body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

VFD discussion from 2003[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion after a concensus emerged to keep:

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed wiki, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen of the wiki, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me, I'm a geek editor defending a noted geek joke article, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in your computer rooms deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed wiki, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must keep! The defense rests.

I think it is kinda trollish to ask for a informal vfd in the talk page, where not a lot of people are going to stumble upon AFTER the "official" VfD ended with a major win for Keep. It's like trying to pull a slight of hand.

i'm removing the vfd notice. If you want to delete the article, i suggest you put it up for vfd a second time. Project2501a 20:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Martha Stewart[edit]

Martha Stewart's defense is using something similar:

On Monday, Strassberg called the prosecution's case a house of cards, repeating "it makes no sense" 23 times in the first hour of his closing argument.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/02/news/companies/martha/index.htm?cnn=yes

67.113.40.155 18:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Slashdot[edit]

Have your Slashdot aside if you must, but the "see also" should be part of the usage section, not a separate section. --ihatepotsmokinghippies 05:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I stand by that. --ihatepotsmokinghippies 09:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note on Ewoks[edit]

I'm not sure how the "Note on Ewoks" is relevant to the rest of the article:

"It is inconclusive as to whether George Lucas created Ewoks out of budget constraint or as a marketing scheme."

It looks a bit gratuitous to me. --Lorem Ipsum 06:21, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reference to actual copyright infingement case[edit]

When I saw the original South Park episode, I assumed the Chewbacca argument was a reference to an actual copyright infingement case, Dean Preston v. 20th Century Fox Canada Limited et al (1990), but the article makes no mention of this. Essentially the plaintiff claimed that the ewoks were taken from a script he sent to 20th Century Fox, rather than being adapted from the Wookiee concept. Some details in this pdf Zoganes 14:01, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

The connection doesn't seem likely to me... Evercat 23:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD notice[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion after a concensus emerged to keep

So, what you're trying to say is that someone VfD'd the article, concensus emerged to keep the article, but since that's not the outcome you wanted, you're going to have an informal vfd poll. Am I right?

Yes, hi, how are you, this is 2005 calling you about that vfd in 2003. wtf?

As I said: I think it is kinda trollish to ask for a informal vfd in the talk page, where not a lot of people are going to stumble upon AFTER the "official" VfD ended with a major win for Keep. It's like trying to pull a slight of hand.

I'll wait for a responce, but the VfD is over and the label should be removed.

Project2501a 00:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


INSERT(FOOT, MOUTH); APOLOGISE();
I'm sorry, I didn't RTFWA  :( Project2501a 09:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, the vote was closed two years ago. Why is the notice back up? Mgw 05:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

New VfD Project2501a 11:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Which ended in the same answer: keep, keep, keep, keep! — Rickyrab | Talk 23:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That makes NO SENCE! Project2501a 23:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"... a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury..."[edit]

In the current draft of this article, it's mentioned that this is a legal strategy used by a "criminal defense lawyer". Though Cochran worked as a criminal defense lawyer in real life, the case from the relevant episode of South Park was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. Further, I believe the harassment lawsuit filed against Chef would have made Cochran a plaintiff's attorney, too. (Being South Park, though, they naturally took liberties with actual legal procedure in a way that, well..., does not make sense.)

I recommend either omitting the "criminal" and "defense" modifiers, or expanding the phrasing to include both criminal and civil lawyers.

107.15.35.102 (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. More over Legal Eagle (an actual lawyer) in Real Lawyer Reacts to South Park Chewbacca Defense goes over the episode and outlines all the things that would never happen in a real world case.
While not reliable by wikipedia standards Has the Chewbacca defense ever been used successfully in a court of law? does point out that the prosecutor had Simpson put on the glove even though the glove had been soaked in blood, other liquids and frozen never mind wore other gloves underneath and would have proved nothing. The glove situation was showboating by the prosecution and it spectacularly blew up in their face.
Legal Geeks (a pair of e-Discovery attorneys) in A Legal Analysis of The Chewbacca Defense point out "A judge likely would say, “I have a bad feeling about this” and possibly declare a mistrial if such an argument was made in court." and "A party successfully using the Chewbacca Defense to confuse the jury into engaging in jury nullification in a civil lawsuit runs the risk of the losing party winning on a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV). In Chef’s case, the copyright violation should have entitled him to a judgment as a matter of law."--174.99.238.22 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the two lawyer pieces. And before anybody hits the revert button they count per the guidelines of "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Their reliability as lawyers and experts in law has been met.--216.218.97.10 (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody didn't understand the above so here is the part they tried to snip updated in case somebody else tries that BS:
Devin J. Stone, Esq. (a licensed lawyer in DC, Maryland, Virginia, New York, & California) reviews the episode in a YouTube video, and outlines all the things that would never happen in a real world case, giving the episode a "C-" for legal accuracy.(Real Lawyer Reacts to South Park Chewbacca Defense)
The link to his page has been left out of the actual article out of concern it would be considered commercial promotion.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories