Talk:ManBearPig

Promising

Sounds promising. Seems like it's going to be all about the boys. I wouldn't be surprised if Matt and Trey find a way to sneak in something political though. Orichalcon 06:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds vaguely like a Goonies parody to me. Difficult to see how it could turn political, though if anyone can turn it that way, Trey and Matt can. Bezo 04:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Matt and Trey thought the show has been too political lately and decided to make a more classic south park Nimrod1234 00:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was right. It was all about the boys, but they snuck in the most political thing possible - a politician! Orichalcon 07:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT TO RECLASSIFY This should be included in the WikiPedia section of cryptozoology as soon as possible. There is an incomplete Cryptids which needs updating with this most important find.

A noted biologist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.201.164 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Messages

I take it that this is about Gore's constant warnings of global warming. If not, then I don't know what. Megaplx 10:18, 26 April 2006

It is.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Serial or Cereal?

I noticed the article uses the spelling serial instead of cereal, which is what was used for the closed captioning on the episode. The closed captioning is usually derived directly from the actual script used for the show. Anybody else have thoughts on which spelling we should use? --Billdorr 05:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for "serial" since it's so close in spelling to "serious", and makes the mistake a lot more plausible. And closed captioning is wrong a lot more often than you'd think.Raymondluxuryacht 08:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have CC on during the show, but "serial" seems more logical, for the reasons given by Raymondluxuryyacht.

I interpreted it as "cereal" the whole time I was watching; seeing "serial" when I came here was a surprise to me. And I'd be inclined to agree with the CC's. I've seen plenty of CC errors too, but this doesn't strike me as such an error. Matt Gies 16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for "Serial", seems to make the most sense.

Neither "serial" nor "cereal" has any etymological link to "serious[ly]". Thus neither really makes any sense. That was probably the point. Matt Gies 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point Matt. That being said, I vote for "cereal" because it makes the least sense. CStyle 21:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought of "serial" the whole time I was watching. I was the one who changed it to "serial" in the article. It also makes some sense to me within the context of the plot. That being said, heh, I have no clue. Ask the writers? Grandmasterka 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We have to come up with a consensus for which to use in the article. Does anyone else have thoughts? -Mysekurity ^[m!] 12:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

One vote for Cereal --Vivek 13:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

One for "Serial", if only because the first three letters are the same as "Serious" Orichalcon 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We can keep making (educated) guesses forever. I say we stick to what CC says for now, until new solid information turns up. If I understood it correctly it was cereal on CC so I 'vote' cereal. --Bahati 15:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for serial. Seems to make more sense

Nimrod1234 22:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

When I heard it I thought it was "serio"

"I'm so seriel!" This statement is not about global warming or cereal. This goes back to Gore's interview on Opera while running for President. Opera asked what his favorite cereal and he said, "Opera" Which is not a cereal or seriel but a series. So Gore was confused and SouthPark is making serious "seriel" fun of him.

Wow! that may just be it! I would never have known that (possibly because I think Oprah is irritating, but then, so do Trey and Matt).

Actually, some people use the word "serial" to refer to a TV series, hence the confusion. They were likely spoofing this error in the episode, so either spelling could work. I would go with whatever the CC was. Rm999 07:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

SouthParkStudios is using Serial. Bdve 15:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is cereal, then does it have anything to do with Bigg Mixx cereal, sold in 1990-1991 and advertised during The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in the captions for the actual show it's spelt "cereal", kind of lame that the South Park Studios website is using Serial. Psilocybin 13:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For Christ Sake...IT'S SERIAL KK? COMPRENDAE!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.27.216 (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pasta de Conchos mine disaster

Did anyone find the rescue part of the episode similar to what happened about two months ago in mexico with the Pasta de Conchos mine disaster? el oso 06:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

more like Tom Sawyer, Id say Metao 08:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Title?

