Talk:The Joy of Sect/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Archived

I archived June 2005 to September 2007, as well as "Trivia" and "Cultural references" from the article, to Archive 1. Cirt 14:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

  • Curious as to why you restored it here? We can always just consult Talk:The Joy of Sect/Archive 1. I feel it just clutters up the talk page, but I could go either way. We can always archive it later, I guess. Cirt 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
    • It counts as an active discussion, and generally you shouldn't archive "active" discussions. -- Scorpion0422 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • On second thought, you are right, I am finding there is some stuff in here I might be able to provide sources for after all. Thanks. Cirt 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

"Trivia" and "Cultural references"

  • I am not sure if these sections would even make it to Featured Article if they were sourced to WP:RS sources. As it is, they are all unsourced. So I removed this. If and when we find sources for all of the things here (or some) we can gradually work it back in. As it is, it is here presented for posterity. I will now archive this. Cirt 14:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Trivia

  • This is the last episode executive produced by David Mirkin.

Cultural references

  • This episode is in part a parody of the Jim Jones cult, as there are many similarities between his cult and this episode. Examples include followers being brainwashed into thinking that they would live in bliss and paradise, then being forced to harvest in the farm from dawn till dusk, while being under heavily armed guard. Also, people in Jonestown were not allowed to leave. This is referenced in one scene where Marge decides to go and confronts the Squeaky Voiced Teen. He says "People are free to go whenever they wish" and the camera then pans across a field riddled with barbed wire (with several Movementarians stuck), alligators, a mine field, and the Rover guard "balloon" from The Prisoner.
  • The episode also includes many references to Scientology. These references include the Leader's strong physical resemblance to Lafayette Ronald Hubbard an orientation film shown at the Movementarian compound; the resemblance of the cult recruiters' outfits to that of Sea Org; Homer's ten trillion year contract with the cult (and the billion year contracts Scientology members sign when they join Sea Org); the centrality of UFOs to the cult; how the cult became the central focus of Springfield in a manner similar to Clearwater, Florida, the idea that the founder invented virtually everything in the world, and the use of lawyers on the part of the cult to squash dissent. Finally, the leader attempting to make off with the money of Springfield's residents may be seen as a swipe at Hubbard. The voice of Bart Simpson, Nancy Cartwright, is a practicing Scientologist.
  • The "group criticism" session used by the group to try to take Homer is a reference to the setup of the Oneida Society.
  • At one part of the episode Bart is stopped by a Hare Krishna guy who asks him "Have you heard of Krishna Consciousness?". To which Homer replies "This, Bart, is a crazy man!". This is in reference to the Hare Krishna movements' promotion of Krishna's teachings by actively selling books on the street, and in airports. Episode Ref
  • The scene where Marge jumps over the back of alligators while fleeing the Movementarian compound spoofs James Bond's famous stunt from Live and Let Die.
  • Rover (the famous defense balloon from The Prisoner) gives chase to Marge and engulfs Hans Moleman instead.
  • The title of this episode is a play on the title of the book The Joy of Sex.
  • The Leader's choice of a chauffeur-driven Rolls-Royce Phantom V or VI could either be a parody of the Hare Krishna spiritualist Kirtanananda Swami, who was famous for owning a fleet of Rolls-Royces, including several customized Phantoms, and whose fraud trial was in the news at the time the episode aired, or of Rajneesh, who had a fleet of 90 Rolls-Royces at his Antelope, Oregon compound.
  • The scene where Groundskeeper Willie gets the attention of Marge and Reverend Lovejoy by running his fingernails across the stained glass windows before offering to kidnap, "deprogram", or kill Homer at a price is a spoof of a scene from the Steven Spielberg film Jaws, where the character Quint, portrayed by Robert Shaw, runs his fingernails across the chalkboard to get the attention of the town's people before offering to capture or kill the shark.
  • The mass-marriage performed by the Movementarians may be a reference to the one held by Reverend Moon and the Unification Church.
  • While fishing, Homer sings the Batman theme, replacing "Batman" with "fishing".
  • When Apu looks at the airport store owner's outrageous prices he says, "You magnificent bastard, I salute you!", a reference to to the line "Rommel, you magnificent bastard." from Patton.
Question

Can we source and add to the article anything from the above list that is not already mentioned and referenced by a WP:RS citation? Cirt 20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

DVD commentary

Between Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) and myself, we were able to expand the article and add citations, we now have references to (11) sources. I couldn't find much commentary on the actual Production of the episode itself, save for a very interesting bit that The Simpsons had planned to have a full episode just spoofing Scientology alone, but the producers shot it down for fear of Scientology's history of litigation.

