Talk:The Return of Chef/Archive 1

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

"This is really what the Super Adventure Club believes"

What I just wrote right there played through a scene of the episode where the head of the super adventure club is explaining that they believe when men have sex with boys they become immortal. Um... is there really a real Super Adventure Club, and if so, what the crap?! DurotarLord 02:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, consider this episode a "sequel" to Trapped in the Closet. In that episode they mock Scientology, and at the bottom it says "This is what Scientologists actually believe", or something along the lines. It angered Isacc Hayes, and he quit (him being a Scientologist). In this episode, where they turned Chef into somewhat of a bad guy and killed him off, they parody Scientology once more by using the same ridiculous description for an organization's beliefs in the episode - the one difference is that the description given in "Trapped in the Closet" is actually true, and Scientology is a real Religion, whereas the Super Adventure Club is just something that the creators made up. Here, they were just mimicking "Trapped in the Closet", as they felt both Isacc Hayes' (Scientology) Religion - and Chef's (Super Adventure Club) Religion were both ridiculous, although they made the latter up. So in short, no, it's a fake organisation. Sorry for the huge explination. ≈ The Haunted Angel 10:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Untitled Stuff

I added another paragraph to the synopsis. 128.113.137.211 03:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The word "obvious" appears too much in this article. Given the prevalent irony, I don't think anything about this episode is obvious, just yet.

I removed "Chef shows his desire to molest children, and is evidentally alive in the suit. " as previous sentences made this clear.

Maybe we should indicate that an ellipsis refers to splicing, rather than pausing? People who haven't actually seen the episode won't immediately recognize the quotes properly. Maybe even replace ... with {splice}.


Darth Plagueis

The following has been removed: "The story of the Super Adventure Club's beliefs heavily mirrors not only the depiction of Scientology's beliefs in "Trapped in the Closet", but Palpatine's telling of the story of his master, Darth Plagueis, in Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith."

At no point or time was this "comparison" even remotely present. It was a direct parody of Trapped in the Closet. --AWF

  • ^^ Are you retarded? How is it not present that this mirrors the end of revenge of the Sith, not only does he turn in the fashion that Anikan did but he actually becomes a replicate of Darth Vader!

Questional trivia entry

"The episode's name possibly refers to the book "The Return of the Naked Chef" by Jamie Oliver."

Uh, that seems unlikely to me. The character's name is Chef...and he returned in this episode. Just because there happens to be some random book with the words "return" and "chef" in the title doesn't mean this episode has anything to do with it. I suggest this trivia entry be removed. King nothing 2 15:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. I'll remove that line. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed and reremoved. --Sammysam 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed "The Simpsons" episode, even though its being totally anal. But technically Homer fell down the cliff for the first time in "Bart the Daredevil", it was just replayed in the clip show episode with the exploding beer can.

Given the scene with Darth Chef at the end it seems much more likely that the name refers to Return of the Jedi.

L. Ron Hubbard's claimed travels

Hubbard claimed to be well-traveled, but other than two trips to visit his military father, there is very little evidence that he ever traveled outside of America prior to the Second World War.

No disrespect, but how does that play into this? -Dan 06:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The world's greatest explorer shtick. Hubbard frequently claimed to be an avid explorer and adventurer, but when the rubber met the road his exploits were strictly second-rate, and frequently were things that other people had already done... just like the "world's greatest explorer" who founded the Super Adventure Club. Iceberg3k 11:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Butters

Was Butters being molested by his uncle influenced by Teri Hatcher, since that was also in the news in the last two weeks? Adam Bishop 08:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, it seems like pretty standard South Park fare, and there's no real connection. Deathregis 09:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Exclimation Mark

On my tv's program guide, the title of this episode was "The Return of Chef!" with an exclimation mark. is this official, and should it be included in the article? --Phantom784 14:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the official site's episode guide, there is no exclamation mark. King nothing 2 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Chef's Lines