Article says ManBearPig, but it's Manbearpig on spstudios.--Bahati 01:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed it myself. http://www.google.com/search?q=manbearpig --Bahati 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing Gore holds up at about 3 minutes in is "ManBearPig" Cburnett 04:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So a "thing" is now the source for the episode title? Not the official site? --Bahati 16:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And it's still standing! God damn, you people are lazy, but I'm sure as hell not gonna revert it again! Not to mention you didn't bother to take care of all the references: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Manbearpig If you set out to foobar an article, at least do it right...--Bahati 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. And you'll excuse me that my interests on WP — quite unlike you — are much more diverse than South Park and I don't read every talk page as often as you do. I didn't fix all the links because I didn't want to do that much work to simply have it reverted without discussion (which is far too common on WP). Judging by your response, I'd guess that I hedged my bets correctly. Cburnett 21:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're excused. But don't let it happen again. --Bahati 09:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Eat me. Cburnett 02:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL --Bahati 07:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back to Manbearpig. The fact that Al Gore holds up a sign in the episode with one spelling has no bearing on the official spelling of the episode: they may refer to the same thing but be spelled differently. SPstudios is our only verifiable resource. Dylan 03:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So the episode is not authoritative about...itself? I suppose List of fictional brands in South Park is utter rubbish then?

Quite to the contrary, I consider the episode more authoritative than anything else, especially something directly observable within it. Al Gore named ManBearPig and that's how he spelled it. You don't get more authoritative than that. As far as I know, SP studios is updated by some computer guy (read: not Matt nor Trey) and can easily make a mistake. There was a whole ordeal over the proper spelling of Deus Ex Machina (Lost). The episode shows "ManBearPig" in a completely undeniable form — it's shown EXACTLY the way Matt & Trey intended it. There's no "what ifs" on spelling (never mind it's capitalization we're discussing). Cburnett 21:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's written on a bumper sticker. It can be a fictional artist's rendition. In any case it can only be a possible source for the creature's name. Sure, that's almost the same as the episode title, but not quite. And sure, the "guy" over at SPstudios can make a mistake, but it's the only official source we have and I say we follow it blindly short of them spelling it "Mnbeaarpg". Then we can discuss it and try to correct an obvious mistake. This is just too close to call and assume something else is correct. Have you tried writing to someone over at SPstudios?--Bahati 09:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No and I bet you haven't either.

You'd win that bet. Then again, I'm not the one having a problem with the official spelling. --Bahati 07:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Accepting a secondary source over a primary source as more authoritative is laughable and absurd. There's absolutely no ifs or whats about the spelling in the episode. NONE. ABSOLUTELY NONE. It's irrefutable. It's clear as can be. On the other hand, a website has so many factors to it that it's not worth enumerated or speculating about. Cburnett 02:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The show would be a primary source if the title was a part of opening credits, or any kind of standardized and consistent place. But it's in the middle. You know, where all the other fiction is? --Bahati 07:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, Wikipedia articles should generally be based on secondary and tertiary sources, not primary ones. Interpretation of primary sources is the job of a secondary source, but not of Wikipedia. More information is at WP:PRIMARY. Eebster the Great (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Casa Bonita

Regarding "This is the second episode based around a visit to a real-life Colorado location (the first being "Casa Bonita")." what about the episode, Butters' Very Own Episode where Butters is trying to get to Bennegins with his parents. The restauraunt chain is certainly a real life place, I drove past one today for the first time.

The point was to note that those two episodes were based around significant Colorado attractions. Casa Bonita has an almost legendary reputation in the Colorado area, but Bennigans is a non-significant nationwide restaurant chain. It's not notable that Butters and his parents were going to go there.Raymondluxuryacht 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget Shakey's! -Mysekurity ^[m!] 20:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom Sawyer

I posted the trivia element about Tom Sawyer while I was still watching it, but there are additional references: the boys escape the cavern and visit their own memorial service; Tom carries Becky in the cave when she is unconscious; the promo photograph showing kids next to the fake treasure shows Tom Sawyer-style hats on the tourists. Did nobody see these parallels but me? -- Rpresser 05:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a reach. No good

Nimrod1234 01:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally unbelievable

Not just that you guys have enough time to write an encylopedia entry about a recent South Park episode, but someone bothers to note how "water" is misspelled on Cartman's bottle? Un-be-freaking-lievable. Get some lives, won't you?

It's not nearly as unbelievable as the fact that someone actually would have enough time to COMPLAIN about the people writing an encylopedia entry about a recent South Park episode. Get a life, won't you?Slipzen 15:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That life thing sounds cool, but I'm not compiling it without a makefile. I'll wait until it's in the repository. --24.51.94.14 12:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

kenny's voice

Is it just me or Kenny's voice is a lot easier to understand in this episode??--Sonjaaa 17:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, as the series(in general) goes on, Kenny gets much eaiser to understand... who knows why?