More info and commentary about the Production and background will probably have to come from the DVD commentary. I won't have a chance to get access to the DVD for a couple days at least, but perhaps someone else could do some of that. Cirt 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

I found a small reference to the 9th season DVD commentary at Religion in The Simpsons, and incorporated it here, so that makes (12) sources. But we could still use a teensy bit more expansion from more of the DVD commentary at some point. Cirt 17:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
I added some stuff from the commentary. I actually took notes from the commentary in word, but I forgot to save the file, so I quickly addedc everything I could from memory. I'm pretty sure I got everything major, but there could be some other stuff too, so it wouldn't hurt for someone to give the commentary another quick listen. -- Scorpion0422 20:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I won't get it at least for a few days, so someone else can do that. Thank you though, the pieces you added are really great. Cirt 20:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
Just to keep track

I might go get ahold of the commentary at some point, but it would be neat to incorporate at least one reference from each of the (5) people who were commentators on the DVD, if possible:

  1. Matt Groening --
  2. David Mirkin -- Y Done
  3. Steve O'Donnell -- Y Done
  4. Yeardley Smith --
  5. Steven Dean Moore --

Cirt 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

Images

I looked through Category:FA-Class The Simpsons articles, and the average number of image screenshots from The Simpsons in the article about that episode, is roughly 2.5 in a Featured Article. So with our current (3) I'd say this is perfect.

Would there be any chance that there would be any other sources for interesting images for this episode article? Cirt 16:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Weird source

  • What is this? [1] I am confused, this does not qualify for WP:RS, does it? Cirt 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
    • It doesn't, but a link to The Simpsons Archive is usually thrown onto pages anyway. All of our FAs have links to it, iut's just that we can't use it for citations. -- Scorpion0422 20:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, if all the other FAs have it, so be it, the more info for the reader, the merrier. And it looks fine in that section anyway. Cirt 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Wrote a lead, next step?

I wrote a lead, summarizing the article. I basically did a rule of thumb of about one paragraph for every two sections, highlighting some very interesting bits along the way.

What do you all think, should we proceed with WP:GAC, or perhaps WP:PR, or is there something else we can do to improve/expand the article first? Cirt 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

The lead was a tad long - For an article this length, it should be about 6-10 sentences. As for the next step, I think we need to copyedit and shorten the plot section, maybe add a few more cultural refs and then we'll have a surefire GA on our hands. Once it reaches GA status, we could get a peer review done and try and find some more sources and take it from there. -- Scorpion0422 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, that lead is a lot shorter. As long as you didn't outright remove anything and the info is still somewhere in the article (self-evident because I was only summarizing pre-existing stuff) then I see no problem with it. But this is the size of the lead in the other FA articles? Cirt 20:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
Roughly. It's fine for a GA, but if we go for FA, then it should be made a bit longer so it's around the same length as the one for A Streetcar Named Marge. -- Scorpion0422 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
"Holy Crap Lois!" We need to get some more cites. Or at least, even more DVD commentary cites/expansion. So you think it's even okay for WP:GAC as is? They are really pretty backlogged over there, it's slow going so we can work on it while we wait for someone to get around to a GA review. Cirt 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
I'm going to put it up at WP:GAC now, we shall see... Cirt 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
Just remember that you may have to wait a few weeks before we get a review. -- Scorpion0422 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have sort of started a new habit of trying to GA review myself 2 other GACs for every one I put up as a nomination. Anyone want to review one near that "Television" section, and I'll review another? Cirt 21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
    • Well, I went and reviewed two articles. Passed one as GA, and put the other one on a GA Hold. Shame though, I like the topic of the article, just too many individual sticking points. Cirt 22:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