Should we try to identify some of Chef's more obscure lines? (I.e. his "goodbye" was from Red Hot Catholic Love, his questions "What is the meaning of life" and "Why are we here?" are from Are You There, God? It's Me, Jesus, and some others that might be hard to pinpoint.) --KennyStanWendyFan 05:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • "I can't break these locks." is from Mecha-Streisand -Deathregis 19:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I briefly thought about doing this. Might not be a bad idea. King nothing 2 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree this is a good idea, and I belive I spotted one: "Your asshole, children", as in "I'm gunna make love to your asshole, children" is from the episode Cancelled (South Park) where she states that a proctologist is "a doctor that specialises in your asshole, children" --84.92.62.165 00:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Twig?

  • I'm not sure if wikipedia should link to MrTwig.net, seeing as it is a torrent site and is perhaps not entirely legal. Any other comment on this?
  • Also, when the link is clicked - the page is this:

"You have most likely reached this page because someone linked to content on our site without our permission. Click here to continue to the front page of mrtwig.net.

If you believe you have received this page in error, please mention the circumstances on our forum (you will have to register to post in that forum)"

Unverified content in the Trivia section

As per Wikipedia's verifiability policies, please refrain from phrases such as "It can be argued" or "This could refer" without citing sources. Otherwise, it falls into the area of original research. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr Evil / Mike Meyers?

There is no mention of the leader of the Super Adventure Club being an obvious parody of Dr Evil from the Austin Powers movies, as the voice is a close likeness i was also wondering what the chances are that Mike Meyers provided the voice, anyone know?


I think that voice is just the only aristocratic British accent Trey (or Matt?) can do.

Yeah, but the way he says something like, "You know when you ask people to leave but then they don't. That's very annoying." specifically is extremely similar to Dr. Evil's mannerisms. Mac OS X 07:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Simpson's Parody Fall

Visuals of Homer falling down the cliff, which Chef falling is visually similar to, is not shown in Bart the Daredevil. It was only inserted for So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show. Somebody keeps reverting that. I know the other one sounds better, but it's inaccurate. -Deathregis 22:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Somebody did it again. They added visuals of the fall in the clip show. In the original episode they just show kids watching with the sound effects. I mean, this is the internet. You people are supposed to know your Simpson's minutia. -Deathregis 05:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How many times do I have to say this stuff. Check out the So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show trivia section, it backs me up -Deathregis 05:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You're wrong. I just put in the Season 2 DVD and checked. The fall is in Bart The Daredevil.-Bezo 22:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I'm wrong. Sorry. Only the second fall wasn't in the original. oops. -Deathregis 22:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

cunnilingus/analingus

The whole joke is that Butters is a guy and yet he said that someone performed cunnilingus on him. That's the joke! Stop changing it to analingus or at the very least remove "The joke being" since you've removed the irony. Look at the flicking tongue motion rather than circular tongue motion. Look at where the tongue is violating the doll. It's cunnilingus! Chiok 05:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The whole joke is that Butters's uncle performed anilingus on him once. That's it. That's the joke. Btw, the word is spelled "Anilingus", check the article. -Deathregis 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Chiok is right, Deathregis is not. It has been corrected.
    • Dude, you're wrong. Look at the article, or search the web. It's Anilingus. And sign your posts, Bezo. -Deathregis 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I googled south park Anilingus "return of chef" and the only thing that showed up is this wikipedia page. Which "the article" did you want us to look at? Chiok 01:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I disagree. I think the joke is that his uncle Bud did some strange things. I think there's a compromise. I'm going to put "or" on itJ. M. 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Maybe the agent was demonstrating both, since there were males and females in the class?--Alexrules43 17:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
            • To me, it just looked like he was licking the doll's genital area indiscriminately, with no actual method or oral sex. More just flicking the tongue around, regardless of the gender. A fairly odd act, if the subject was male, but I suppose still somewhat effective.

Mr.troughton 00:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That has to be the most disgusting use of the words "somewhat effective" ever. Mac OS X 07:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not gonna deny that.

