Talk:The Jeffersons (South Park)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A hint?[edit]

Stan replies "Dude, whatever. At least you finally get to do something". This of course hints at Kenny's lack of involvement in many recent episodes.

This sounds slightly subjective, he might well be referring to Kenny's usual "stand and do nothing" attitude. I think this line is not necessary. Bittersky 01:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That and the "of course" line is slightly biased by assuming the reader has been watching recent episodes of South Park. The line could mean several things and is subject to interpertation, as is such I suggest we leave it out until a reliable source proves its true meaning. 68.219.26.177 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What?![edit]

Quote:This is the first time since Super Best Friends that Kenny dies without his parka. Aw, come on, is this really needed?

Yes, it is.--74.193.153.222 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't and a "Nu-Uh" argument certainly won't prove me wrong, this information is hardly significant. The statement is uneccesary dramatization and sounds more like both an attempt to make this episode special and useless trivia than information worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'm deleting it now unless someone actually wasn't too intimidated by your "argument" and did it themselves. 68.219.26.177 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goofs[edit]

While Token and his family are rich, one must keep in mind the reason for this - Token's father is a lawyer and his mother a pharmaceutical chemist. Perhaps Token's family has escaped the policemen's ire because they are fearful of a lawsuit. Also, it's mentioned in "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000" that Token and family live far out of town - perhaps beyond the police's attention, or their jurisdiction. Why the police seemed to ignore Token's district of South Park is unknown, but most likely because that part of town is on the outskirts, rather than the town's central neighborhood where Mr. Jefferson was presumed to live. Alternately, by "rich", the police may have implied a top celebrity's income in the millions, much more than the roughly $200,000 a year that Token's family made (income referenced by Sheila Brovlofski in Episode #512, "Here Comes the Neighborhood"), and there are no families worth nearly as much as Michael Jackson's who live in South Park long term. Though celebrities like Will Smith, Snoop Dogg, and Oprah Winfrey had temporarily moved to South Park in Here Comes The Neighborhood, Sergeant Yates' department may not have been built back then, Yates may not have developed his grudge against African-American multi-millionaires yet, or may have left that wave of celebrities alone for other, unknown, reasons.

Kenny's voice[edit]

"Kenny is seen in this episode without his orange parka wearing a mask similar to Blanket's. It was the only time in the whole television series when his speech is heard clearly, other than his line in the South Park movie."


His voice is pretty clear in the new s11 episode Lice Capades aswell.. needs update? :)


Well I could barely hear Kenny in Lice Capades over all the other kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.67.166 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His voice is subject to interpertation, I don't know about you but I could hear his voice pretty clearly in the episode "Fourth Grade" when he commented on his new teachers breast size. I suggest we either delete the claim or write something similar to "It is the first time in the telivision series he speaks without the parka. 68.219.26.177 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kenny's Death in The Jeffersons.jpg[edit]

Image:Kenny's Death in The Jeffersons.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

The entire plot section could use a good re-writing, to make it shorter and just generally better in all aspects. Also, a firm and solid section on the similarities between Jefferson and Jackson. Lots42 (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readability[edit]

The following is a run-on sentence.

When the boys go to visit their new neighbor, they meet his son Blanket, who always wears a mask and do not believe he is really called Blanket, as well as refusing to hang out with him, until he tells them they have arcades inside.

Worse, there are three clauses which go back-and-forth, referring to different nouns.
Blanket: who always wears a mask
"the boys": do not believe he is really called Blanket as well as refusing to hang out with him
Blanket: until he tells them they have arcades inside.

I'd like to make this easier to read—-and grammatical—-but that would require more than a simple change. Preferably the entire sentence should be recast. Or split into multiple sentences, one with Blanket as the subject, the other with "the boys" (Stan, Kyle et al).drone5 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me this entire article needs to be rewritten for both grammatical and format reasons, plus the plot section needs to be summarized and somehow shortened in length. 68.219.26.177 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny's Death[edit]

Kenny's death is noted in the other episodes where he croaks. It's very noteworthy, it's practically what made South Park. Why remove it? Lots42 (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A running joke is still just a plot point. Mention it on the page for the series or character. Alastairward (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny has died dozens of times. To do thus would make his page unreadable. I don't understand at all the opposition to a brief mention of his death in the episode page. Kenny croaking -is- noteable. Lots42 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention is still to devote an entire section to one small plot point. How's about a moral? Or a check on whether Cartman came out on top or not in this episode? Or whether Kyle morally bested him? All running jokes, all appearing frequently, why not a section for all of them? Alastairward (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are not as noteable as a main character dying inexplicably in many of the issues. Many shows have morals or one-upmanship or whatever. Many shows don't have a cast member dying horribly nearly every episode. Although, that would improve some shows. Lots42 (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

