, until after WP:ARBDATE was finished? Cirt (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cites

Regarding [5] - Please do not remove cites from ends of sentences. It is preferable so that there is no degradation from edit creep. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Especially after a direct quote, or name of a specific chapter, first instance of the book's name, etc. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

The Legacy subsection is noteworthy within the context of the history and impact of the subject. It is not trivia. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you did there

It appears that Wikipedia doesn't want the truth exposed on how South Park repeatedly steals jokes from Anonymous, as this episode is just them profiting on Project Chanology. Ima go find citation so it won't be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.100.91 (talk • contribs)

Um, you realize this episode first aired in 2005 ? Cirt (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rundown Truth: Scientology Changes Strategy in War with Media

Hugh B. Urban is a professor of religious studies at Ohio State University. This article is a good source of info on multiple topics. -- Cirt (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Credits being edited off

I apologise for making an unauthorised edit to the main page for this episode on the subject I'm about to discuss. (Good to see the moderators are vigilant and active here.) I was watching TV during a visit to the Netherlands a few days ago, and this episode happened to come on (subtitled in Dutch). I was a little surprised to note that the broadcasting station edited off the title sequence but even more upset when they cut the whole punchline of the episode, the end credits (in my opinion possibly the best sight gag Trey and Matt have ever done). As I continued watching, it became apparent that it is the policy of this station to air every show without titles or credits, presumably so they can fit in more ads (I've never seen more commercials in a break than what they crammed in - at least 12x30-second commercials). My comment in the 'plot' section of the page (please put it down to jetlag) was that there appear to be stations such as this one ruining the joke by cutting off the credits. I don't know if a reference to this unfortunate decision on the part of TV stations can be incorporated into the article anywhere but it's possibly worth noting, particularly as presentation of credits is something TV stations are very lax about these days, yet the whole payoff of this particular episode relies on the credits being seen by the viewer. --Pete3194 (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Have any secondary sources reported this? -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean has it been reported in the news? I doubt it, why would a reporter expect the public at large to care about falling standards in TV presentation when they're all still mindlessly watch the crap that's dished up and think such things as titles and credits in a show are minor? It's only the fans that would notice or care about something like this, and aren't they the ones reading the article? --Pete3194 (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not a fansite. -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed adjustment to final paragraph of plot synopsis

I would like to propose that the final paragraph of the plot synopsis reads as follows:

Outside the house, the president introduces Stan to his followers, to whom he will read his new doctrine. However, he only gets as far as the first new edict before stating he is not the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard, and that: "Scientology is just a big fat global scam." His followers are angered, and threaten to sue him. Tom Cruise, having now apparently left Stan's closet, exits the house threatening to sue Stan as well. Stan dares them to do so. Multiple threats and counter-threats are made between Stan and the Scientologists, such as "I'll sue your ass!" and "You are so sued!". The story ends here, however the credits replace all the usual crew and voice cast names with "John Smith" and "Jane Smith", a reference to Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology's reputations for litigiousness.

Aside from some minor adjustments (Stan reading one edict to the throng, Tom Cruise exiting the house) the main thing I wanted to achieve was highlighting the credits-joke in a new sentence and hopefully making it more amusing within the actual article. --Pete3194 (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems like way too much detail. -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, how about this:
Outside the house, the president introduces Stan to his followers, to whom Stan will read his new doctrine. However, Stan admits he is not the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard, adding: "Scientology is just a big fat global scam." His followers are angered, and threaten to sue. Tom Cruise, having now apparently left Stan's closet, also threatens to sue. Stan dares them to do so. The episode ends with the Scientologists making multiple threats to sue Stan. In the credits all names are replaced with "John Smith" or "Jane Smith", a reference to Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology's reputations for litigiousness.
This is only one word longer than the existing par. It removes the incorrect statement "instead of presenting it to them" when in fact Stan does read out one part of his new doctrine before making his announcement about not being L. Ron Hubbard reincarnated. It also removes the statement "Tom Cruise leaves Stan's closet", something we in fact don't see, and which therefore is not part of the script or plot. It also reinforces the amount of litigious threat that occurs at the end of the episode, the phrase "multiple threats" I think better illustrates why the credits work as a gag. I'm happy for you to ignore this contribution, but I was annoyed by the last par's inclusion of things that were obviously not correct and also by what I interpreted as something of a dismissive tone towards one of the great end gags of all time. --Pete3194 (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be WP:NOR interpretation. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits to first sentence of lede

[6], [7] = edits are inappropriate, IP gave no explanation for them, so not sure why the reasoning is here. -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

-Dude it's self explanatory. Look at all the other South Park episode pages where it says what number the episode is. I've just been given warning against "disruptive editing" because I was fixing this and other South Park episode pages to be consistent with the way it lists each respective episode number. Most of the pages list the episode number accordingly, from 1 up through the 100s and higher, to this one, which should be listed as episode 137, as all previous episode pages are listed with that type of number system. Other pages list their respective episodes in different ways, such as this one, which lists the episode's number within its season (episode 12 of season 9) rather than the number of the episode within the entirety of the series. And other pages list the episodes in a scrambled number mixing the episode and the season number together into one, such as "episode 1010" to represent season 10, episode 10. It's inconsistent and asinine. How exactly am I "disruptively editing" by changing inconsistent pages in order for them to be consistent with all the rest of the pages by giving them the overall number from the series (137 in this episode's case)? There is absolutely no reason to threaten to ban me from editing pages for these edits, because they're entirely justified if you do a little research into the other pages regarding the series' episodes and see how inconsistent the pages are in their numbering system. I'd appreciate having my warning(s) removed, because I've done nothing wrong. Rather, I've been helping make the pages consistent, which in turn helps Wikipedia as a whole to be more credible in that consistency. Just look at the other episode pages for yourself to see what I'm talking about and you should find that I was doing the site a favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.80.68 (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Overall episode numbering in the entire sequence of episodes for the television series is unsourced, and also often disputed. Episode numbering within season, in addition to giving the season number, is not. -- Cirt (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
For god's sake, how do you source something that is patently true??? I mean with that logic you'd better do this for the assertion "water is wet [clarification needed]". If each season has a finite number of episodes, and you know how many series that there have been then do the math = 137. The first rule of Wikipedia is good faith, this IP knows more about SP than you, so remember WP:OWN as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.49.253 (talk • contribs)
The factual accuracy of the purported info is disputed. Therefore, best to cite WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
See also User talk:174.26.80.68. -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources and poorly sourced info