Mr.troughton 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"The SAC leader asks if [Super Adventure Club] is any more retarded than the ideas of Christianity or Buddhism, and the kids agree it is." Does that mean they think it is more retarded or it isn't more retarded? DJ Clayworth 21:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any possible way within the syntax of the English language, or given the context, that this could be a statement of agreement with the SAC leader. The leader asks "is it more retarded?" the answer is "yes". Where's the ambiguity??? This one line sums up Matt and Trey's justification for denouncing Scientology as a belief, rather than merely taking the mickey out of certain practices of certain followers, as they have done with mainstream beliefs. They are ridiculing the idea of comparing scientology to Christianity or Buddhism. --JamesTheNumberless 13:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with JamesTheNumberless, although in the context of the dialogue, the SAC leader is asking "Is it any more retarded than the idea of God sending his son to die for our sins? Is it any more retarded than Buddha sitting beneath a tree for twenty years?" rhetorically, since he wants the children to say "No." But they answer, "Yeah, it's way, way more retarded," which isn't the answer the SAC leader was hoping for. So giving a "Yes" answer to his question doesn't mean they are agreeing with him. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

possibility?

The confusion between Adventure club and Super adventure club is features twice. Can that reference the usual confusion (due to similar denominations ) between Christian Science and Scientology? It is interesting to point outh that Scientology is more sectarian and obscure than CS, paralell to the Adventure club(hunting, hiking, kayaking) ant The S.A.C.(has sex with children)

  • Yeah, actually, given your proof, that does look pretty likely, although there's always the possibility it's coincidence. Myself, I think that what you've said is true though, it probably is, but I don't think it can be substantiated enough to be in the article.

Mr.troughton 00:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Big Trivia section

I slimmed down a bit the trivia section, yet i still believe it is too large. I cut the unecessary parts of "kyle yells bastards twice", "burned brigde" and "SAC members named William", cause I think they were pointless.

S.A.C

by any chance is S.A.C real.

The practises of the club do have some parallels with those engaged in sex tourism and/or child pornography and the concept of immortality by having sex with children is possibly related to the practise in some parts of aids infected africa of having sex with virgins (usually Children by western definitions - see Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS) in the belief that this will cure them. Most likely, the South Park creaters just tried to invent the most obscene and disgusting imaginary cult they could, so that they could push the boundries a little further without facing retalliation from any actual group and leaving it up to us to make our own analogies. --JamesTheNumberless 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

At the big farewell at the airport, did Randy Marsh say "...Super Adventure Club" or "Super Adventure Cult"? I couldn't tell last night.

Another questionable trivia section entry

"The scene on the bridge represents Anakin Skywalker in Episode III. The bridge represent the path to the light or dark side. The bridge may also represent "The Total Bridge to Freedom," a measure of a scientologist's ttraining. On one side the Super Adventure Club represents Palpatine reminding him of the power he can have ("Stay with us and you'll be GRAND and ETERNAL!!"), the boys represent the light, Obi-Wan and Padme ("Chef, we love you."). In the end, Chef/Anakin gives in to temptations and joins the dark side, losing much of their bodies in the process, and transforming into Darth Vader/Chef."

That seems like too much of a personal interpretation to have any place in a legitimate wikipedia article.

I also kind of thought that it was like in the end of Revenge of the sith when after Anikan was defeated and Obi Wan was like " You were my brother, I loved you" because when chef was going to the S.A.C. members(which is like how that guy was saying) the boys said "we love you" and the boys leave when chef dies like nothing happened just like Obi Wan.

    • Honestly, the people on this site are too skeptical sometimes.. Of course it mirrors the end of revenge of the Sith, He even becomes 'Darth Chef', i dont see why all the trivia from this article has been deleted.

anozinizing ?

Is this a typo?