My guess is that the writers are feeling more and more stifled by Kenny's inexpressivity. Matt Gies 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Election 2008

AOLNews reported yesterday that sources close to Al Gore say he is considering running again. Maybe this will replace "Ozone-Man" as the new Gore-ridicule term. People on the street can ask him if he's caught manbearpig yet.Chesty95 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Spoof

• pretty funny http://www.youtube.com/v/aIPcqlMTQHs 70.48.250.138 08:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

weak..

Deleted the link to dog shit art, as it didn't seem relevant.

Volcano and manbearpig

If anyone here seen the film "Volcano" (the story of the volcano in downtown LA), it'd be nice if someone a bit more eloquent could perhaps come over and lend a hand describing some of the similiarities between this episode and it. --Tony Eberly 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Video excerpt

Replaced the video excerpt with a YouTube link, as I think it would be better to not link to a site with porn links if possible. -68.114.154.249 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Political Neologism

Citiations have been requested showing that "Manbearpig" is being used as a political neologism. If a Google search is conducted do the message content on many conservative sites, such as Free Republic, it can be seen that "Manbearpig" is very frequently used as a substitute for "global warming" (note it is necessary to search the actual content, rather than doing title searches on the sites in order to find the vast majority if instances. I can not site an official publication that uses the term, but as any search will quickly prove, it is very commonly used. Sometimes "Manbearpig" is also used to describe Al Gore.

ExxonMobil YouTube video scandal

In light of the ExxonMobil YouTube video scandal, we have to ask ourselves-- was this episode possibly bought and paid for by the oil companies? //// Pacific PanDeist * 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To global warmers, everything that questions global warming is paid by oil companies. The more important question is, are all the global warming supporters paid by Al Gore and Greenpeace? 67.70.57.232 03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its pretty much been proved that everything that questions global warming is paid by oil companies... even Pat Robertson is now preaching against global warming... and your "important question" makes no sense at all-- I suppose the melting glaciers were really done by Greenpeace with hairdryers to fake effects of global warming? Anyway, say what you want while you still have electricity... but since your in Canada, maybe global warming will work out for you... //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

oh ya, i sure would like to see your purported rigorous proof of "everything that questions global warming is paid for by oil companies", oh yes. Oh ya, glacier melting must be because of global warming! oh ya, hurricane katrina must be caused by global warming! oh yes, people getting cancer must be because of global warming! oh ya, earthquake in Indonesia must've been caused by global warming, oh sure; poverty must be caused by global warming! 67.70.57.232 09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant argument of your!! Obviously, anyone who believes that the millions of tons of burning pollution we shoot into the air every year is bad must believe that global warming causes receding hairlines and failed Hollywood marriages, right? Do you live next to, say, an auto factory? A coal-burning energy plant? Would you want to? You got some of your facts mixed up there-- global warming doesn't cause cancer, but many kinds of pollution do cause cancer, and that is not even a controversy... weather volatility does not cause poverty, but what do you suppose happens when a heat wave (or a super-cold winter) destroys a farmer's crops or knocks out power to thousands of businesses - like what we had for weeks this summer!! Do you think this is what God intends for creation? Or should we tend to our garden? //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that EVERYTHING that questions global warming is paid for by some oil company. It may be people too afraid to believe it. 140.159.2.31 00:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

actually the cancer one is because of the ozone layer :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: British courts have recently ruled that belief in global warming is a religious faith, unsupported by science. Now that major climate scientists have been exposed falsifying data, refusing to release data under FOIA, and corrupting the peer review process (aka climategate), it would be sensible for warmists to reconsider their faith. And no, I've never received a dime from Exxon, Pacific PanDeist is obviously paranoid.....71.95.151.21 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What British courts? What major climate scientists? When? Provide links or your statements are worth exactly nil. Devil Master (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Al Gore's Penguin Army video scandal material

The following text, give or take minor changes, has been added and deleted from this article by a number of editors:

ManBearPig is shown above Gore in Al Gore's Penguin Army, a video posted on YouTube and presented as an amateur effort, which was later proved to have been made by DCI Group, a Republican marketing firm tied to ExxonMobil. It is unknown whether the makers of South Park authorized DCI Group to use the image, which appears to suggest an endorsement of the video by the makers of South Park.

