Talk:Chewbacca defense/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Chewbacca Gambit

I'm moving that to its own article... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"Chewbacca Defense" as a chess strategy?

doesn't the term also have to do with the film scene where chewbacca is playing chess? (at least this lead someone at everything2 to define it as An unorthodox strategy in chess consisting of threats of violence after the game.) even if not, the scene should still be mentioned. regards, High on a tree 01:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I misinterpreted it that way originally, too. C-3PO: "I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the Wookiee win." Although ... perhaps that would be more of a Chewbacca offense! — Dan Johnson ^T_C 17:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well a 'Chewbacca Defense' in chess would presumably be one in which you deliberately lose the game, in defense of your limbs retaining attached... Sfnhltb 19:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Switch with Chef Aid?

Currently the Chef Aid article is just a redirect here, and the South park episode template thing at the bottom go to this page of course, as effectively there is no episode article at all except this (presumably from a merge at some point). It might seem more beneficial to have this article located as the Chef Aid southpark episode, with an explanation in the opening paragraph that this episode introduced the term 'Chewbacca Defense' which is explained in the article. Having the two things merged makes sense, as to explain the Chewbacca Defense in full requires virtually explaining the meat of the entire episode anyway, but as southpark episodes are part of a set, and Chewbacca defense isnt, it would seem more logical to me to have the episode as the title. Sfnhltb 19:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I Agree. --Ballchef 04:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete the Extensive Transcript?

I think it's kind of sketchy to transcribe the South Park scenes in its entirety here. It would be akin to making a page on a song (say, "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction") and then providing all of the lyrics. I'm taking them out and then providing a link to the transcript.

• We can certainly make fair use of some of the transcript, tho! BD2412 T 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate

This article is very inapppropriate. General Eisenhower 21:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for minors. JoshuaZ 21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some recent edits have removed valid information from this article - please discuss on this page before making drastic changes. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for trying to edit incorrect information into the article (that Chef was the plaitiff), thanks for correcting me. ;) I last saw the episode years ago, and obviously forgot some details. After reviewing the episode, I now see I was wrong.

I still think that another part of my edits - shortening and streamlining explanation of the Star Wars reference - should not be reverted.

The Star Wars reference explanation is unnecessarily expanded. For instance , the fact that South Park writers are aware of Kashyyyk should be obvious by earlier sentence in the article ("Cochran begins by noting that although Chewbacca is from Kashyyyk"), there's hardly any need to use half of paragraph to drive the point home with nitpicking.

Also, the sentence "This claim is a reference to an argument between Cartman and Kyle in the episode Pink Eye." explains nothing to people who didn't see the episode (the argument is not explained in Wikipedia article on Pink Eye). I suggest changing this to sentence to reference that mistaken claims that Wookies live on Endor is part of longer South Park series joke.

All in all, in this case, less is more. The article is about wining legal arguments by talking nonsence. Star Wars references are not all that important here - you can change the nonsence Cochran speaks from Chewbacca's whereabouts into anything else, and the lawyer-winning-by-talking-gibberish joke would still work. So obscure Star Wars trivia - and obscure South Park trivia - should be kept to minimum here.

I'm sorry for my bad grammar/spelling, I'm not an English speaker. - ASN 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's generally better to include more information when there is more to be included - in this case, the reference to the Pink Eye episode is informative, and if the Pink Eye article lacks pertinent info, that article should be expanded. Although you could indeed change the Star Wars refs to something else (e.g. the "silly monkey" reference), the fact that South Park's creators chose to use Chewbacca (in keeping with many prior star wars refs) is significant, and may well be kept in. bd2412 T 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A slight point that Kashyyyk was actually first named in the Star Wars Holiday Special (created by George Lucas himself), not in the novels or other spin-offs. --Werthead 12:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Legal terms

I know South Park isn't exactly accurate in its use of legal terminology within the episode this occurred, but wasn't Chef suing the record label (thus making them the defense) in the episode? And further, in civil trials, there isn't a prosecution at all, is there? this is probably a minor thing in the grand scheme of things, but getting it a little more accurate would be nice. Darquis 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity names

When you watch South Park, it begins with something like: all celebrities are impersonated... poorly. I believe this article requires some disclaimer of the form: "Johnnie Cochran, Alanis Morissette, Elton John, Meat Loaf, Ozzy Osbourne as mentioned in this article refer to characters in _South Park_ and are 'entirely fictional'."

Also, links to articles by these names should be removed, since this page's Cochran is refering to the South Park fictional character Cochran, rather than the Real World Johnnie Cochran.

It is very likely that my suggestions are not the proper approach to fix this quirk. However, I believe something is needed to make this article meet the professional standards of Wikipedia.

Full Decent 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Who voiced Cochran? We can just say it that way. bd2412 T 04:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly disagree with this sentiment. I don't believe it was implied within the article that these were the real characters, merely parodied versions thereof, with wikilinks provided to give more information about whoever was being parodied.Darquis 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The bloody glove

I don't think that the Chewbacca Defense has anything to do with the bloody glove, other than the phrase "you must acquit". The glove is actually a relevent piece of evidence. It's the rest of Cochrane's distractions that it's parodying. I've removed that bit.