Psychiatrist

With all the trivia described in the episode, I wonder if it would be worth pointing out that to cure Chef, the boys bring him to a psychiatrist, who is portrayed as reasonably competent and almost succeeds in curing Chef -- which could be seen as yet another negative reference to the Church of Scientology's beliefs, since the CoS is opposed to psychiatry. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Billy Connolly

The leader of the super adventure club is named as William P. Connolly and facially bears some amount of resemblance to the Scottish comedian of (almost) the same name (if you discount the lack of a beard). Perhaps some mention should be made of how this character is depicted as being a child molester, while Billy Connolly himself was the victim of molestation as a child? Personally I thought this was distasteful and hurtful even for South Park, but that's just my opinion and I'm not proposing that be included in the article. Belueberry 02:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Don.-.J 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC) == My opinion about these new seasons.... ==

Killing Chef is the gheyest move they could ever made... this is why South Park now sucks bawlz, among other things...

Unfortunately, they followed the doom path of The Simpsons, whose last funny episode is from 1997.

--Killergon2 21:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I applaud you for your well-reasoned and coherent argument as to why South Park now "sucks bawls." -Roofus 00:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • what do u mean it sucks, i think every episode gets better. i know its my opinion but id choose these episodes over the older one anyday. well i wouldnt actually because they are all great but u know what i mean Don.-.J 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And the greatest douche in the universe award goes to... Killergon2 from the milky way galaxy HarveyDanger 05:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Entry 2

Don.-.J 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)The strip club they take chef to, the pepermint something (i cant remember), is refference to the strip club the Spearmint Rhino

It was Peppermint Hippo, and yes an obvious take off of Spearmint Rhino (well obvious to me, not that I've been ... honest) Dazher 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

When Chef is deciding wheter or not he is staying at the Super Adventure Club, it is played Harry Potter's theme music.

The real super adventure club

Is there really a super adventure club? I looked it up on line but only found reference to The Return of Chef? Also i looked in this disscussion article but did not see anything? - --Jay Menglass 00:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Jay Menglass

Good lord, I certain hope there isn't.66.173.143.210 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Nah, consider this episode a "sequel" to Trapped in the Closet. In that episode they mock Scientology, and at the bottom it says "This is what Scientologists actually believe", or something along the lines. It angered Isacc Hayes, and he quit (him being a Scientologist). In this episode, where they turned Chef into somewhat of a bad guy and killed him off, they parody Scientology once more by using the same ridiculous description for an organization's beliefs in the episode - the one difference is that the description given in "Trapped in the Closet" is actually true, and Scientology is a real Religion, whereas the Super Adventure Club is just something that the creators made up. Here, they were just mimicking "Trapped in the Closet", as they felt both Isacc Hayes' (Scientology) Religion - and Chef's (Super Adventure Club) Religion were both ridiculous, although they made the latter up. So in short, no, it's a fake organisation. Sorry for the huge explination. ≈ The Haunted Angel 10:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I am wiser, that would make sense, thank you Jay Menglass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Menglass (talk • contribs) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Spin Blossom Nut Squash

I am proposing that the article Spin Blossom Nut Squash be merged into this article, as it hardly seems notable enough for an article of its own. We really don't need articles about plot devices. Vgranucci 04:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Map

Quid enim videatur ei magnum in rebus humanis, cui aeternitas omnis totiusque mundi nota sit magnitudo? this is written under the map in the super adventure club...is it useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.19.113 (talk • contribs)

I doubt it, but if anyone could find out what it means, it'd certainly be interesting. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's definitely Latin, I can say that without a doubt. I don't KNOW any Latin, though, so I hit up an online Latin translator which gave me this:

What in fact videatur she large upon rebus kindness , in which aeternitas all totiusque to clean mark he is magnitudo.

I thought maybe there were some spelling mistakes in the Latin, so I checked not only my MS Word latin spell checker, but also one online, which both came up as completely correct. So I think it may have been a problem with the translation itself. Sigh. If anyone knows Latin?

Mr.troughton 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's from Cicero -- I found it in the Gutenberg archives:

"For what is there in this life that can appear great to him who has acquainted himself with eternity and the utmost extent of the universe?"

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14988/14988-h/14988-h.htm#page-142

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/tusc4.shtml#37

(It's in public domain.) 24.147.210.143 (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Impersonator?