The only refrences in the article provide information on only Michael Jackson, not the episode. 68.219.26.177 (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So noted, the main content is a mess.Alastairward (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

41971[edit]

is there any information on the significance of the jeffersons' house number, 41971? it is very conspicuously shown several times throughout the episode. --emerson7 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson[edit]

To the best of my knowledge, he is not referenced in this episode explicitly enough to allow for the speculation in the article prior to my edit. Alastairward (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did see a 'word of god' cite a few weeks ago but it got deleted. Lots42 (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the only reference "explicit" enough for you to accept would be one of the characters literally saying the name "Michael Jackson," right? Because I can't think of a single way the episode could have referenced him more explicitly otherwise. Can the character Blanket's name be taken as an explicit reference to Michael Jackson's son, whom he's well-known for calling Blanket? (I think your actions here are pretty ridiculous and there are a lot of ways you could be improving Wikipedia that would serve more purpose than removing this kind of obvious information, which will inevitably be added back over and over and over.) Propaniac (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this article specifically to see what the MJ references were and if I'd missed any. The lack of this information is a complete failure by Wikipedia, and all because of one editor? I'm not an editor, but it seems a debate of some kind whether the page should include the Jackson references or not would be useful, and then after consensus is reached the other side should be locked out of editing. I understand there's supposed to be no original research, but here's a question: can Wikipedia say "the sky is blue" without a reference? Can a fact that is completely obvious to anyone with half a brain be put up as fact, or would it have to have a reference with confirmation by some authority?
This article without any mention of Michael Jackson is a joke and a failure. And it seems that it's one person who's keeping it from having the correct information. The community needs to decide what to do here.128.151.71.18 (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was months ago, but I gotta say it: So, is it not enough that the character Blanket (named after Jackson's son, no less) says "This is my dad, Michael Jacks-" before getting cut off by said father "Jefferson". His alias is Martin Jefferson, so, I'd say the "Michael Jacks-" thing is pretty clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.219.139 (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB[edit]

Following this discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, I would like confirmation that the IMDB reference used previously here was indeed submitted after the verification process started at IMDB and that a source for their claim can be found. Alastairward (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word Of God Part 2[edit]

Word of god says they did a Jackson parody episode, they didn't say which one.


movies.ign.com/articles/612/612094p3.html Lots42 (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that the South Park website tags this episode under "Michael Jackson" count? http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104393128.151.71.18 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should, in my opinion. Lots42 (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson references[edit]

Please add any legitimate mainstream references that indicate this episode is in fact a reference to Michael Jackson. Feel free to use these references in rewriting the article.

The official amazon.com review for the 8th season says that Mr. Jefferson is a Jackson parody: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FSME2Y/ref=cm_rdp_product

Maxim magazine says Jefferson is "Jackson-like": http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/reviews.aspx?p_id=12156

The National Board of Review's John Gallagher says this episode is "a howlingly funny assault on Michael Jackson": http://www.nbrmp.org/features/TheDeparted.cfm128.151.71.18 (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references will have to be absolute, the Maxim review for example says "a Michael Jackson-like freak", doesn't sound like an actual reference to me. Amazon reviews don't seem to be notable either, even if they are "official". Alastairward (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting the Amazon.com review back in, per a discussion at Citing Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#What_is_a_legitimate_source.3F128.151.71.18 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really matter though. Unless the episode offers notability, it will ultimately be merged to a list of episodes. Alastairward (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense[edit]

I guess certain users don't possess common sense on this article.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I left a reply about this on your talk page.(Verifiability, remember?) Alastairward (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is also being civil and discussing content, not contributor. -- The Red Pen of Doom
Another thing Wikipedia recommends is a Wiki-break. Lots42 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another think wikipedia reccomends is "don't take verifiability too far" Sickboy3883 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it recommend that? Alastairward (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph[edit]

I've never seen other articles using a single review in the lead paragraph, any need for it? Alastairward (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the review that's important. You could state that some sources have pointed out that Jefferson = Jackson, and then cite all the reviews below. That it's a Michael Jackson satire is what needs to be in the lead. 94.192.44.89 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really what's in the lead though, it's just a review. I'll leave it a few days and then take it down again I guess... Alastairward (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reward...[edit]