It would, of course, be better to resolve the inclusion of this material here, rather than via an edit-war in the article. No one removing this text - several IP's and one new account - has left an edit summary explaining why it should be removed.[1], [2], [3]. One of those anon IP's has since been blocked for vandalism.[4] Since the editors who have added or restored the text are more established editors and have explained its inclusion/restoration, the removal appears to be simple vandalism, and further unexplained deletions of this or other text will be treated as such. bd2412 T 00:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

unrelated and speculation, removed. You should not add info that is speculation and uncited, it's considered vandalism. Administrator like you should know better. Adadqwqwe 07:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the video discussed in the section. It does indeed contain ManBearPig and uses similar methodology to parody Gore, and is therefore hardly "unrelated". The material is copiously cited in the target article. I will remove the speculative language with respect to the 'appearance of endorsement'. I note that the removal of this text from the article was your first edit to Wikipedia. We use talk-page discussions to resolve matters of this nature, so please discuss the matter here and achieve a consensus with better-established editors before reverting again. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What does it have to do with this episode? Should we include http://www.manbearpig.com/ too? 70.48.251.164 18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed another block of text added to the article:

Others have suggested that Al Gore really stands in for now-president George Bush, and the manbearpig for the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that which supossed existence were initially cited as reasons for the invasion of Iraq, comparing the picture of manbearpig shown around by Al Gore to the images of Iraqi trucks carrieing mobile bioweapons labs as shown by Colin Powell before the UN.

This seems to be a wholly implausible interpretation, and should not be included without citation as to who these "others" are that have suggested this, and why their opinion matters. bd2412 T 16:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Is this episode Manbearpig or ManBearPig?

• Mr. Garrison

I don't get it

What are Trey Parker and Matt Stone trying to prove? I'm a fan of comedy, like any other normal person, but not when there is a hidden political message behind everything, especially when that message is brainless. Global warming is real and what Al Gore is doing is great. The problem with his movie is not with the facts, but with the fact that he represents himself as the lone man trying to convince the world of this problem. Why couldn't South Park have spoofed that? This isn't even a political issue, this is a smart vs stupid issue. If you don't believe in global warming, you are not smart. If you don't believe that humans are causing global warming, and all the recent heat waves and hurricanes are a direct result of that, then you are not smart. In summary, if you do not believe what the greatest minds in the world have to say about global warming, then you are stupid. I don't know much about Parker and Stone, but they are sending the wrong message here.

Since when did global warming and science in general become so uncool? I hate it. These days, it's like, "you read books? You care about the world we live in? HAHA, ur gay." 67.161.26.190 06:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

While I, personally, feel global warming IS a major problem, there is no justification for calling proponents of alternative theories "not smart", because those theories (especially those that propose that the variance is within normal climatological shifts) so have some merit. Just because I don't believe them myself doesn't make those theories brainless or ignorant, as they are well-conceived and are not unintelligent in construction. -- Ubergenius 17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me one scientist who say that Hurricane Katrina is caused by global warming.142.151.175.39 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, there are some scientists who say that. Most don't, however (not that consensus means fact). I will have to dig it up, but there was an Idaho meteorologist who (this is a tangent, not global warming) said that Katrina was caused by a device developed by the Japanese mafia. He "retired" to pursue his theory. Professor Chaos 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientist generally don't contribute complex phenomena solely to one issue. However AFAIK the majority of scientists working global warming and hurricanes believe it has most probably contributed to the the increase in number and strength of hurricanes including Hurricane Katrina. The official spokesperson US Republican's liked to use in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina was AFAIK one of the few who doesn't believe this (although he still believes global warming is a problem) Nil Einne 10:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is the guy you're talking about? Most global warming alarmists I've heard say that global warming isn't increasing the number of hurricanes, only the strength. The best source in my opinion is William Gray, who is one of the world's top hurricane experts. He says that not only did global warming not cause Katrina, but that most scientists don't believe global warming is a problem, but the media doesn't talk to them because it's not interesting or politically correct to say it won't cause a disaster. On a different note, what happened in New Orleans was a man made environmental disaster. I don't mean that man caused the hurricane, just that it was man's fault the damage was so bad. New Orleans is on a delta. Delta's are built up by river sediment that is dropped as the river loses speed when it meets a still body of water. There are many lobes of the Mississippi Delta, and New Orleans is built on the currently active one. Since we built levies, there is no longer sediment building the levy up, which is why New Orleans has settled below sea level. Now river deposition is no longer a dominant process, but wave action is actively eroding the delta. We can rebuild New Orleans, but it will be ruined again and again, and it will ultimately be a losing battle. Man cannot defeat nature (one reason I think environmental alarmists are silly), and if we fight nature, nature will always win in the end, and it is only a matter of time before New Orleans is permanently gone from the map. Professor Chaos 07:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here[5]is an article about the guy I was talking about in this thread that said Katrina was deliberately caused by the Japanese Mafia.

