Talk:Eat, Pray, Queef

title

Could someone change the title to "Eat, Prey, Queef" instead of "Eat, Pray, Queef"? southparkstudios.com also uses this spelling Cyanid (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Done--Swellman (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

southparkstudios.com actually uses both spellings; it's "pray" on the front page of the site. 24.148.246.162 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're right. It's spelled with an "e" in the episode guide, but with an "a" everywhere else. I'll change it back.--Swellman (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Eat, Pray, Queef —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.151.17 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw they used the 'a'-spelling on the book in the episode. Strange that the site got it mixed up though. Cyanid (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Significance of Road Warrior Poster

The article currently mentions that this episode is "riddled" with Mad Max/Road Warrior references, and mentioned the poster in Stan's room. The poster in question has been shown in Stan's room in other episodes (for example, ManBearPig), and is therefore not worth mentioning in this article. I think that leaves only one real reference, unless I missed others. Dihard (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the original author's definition of "riddled", but it wasn't. The only one was the RW queef. - Redmess (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not Without My Anus

The Terrance and Philip episode not being shown on April fools day is clearly a reference to the south park episode Not Without My Anus, where regular south park was replaced with a full length to episode, and the resulting fan anger. Doregasm (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The scene when they drink wine is a parody on sideways —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.230.55 (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Critics alienated by pro-feminist theme

The sentence A number of critics remained alienated by the pro feminist theme doesn't seem entirely accurate. First, only one critic is cited, so that's not "a number of critics", and second his biggest complaints were that he doesn't find Terrence and Philip funny enough to sustain an episode and that much of the writing was predictable. I don't see anything in his article to suggest he was "alienated by the pro feminist theme".Some kind of scientist (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If anything, critics are positively biased due to the supposed feminism expressed by the episode. Maybe I've been imagining things, but I could have sworn that women fart too. Sexism goes both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.249.162 (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDb rating?

I don't think the IMDb rating of this episode is relevant enough to be mentioned in the article. The rating is based on 171 votes, which represents a negligible fraction of the three million people that saw this episode. This rating just does not reflect anything at all (other than the opinion of a handful of IMDb users). The fact that it is mentioned in the article makes it sound much more important than it really is. Olhado256 (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I could take it or leave it; I didn't add it myself. I'll go with whatever the consensus is here on whether to drop it or keep it. I've also brought it to the attention of this article's GAN reviewer to see what he thinks. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 13:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Allegory for homosexual relationships?

Am I alone in seeing this as an allegory for how American society views homosexual relationships? Heterosexual relationships are normal, and homosexual ones are viewed as disgusting (or the media portrays middle-America as finding them disgusting). I'm not trolling here -- my point is only that this episode can be seen as an allegory.

It is only when the Queef Sisters declare that T&P are their heroes that they are revealed as humans and not just publicity-seeking imitators. Bjmckenz (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sideways

How on good God's earth is the reference to "Sideways" not mentioned?! Seriously, this is what I hate about Wikipedia. Actually, not so much wikipedia, but the pinheads who convince themselves that it's for a greater good not to include obvious references, while including others. Honestly, how much more evidence do you need to include the reference, without Matt and Trey writing you and telling you directly?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaslabbe (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sideways reference?

How on good God's earth is the reference to "Sideways" not mentioned?! Seriously, this is what I hate about Wikipedia. Well, not so much Wikipedia, but the pinheads who convince themselves that it's for a greater good not to include obvious references, while including others. Honestly, how much more evidence do you need to include the reference, without Matt and Trey actually picking up a phone and calling you to tell you directly?!
Nicolaslabbe (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability. TheLeftorium 19:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you get two TVs side by side, and play "Sideways" on one TV and this episode on the other and play the sections in question in sync. Then, go look in a mirror, and tell yourself, "This reference can not be verified". I understand being a pinhead on subtle cultural references, but not on this one. It could not be more clearer in this case.
Nicolaslabbe (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the page? "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It has to be verified by a reliable source if we're gonna include it in the article. TheLeftorium 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Referencing 'Canada on Strike'?

Is it worth noting that when Cartman is on the phone complaining to the Canadian guy, he says 'Don't call me buddy, I'm not your buddy.' That phrased was used in 'Canada on Strike'. Would that be considered a referece to that episode, or is it just a reference to the idea that all Canadians talk like that. Tydamann (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a reference to the episode, but we'd need a third party source to cite it... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Logic

"The episode has a pro-feminist theme and ultimately suggests men and women should be treated as equals."

does not compute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.238.50 (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It makes more sense to interpret the episode as mocking feminism. I think Matt and Trey generally just rip on stuff -- they don't seem really invested in progressivism per se. I mean, I know that some women out there interpreted it as feminist, but women are messed up in the head and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.105.169 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eat, Pray, Queef. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5u4sCHxRK?url=http://www.screenjunkies.com/recap/men-farting-women-queefing to http://www.screenjunkies.com/recap/men-farting-women-queefing
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5u1hd99Jv?url=http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/07/damages-season-finale-draws-few-wwe-raw-ncis-lead-cable-viewing/16141 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/07/damages-season-finale-draws-few-wwe-raw-ncis-lead-cable-viewing/16141

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)