...for any editor that can bring this article to Good Article status. See here. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia and sources[edit]

I removed the trivia regarding Kenny speaking without this hood up. This is trivia, putting it in the lead section doesn't change that. Also removed was a section that was allegedly cited to say that certain elements of a character mimicked a real life celebrity. The cite that was used didn't mention the episode at all, thus making it a little bit of synthesis on behalf of the editor who added it. Alastairward (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's significant because it's the ONLY television episode where Kenny speaks clearly. I put it in the lead as there's no where else to put it, due to certain editors removing everything except plot again.
The cite established that Michael Jackson's son has the nickname of Blanket, a fact I stated. Other citations establish that the character of Mr Jefferson is designed to resemble Michael Jackson.
I encourage once more (though it's probably futile) that certain editors exercise common sense when trying to improve articles. I know they must be annoyed that there are now 3 FA and 9 GA on South Park episodes they they managed to let slip through their neutering shears. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 22:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The cite established that Michael Jackson's son has the nickname of Blanket, a fact I stated.". The cite does not address the episode, that's the problem. What you have done is draw comparisons between two sources and drawn your own conclusions, that is synthesis.
The lead paragraph should contain the important facts about the content of the article, the content you added was trivial and as such, should be avoided in an article.
I'll remove the material again, it's improperly cited and/or trivial. At this stage, since your edits have been disputed so, you should really seek a third opinion or advice from an Admin. All you're doing is proving that you have no intention of discussing the article and merely wish to steamroller people with your opinions.
You might also want to check my contributions and see what I've added to improve some SP articles. Check out Night of the Living Homeless for example. Alastairward (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I drew no conclusions, was simply stating facts. What is the issue with pointing out parallels with the verified target of the pastiche?
I put it in the lead as there is not yet enough content for a separate "Production" or "Notable Milestones" or something section. 3rd opinion sought for both matters. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 09:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of Kenny's face would be trivia, not "Production" or "Notable Milestones" (which merely sounds like another way of saying trivia).
As I said, pointing out parallels is synthesis. The target may be verified, but you yourself put your own spin on things, taking information from two different sources and relating it yourself, that's the problem. Alastairward (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion[edit]

Hi, I am responding to a request for a third opinion over at WP:3O. To the best of my knowledge, I have not interacted with any of the editors before, and I have not contributed to this article.

Summary of disputes[edit]

OrangeDog added a sentence to the lede describing how this is the only episode where Kenny speaks. It was subsequently removed by Alastairward, who feels that it is trivial, and should not be in the lede, nor anywhere else in the article.

OrangeDog wrote that Blanket, a name used in the episode, is in fact the nickname of one of Michael Jackson's children, supported by a cite. Alastairward contested this addition on the grounds that the cite did not mention South Park, and any mention of this fact would constitute synthesis.

My thoughts[edit]

From an in-universe perspective, the fact that Kenny speaks is clearly significant. However, all our articles should have the real world as its frame of reference, and the question becomes: is this fact also significant in the real world? My answer is "yes, provided that it has been commented on by reliable sources in the real world". I have a hard time believing this has not been commented on by the creators and / or reviewers. When sourced commentary is provided, I do think it can (and should) be incorporated in the prose of a production or reception section. I think "Lisa's First Word" handles a similar issue very well.

In the article's current state, I see little harm in a short mention of it in the lede, since it is verifiable, and likely to be subject of critical commentary at some point in the article, but feel that the mention of "Lice Capades" is trivial, and the rest is already to be found in the plot summary (which makes up 70-90% of the article). From the MOS:

If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all

As for the Blanket issue, I think it is indeed (for lack of a better word) synthesis. Until a source comments on the fact that Blanket is the nickname of Jackson's kid, I think it'd be best to leave it out of the article. Obvious as it may seem, Wikipedia should not draw conclusions about the intent of the show's creators, in naming a character "Blanket". A statement mentioning this fact could be seen as an attempt to do just that.

Lastly I would encourage the editors to focus on the big issues, instead of quibbling. Of course, this is much easier said than done :). There's obviously much, much room for improvement of this article, and I think that both disputes, in the end, boil down to inadequate referencing.

I'll stop now, before I start rambling. decltype (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Jeffersons (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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Jeffersons_(South_Park)&oldid=1207277531"