Dr. Who?

The moog/POV combination when Al Gore is dressed as ManBearPig is probably not related to Dr. Who in the least. It is, however, a dead-on parody of the '80s slasher film, with the killer approaching his victims from bushes as a cheesy synth plays out an ominous theme. The only Dr. Who connection is the cheesiness--i.e., the low budget effect.

it seems the good professor missed out on the studies, overwhelming scientific consenssus exist.

This episode wasn't about any hidden political messages. The idea of Manbearpig was something they thought was silly and wanted to do for a while. They expressed irritation that Inconvenient Truth won Best Documentary only because 'It's not a documentary, it's a PowerPoint presentation.' Still, they acknowledged that they didn't go into the political messages because they liked the story of the boys being trapped in the cave. All this info can be verified in their commentary for the episode, which is available online. 65.93.75.168 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Really I think they were just taking the mick with Gore. He's acting silly so they used the magic of burlesque to enhance that and have him act .. more silly. It doesn't mean he's wrong, it means he's acting like a crazy wrong man, regardless of whether he's actually right. South Park has shown again and again their view that some people can be fighting for a just cause in a totally douchebaggy way. Like, that "Smug" episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In 2007, as part of its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.

"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[6]

"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[7]

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[8]

Wow, thank you so much for posting this not only here, but on my discussion page as well. I hadn't ever heard of this organization and the amazing unbiased work they do. Next, let's hope Algore get's his oscar.Professor Chaos 07:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You don’t do much reading do you? The IPCC was the official study of the UNFCCC, the UN in other words the IPCC had the participation of over one hundred eighty nations and their leading researchers, the United States being one of those participants. As a Result this study represents the total consensus of the global scientific community, just take the inter wikilinks for more info.

Sarcasm, apparently, is lost on humorless kooks. I do read. If you're lucky, I'll tell you about the IPCC when my semester ends. Right now, my grades are a higher priority. Professor Chaos 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

UN is an evil, monolithic, faceless bureaucracy; it doesn't represent scientists, it represents politicians. 142.150.205.250 07:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Experts warn warming will harm society, nature

References

Al Gore's reaction

Was there not a seperate article on how he thought it was funny etc.? --198.254.16.201 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060505/ai_n16358218. I'm not updating the main page, but someone else may want to. Daeldra 06:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Help - a bit confused by vandals!

I have been trying to revert this to some kind of sense, but being a non South Park fan, it's hard to tell the nonsense vandalism from the real article! Can someone who knows about such things please give this a read to check I've killed all the nonsense, and not zapped any real stuff. Ta! LeeG 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't get past the first sentence

"This "Manbearpig" was created during the times of 1300 A.d. as some though non-reliable scientist." - Huh?

Excelsior

What is "Excelsior" referring to ?

Excelsior#Popular_culture: Stan Lee, who used it at the end of every "Bullpen Bulletins" column in the Marvel Comics Skinnersphere (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore "has no friends"

This can't be a reference to the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" since this episode aired about a month before the movie was released. I removed the relevant trivia.

How about explaining the joke?

Why does the article not connect ManBearPig to global warming? Yes, it's somewhat obvious, but if someone came to this page wondering what MBP is referring to, it should at least be noted that MBP is an analogy to global warming. It is entirely possible to state this connection without arguing the merits of either side or defending/refuting Stone and Parker's apparent point. -- ScottK 71.63.53.201 01:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In all simplicity, because saying so is Original reasearch. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References and OR

Cite and return to the article;

• The use of a pig-like animal (ManBearPig) by Al-Gore in an attempt to raise concern for the environment may in fact be a thinly-veiled reference to the Energy Hog campaign, a non-profit energy saving effort which was criticised as a "toothless" energy savings program (reference).
• The melody played when Al Gore for the first time shows the Manbearpig sketch is a part of Antonín Dvořák's Symphony No.9, "From the New World" (Adagio - Allegro molto). The excerpt is taken from the Heroes of Might and Magic video game series.
• Al Gore's abbreviation of ManBearPig, MBP, is an actual term used in the field of global warming research, used when describing the melting and recession of glaciers, Mass Balance Potential.
• Al Gore suggests the rescue team pour molten lead into the cave to kill the manbearpig alludes to Alien 3, where the alien is killed after it is doused in molten lead.