At the top of the page, it says Chef's voice was done by an impersonator, but the rest of the article states that clips were actually spliced together from previous episodes. Which one is it? Prezuiwf 17:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That info was false. I removed it from the article.--Swellman 04:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Episode Pic.

Don't you think that the pic is a little spoiled? I mean it shows that Chef dies... shouldn't it change for people who did not know of Chef's death? I see how this could be pointless with how most fans would already know, but I still see this as spoiling... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.162.183 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fruity Little Club

How do you set up a redirect? Searching for fruity little club should land here, if not on Scientology's main article Jtdunlop (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

the burning bridge

Chef dying on the bridge is an allusion to "the bridge" of scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

creation of the episode

my thought is that this episode was created VERY quickly and was actually one of my favorite episodes. is there any word on whether they had the basics of this episode already worked out in the event that isaac quit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 15:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The pic.

Do we really need such a drastic picture? Lots42 (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology Content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

I concur. Although if added back, it will need a throughout referencing and cleanup from trivia such as the Scientology symbol slightly visible in the episode. Descriptions of Chef's departure also seem redundant with what's already written in Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Michaelas10 suggestions are clearly biased. he is the only reason that the scientology content was even questioned. we have a scene with 'darth chef' that is an obvious reference to star wars . adding a citation to some news report that confirms that the reference was indeed directed to star wars would be ludicrous and superfluous. the suggestion that the parodies need to have excessive referencing is absurd, and any attempt to move to such ridiculous standards would render the project void and meaningless. michaelas10 seems very up to date on many guidelines, perhaps he should review the conflict of interest policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Very funny. No, it's not any reference to Isaac Hayes and Scientology! It's just an original story with no figurative content at all! I think it's pretty clear that the main point is Hubbard got to the "religion" game a little late. The founder of the SAC was disappointed that other explorers had gotten ahead of him, so he distinguished his club through exploitation and abuse, based on weird, laughable theories involving transfer of "marlocs" -- or in other words, thetans. --Mujokan (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
At any rate it is best if we stick to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources for all this stuff. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added back the scientology references and they are clearly documented from reliable sources to meet WP:RS/WP:V. It is a shame that a few, clearly biased, individuals argued for documentation for information that is SELF-EVIDENT. If this information is removed, it better be EXCEPTIONALLY documented! Yourmanstan —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it's unfortunate the article can't make it clear the SAC is a stand-in for Scientology, since it is rather self-evident, like the sampling. Шизомби (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that there must be secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that discuss all that stuff, and I will add it to the article after I do a search for them, which will be sometime soon in the near future. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I know its not too huge, but i've seen little trivia sections on other SP episode pages and thought that it should be mentioned that at the funeral Terrence & Phillip can be seen mourning but Terrence isn't fat like he should be (from the Behind the Blow episode onwards he's fat) he's fat in his last appearance (which i think was behind the blow) and after this episode the next time he's featured is Cartoon Wars pt2 where he's fat once again. Maybe Stone and Parker forgot this when they made the episode as they were focusing on Hayes leaving too much? Bm2 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Got a secondary source for this info? Otherwise it is a WP:OR violation to add it to the article. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hayes's stroke

Mention ought definitely to be made of this and the confusion and controversy that it sparked. Crusoe (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed something..

Ther is actually a band called "Super Adventure Club". Maybe that could be mentioned in a sentence or two.

88.73.101.60 (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bridge

I noticed that the super adventure club bridge leads to a scientology page the bridge to total freedom. can anyone verify that the bridge was used for this meaning? if not, it should be removed.Yourmanstan (talk)

Sequel?

Was there a sequel made? If so, what's it called?JIMfoamy1 (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Real?