Regarding [8] - Let us please avoid primary sources and WP:NOR, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem using a primary source here - it simply complements the link to southparkstudios.com in the same sentence. And I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it original research. Perhaps I need to clarify the point - the sentence currently says that the episode is available on the SP Studios website, but when you try to access that site from the UK, you get automatically redirected to the UK and Ireland version of the site, where the episode is not available. 109.155.168.196 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It is not noteworthy - have any reliable, secondary sources, commented on this? -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I really don't understand. If it is worth mentioning that the episode exists on the US site, it ought to be worth mentioning that is does not exist on the UK site. And if a link to the US site is an acceptable source, why is a link to the UK site not? (Actually, if you're in the US, could you let me know what you see if you try and access the UK site, because I can't access the US site - well I can, but only with some Firefox plugin trickery.) 109.155.168.196 (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Just seems like too much conjecture, IMHO. -- Cirt (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
How is it conjecture to state a verifiable fact? 109.155.168.196 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You, the user wishing to add this, has to first click on one site, then get redirect to another site, then observe that the episode is not available at that site, then make the assumption that it is not available in that country, etc. ... A bit too many steps of conjecture, yes. Better to have the conclusions made from secondary sources, rather than individual Wikipedia users. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it would be better if a secondary source existed. And I see your point about it being difficult to verify, given that the websites redirect to each other (ugh). But the article at present is wrong, at least from a UK perspective. I'm not making any conjecture or stating an opinion, just trying to correct a point of fact that is really glaring from this side of the pond. Sources are very important, but being factually accurate is most important of all. 109.155.168.196 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done, modified it to be more specific and accurate. [9] -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Well that is an improvement, although I still think that will leave the UK reader confused when they click on the link (the shift from .com to .co.uk may easily pass people by). But it's half past tomorrow here now and I have to be up in the morning, so I will have to call this a draw :) 109.155.168.196 (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Numbering

Numbering in lede should say "12th", not "twelfth". Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo of director and writer of the episode

Regarding [10] - The photo of the director and writer of the episode, Trey Parker, is highly relevant and appropriate in this article. Please, do not remove it. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, he wrote and directed the episode. -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Cirt entirely, it is perfectly relevant and appropriate director and writer in the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Having a look at featured articles on cartoon episodes, the vast majority do not have a photo of the writer and/or director. When one is included, it is usually because it was their first episode or they personally won an award for the episode. What makes this episode special in relation to Trey? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
because he was personally involved in "closetgate" outside just writing and directing the episode. It bled over into real life.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"More Crap" theory

Currently, the Awards section includes the following (sourced) sentence:

Los Angeles Times writer Tom O'Neil theorized that the "Emmy Award Winning Series" plot device used in the October 2007 episode "More Crap" may have been a reference to the missed Emmy win for "Trapped in the Closet".
(reference: O'Neil, Tom (2007-10-11). "Did 'South Park' dump on the Emmys?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-10-20.)

While it is true that the article theorizes this, I would like to remove this, as it is bad theorizing. Quote from the article:

"Was last night's smear on Emmy old business? Considering how long it takes to create animated programming, the scene where Randy receives an Emmy statuette at the end must've been produced before its recent win. The "Emmy Award Winning Series" chyron could've been dropped in easily in recent weeks, yes, but the chyron also could've been done earlier as a reference to "South Park's" only other victory in the category, back in 2005."

The author clearly isn't aware of the unusually quick production turnaroud time of South Park episodes, and jumped to this conclusion on a wrong basis. Especially given the fact that on the DVD commentary for "More Crap", Matt and Trey mention that the joke was done soon after receiving the emmy for "Make Love, Not Warcraft". As such, can we remove this sentence? --Mondotta (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect credits

Hi,

This article credits Trey Parker for writing and directing the episode. But when viewing the episode (like on southparkstudios.com) all the names in the credits, including "written by" and "directed by" are credited to John Smith and Jane Smith. (presumably to parody lawsuits like mentioned in the episode itself, but that would be conjecture). So I move that the credits be adapted. Robin.lemstra 94.226.124.112 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Robin.lemstra (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The credits in the infobox cite the relevant Emmy nomination page of the episode, which includes an official list of key people behind the episode. This names Parker as writer and director. --Mondotta (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Maybe a good idea to add references to the two official videogames, as they repeatedly reference this incident (by literally still having the Cruise character in Stans closet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.239.142.100 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The last person who edited removed the featured article star, it says here that this is a featured article. Bring it back please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.37.6.199 (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sam Sailor 07:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

His son came forward and said issac hayes never sent in a resignation letter.the church of scientology did. Jpreezy1 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

His son came forward and said issac hayes never sent in a resignation letter.the church of scientology did. Jpreezy1 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Who wrote it?

Was it written by "John Smith" or Trey Parker? 63.155.117.235 (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

John Smith and Jane Smith were pen names to avoid being sued by Scientology. Crazyeditor23 (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park)/Archive_3&oldid=1186130108"