The defence's main point is parody of the phrase "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"; this is quite a famous phrase, there are 744 google hits. To explain the joke (which is what encyclopaedia is for), tt's important to explain the context of the phrase. - ASN 15:56, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to put that it's 'likely' a reference to Cochrane's like 'if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit', because that's EXACTLY what the reference was supposed to be. An encyclopedia isn't supposed to be ambiguous. Fix it. 74.12.0.243 19:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Errors in the argument" section

This whole section reads like original research and commentary, and is uncited. I was tempted to remove it, but didn't. Perhaps there should be something like this for those people who just don't get it that the whole point is that it's not supposed to make sense, but I think that section should be re-written. For now I'll leave it for someone else. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it really required to list all the star wars and legal faults in the chewbacce defence. It was made to be ridiculous, so pointing out the faults in it is useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.85.180 (talk • contribs)

I've put the Pink Eye reference back in for a few reasons. First, it points out a running joke in the series that few people still get. Second, while the above argument about Star Wars faults is valid, people keep adding "Chewbacca did not, in fact, live on Endor" notes anyway. The article may as well explain that this discrepancy is part of the joke. ironyage 03:33 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiLaw

I added this article to WikiProject Law. In case someone objects, here's my rationale: Even though this is a fictional legal defense, I think it has some legal value as a popular criticism of the legal system (regarding the use of legal jargon, the OJ trial, and the RIAA lawsuits). --2Snazzy (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research

I [deleted a section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chewbacca_defense&diff=234446546&oldid=234131671] that appeared to be nothing but original research. Sorry to only leave the {{or}} tag only for a day or two, but it's pretty clear to me that this section is just speculation. If you think it should be added back, please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR and WP:CITE before doing so. Thanks, PhilipR (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Chef Aid

I know that it's been discussed often, but I believe it needs to be merged. Chef Aid is very diminutive, and merging this to that article helps it stay. And the problem of people wanting to know what the term means is not relevant because there are many terms people are interested in that aren't on Wikipedia. Even if we ignore that, the term would be adequately represented on the episode's article, and being a part of an article tells people just as much as it could with an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silence means nothing,

Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies

Andrew Lih mentioned this merge, that is how I got interested in it.[1] Ikip (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not merge this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 10:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your mergism is now temporarily (in)famous; it's been blogged and mentioned on the Wikipedia signpost. I Oppose. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Earlier use comment

I don't have a reference at this time, but I am certain that the "chewbacca defense" as a term referring to a red herring legal argument did not originate on South Park. It was actually from a scene in a movie in the 1960s or 1970s where a character impersonated a lawyer at a trial, and used a ridiculous red herring argument to confuse (and ultimately win over) the jury. When asked by observing attorneys after the trial what the strategy was called, he said it was the "chewbacca defense". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.172.211 (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars didn't come out until 1977, so the earliest reference could not have come out before that (I am pretty sure that if a movie used the the word "Chewbacca" before the film came out, we'd know about it). bd2412 T 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

I am for this article. However, most of the sources seem to support its being a modern variation of the standard Ignoratio elenchi rhetorical technique. Should Chewbacca defense not be a relatively substantial subsection of that article, rather than one on its own? As it is, it reads like an article for "ignoratio elenchi in popular culture".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

factually incorrect on its own in two ways

To what is this actually referring? One is obviously that he lives there. But what's the second incorrect part? The only thing I can see is Endor being a planet. Problem is, it actually is. It was named after the forrest moon by setlers. or explorers... I can't recall. If that's not it, might I ask as to what it's referring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.123.249 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Political Commentary?

The section stating that the Chewbacca Defense has become an accepted part of political commentary is misleading; all of the examples provided are still nothing more than glorified blogs (or not-so-glorified blogs). They just happen to be talking about Dan Rather or Michael Moore, but they are no more legitimate than any of the examples in the previous paragraph. This term has very little meaning outside of the Internet and the South Park fan base. I'm altering the paragraph to keep the examples but remove the implication that this has somehow come into common usage.Kafziel 18:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

the chewbacca defense has also been used as an attack on Jon Corzine for his claims of lack of responsibility, for the loss of the customer funds of MF Global.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-31/case-against-corzine --Patbahn (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this just a smoke screen?

Seems to me this is just another name for a smoke screen argument. Funny, but I don't see any entry for that fallacy. Is it not a name for a common rhetorical technique? Cutelyaware (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the episode synopsis really necessary?

I don't think this article is any better served by having the synopsis of the entire episode, including the aftermath of the trial. What purpose does it have?

2605:6000:E9C5:D600:D56E:4270:F4:9A3C (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference to what?

The article states that the South Park episode is making fun of the "glove" incident. Isn't the whole "irrelevant sideshow" nature of the gag a reference referring to Cochran's invocation of Adolf Hitler when referring to Mark Fuhrman? Knoper (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)