Alastairward (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Do you know the unaired Pilot of Star Trek (The original series) "The Cage" with Jeffrey Hunter? A creature looking like ManBearPig can be seen there kept in the cage next to Hunters. Its on Youtube, second part, 8:40. Maybe the source of inspiration for ManBearPig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.128.206 (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I've seen it and I think I know what creature you mean. But again, that would be OR without a reliable source to link them. Alastairward (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Digg Dialogg

Gore is to be featured on Digg.com's Dialogg feature. The questions were chosen by voting and discussion processes, and the question "I was wondering if you could elaborate on your long term strategy for spreading ManBearPig awareness"(Digg) (Comedy Central)was selected. Should this be included, at least once this interview happens? -- Zblewski|talk  05:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Imaginationland Relevance?

Should I add the fact that ManBearPig is manifested in the real world through the Imaginationland portal? To me this is further proof that Al Gore has absolutely no basis for his creature, but is that necessary?76.11.240.242 (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO an article about ManBearPig should mention all South Park episodes in which the character appears. Permutationcity (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Serial, serious

The following sentence is unclear: "He also says throughout the episode that people will take him serial apparently his version of serious. "

Does this mean that he uses the word serial instead of the word serious? --Badger151 (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Chaucer?

Am I the only one who thought of The Pardoner's Tale when watching this? Plots against each other to take the treasure while hiding out in a cave? .froth. (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Trey and Matt take their inspiration from a lot of things they see/read/watch. But I think that Tom Soyer paralel looks more appropriate here. But either way, both claims are original research and can't make they way to the title page. That is, if not confirmed by the authors somehow in the mainstream media.

--77.46.233.178 (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Climate War

The addition of a real-world reference to ManBearPig, without a third-party source indicating it's referring to this episode, is WP:SYNTHESIS, at best, and outright fraud, at worst. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Per the 2010 book "The Climate War" (ISBN 978-1401323264) by deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek Eric Pooley on the climate change policy of the United States and climate change policy, "ManBearPig" is a common reference to the Denialosphere, i.e. Climate change denial

This from Climate change policy of the United States? 99.181.135.38 (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So? Doesn't attempt to answer my question. If it's about ManBearPig, it may be another one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So is the Denialosphere like a Denialism Venn diagram, as Blogosphere would be all that is Blogs? 99.35.12.107 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

??? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's almost certainly about the character, but we don't know the episode invented the character. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Add http://www.amazon.com/Climate-War-Believers-Power-Brokers/dp/140132326X#reader_140132326X for direct quote from book.

Add http://www.amazon.com/Climate-War-Believers-Power-Brokers/dp/140132326X#reader_140132326X for direct quote from book. 99.181.139.6 (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

See Climate change policy of the United States for Further reading 99.190.80.91 (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Still irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Denialosphere" common reference to Climate change denial-sphere, example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/coffeebreak/chat/f/t-10136319/p-30/index.html 99.190.81.244 (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably true, but it's derogatory, not common knowledge, and so cannot be synthesized with the existing text from the book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Does ManBearPig represent the Wicked problem of Climate change denial, i.e the "Denialosphere"?

Does ManBearPig represent the Wicked problem of Climate change denial, i.e the "Denialosphere"? 99.112.214.106 (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it makes fun of exaggerated claims and making money off the back of that exaggerated claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.225.177 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually no. That would be Bush & Company's exaggerated claims about Iraq that turned out to be bullshit, but Halliburton sure made a shitload of money off the War in the meantime!

To answer the original poster's question, yes this would be a huge example of Climate Change denial. Trey Parker and Matt Stone have the combined IQ of a pecan and should stick to what they do best: drawing shitty two-dimensional characters for a sub-mediocre show. They certainly are of the Libertarian persuasion, believing that guns provided wholesale without verification of criminal background or mental fitness is good, global warming doesn't exist and fall asleep at night fantasizing about their hero, George W. Bush.Hommedepommes (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)