Is there really a super adventure club that believes that stuff, or was the "THIS IS WHAT THE SUPER ADVENTURE CLUB ACTUALLY BELIEVES" gag just south park making fun of its own gag about scientology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.114.53 (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

hidden agenda edits

i'm getting really tired of people coming to the page and saying something like "tidying up" and removing a whole block of information about scientology. if you have something that you disagree with, please DISCUSS HERE to gain consensus first.Yourmanstan (talk)

Removing material without valid sources is tidying up. WP:V-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
no, tidying would be marking those for "citation needed" and then the community would probably reject you because most of your removals were already cited!Yourmanstan (talk)
Hidden agenda, is that a lolcat?
I looked again and I didn't remove any information, there was simply duplication of the existing references. There was also a lot of wikilinking in the article, a ridiculous amount really, that I scrubbed just now. Alastairward (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
no, what you did is remove all wikilinks that reference scientology. these links were usually quite useful for readers that may not know some terms or references without the wikilinkYourmanstan (talk)

Just as an aside, it looks like Yourmanstan has some hidden agendas of his own; spamming and adding inappropriate cites and adding POV material to articles. Just so we're all clear about what we're doing on Wikipedia. Alastairward (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a further aside, those claims about me were demonstrated to be false. and "just to be clear" it appears there are much more concerns about YOUR edits alastairward.Yourmanstan (talk)

And let us all remember that the talk page is to discuss how to improve the content of the article, not to make assertations about other editors motives. Further digressions will be removed to editors talk pages per WP:TPG. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've check over my edit history on this article, it looks just fine. The wikilinks I cut back on were, for example; "skin on Chef's face off as well as his left eye. It then bites off his right hand and the bear bites off Chef's right foot. Chef's legs and waist both tear apart and his insides fall out of him and all of his blood". Do we need to know about eyes and legs through Wikipedia? Alastairward (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yourmanstan is absolutely correct in this matter. I agree with Yourmanstan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smratlik (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment does not belong here, but since you insist on returning it, I request that you provide evidence of "inflamatory insults", otherwise, you are false accusing another editor and in violation of WP:NPA in addition to WP:3RR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There I removed the part about inflammatory insults. Happy now? We could have easily compromised on this but you attempted to take the nuclear approach.

Except that you just implicitly added it back, as well as adding another chippy comment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

please stop harassing me as you have many other users Baseball Bugs. That comment was unwarranted and I know you have been tailing me and seeking to harass me. I know what you are up to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smratlik (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That charge is false. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. Smratlik has been indef-blocked as sock of User:Pioneercourthouse. Yourmanstan had criticized User:Poter99 a month ago, so Smratlik was playing the kiss-up game as part of trying to convince editors he wasn't Poter99, i.e. that he wasn't Pioneercourthouse. It didn't work. Just a little bit of wikipedia intrigue for a leisurely Saturday afternoon. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot

The Plot subsection has been tagged with {{plot}}, and I would agree it is a bit too long. Anyone care to help out in trimming it down a bit so we can remove the {{plot}} tag? Cirt (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Voicing

while i realize it may be obvious to followers of the series and those otherwise knowledgeable about the episode, should there be mention made that none of the things chef says in the episode was newly recorded, and all from previous episodes? this reuse of voices is hinted at when he regains his memory and remembers the whole "make love" phrase, but that's still rather implicit. also, was the above scientology debate ever actually concluded without the random people interjecting? Impasse 02:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impasse (talk • contribs)

WP:RS/WP:V source discussing this? Cirt (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers

Thanks to the idiot who posted the current picture of him being torn to pieces. Total spoilers and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.52.189 (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a spoiler in itself, what else should be expected from the article on the episode? Alastairward (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Return of Chef/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*6 sourced citations, 2 images. Smee 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Closing Credits

Something should be mentioned about the closing credits. The phrase "This is what the Super Adventure Club actually believes." This ia a variant of "This is what Scientologist actually believe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.227.185 (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Flesh out summary

There should at least be a section about the final speech, directly paralleling Chef with Isaac Hayes as Stan states that they should remember Chef for the person they knew and direct their anger at the "fruity little club that scrambled his brains". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9C8E:EC00:A1A5:5E50:9858:E980 (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Return_of_Chef/Archive_1&oldid=1092070574"