GA review

Good so far. Notes:

  • The cult shouldn't be called "evil" in the lead.
  • The last paragraph needs some trimming. It doesn't matter that Cletus gets the money, or that Moe becomes a voodooist.
  • "The episodes script" in production is missing an apostrophe.
  • Pinsky's view should be moved to analysis, which should be retitled "Themes".
  • We don't need so many publishers noting the Movementarians are a "cult".
  • Barney, the actual character, should be linked in the picture caption.

Alientraveller 14:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Done and done... And I mean done! -- Scorpion0422 15:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Alientraveller 16:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the review! And good job to everyone for collaborating so nicely on this article, this has truly been a pleasure so far, one of my best experiences ever actually on Wikipedia. Cirt 23:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC).

Formatting

I think as long as we keep the References section at {{reflist|1}} and not {{reflist|2}}, we should be okay here. Cirt 14:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

  • If you say so. I wonder if there is any way to align any of the stuff in the current format of the "See also" sect, "Align right" ? Cirt 14:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
    • See here for a small discussion about see also sections. As for the templates, I'm not sure what the point of the Scientology template is, because the episode contains SLIGHT (but not many) references to Scientology. It's not like Trapped in the Closet where you know for a fact it's about scientology, here it's a lot more subtle. -- Scorpion0422 14:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I suppose it could be included as an entry in the template, but we don't have to have it displayed at this article in particular. I'll remove it and put the see also sect back in the right order. Cirt 14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
        • I've never really liked those side templates because they screw up an articles formatting, especially if that page has a long infobox. Could you reformat the template to be a standard bottom one? -- Scorpion0422 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Sure, I was just thinking the same thing. Great minds... Cirt 14:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Better? Cirt 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Plot synopsis

I checked the sources provided for the Plot section, and at first sight it seems that the majority of the content in that section is not included in the sources provided, but rather, is a description of the plot written by Wikipedia editors based on their impressions after watching the episode. Given that the article is in FA review, I will not place a {{originalresearch}} tag, but it needs to be trimmed down to what is available on the sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, this is not the case. It is common in Featured Articles on films and television episodes - for the plot section to be completely without sources, but simply a description of what occurred. I checked on this already with the Wikipedia: WikiProject Films folks. Cirt 01:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
That could be the case when there are no sources, but in this case we have six (6) sources listed. As an FA candidate, what applies to non-FA aricles may not apply here. As I have already signed off from the FAC review, I would expect this to be fixed without the need for a {{originalresearch}} tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Re-read the comments made in these diffs, and pay particular attention to the caveats expressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe by just shortening the Plot section, with a basic descriptive narrative of it based on the six available sources, will do the trick. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean the part where Bignole (talk · contribs) says: Sourcing is not necessary in plot sections, unless there are no copies of the film itself to view. Films act as their own primary source when it comes to this type of information, as you can easily view the film and say "this didn't happen". (as a copy of the episode is readily available to confirm information via DVD), or where Erik (talk · contribs) says: This is an issue that's come up a few times before, and basically, the plot summary is a recitation of the primary source (film, TV show, etc). That's the implicit sourcing. ? Cirt 01:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
First let me preface by saying that things like WP Films' guidelines don't really have any scope under TV episode articles, so those guideline's particular quirks have no standing here. However, this issue really comes down to more of a sourcing one, which means that we try to articulate the policy rather than create anything incompatible with it. To be brief, it seems obvious enough that - provided the work is extant and openly accessible - a plot section is primary-sourced to the article subject itself, and needs no clarification regarding sources. There would only need to be sources for any sort of commentary or interpretation that for some reason seemed to need to be in the "Plot" section. However, generally speaking, that sort of information is best left to its own sections, such as "Production" and "Reception". Explicit referencing of primary sources are more needed when context could be unclear, such as discussion of particular scenes or quotes outside of the normal plot description. That's my interpretation; side effects may vary. Girolamo Savonarola 01:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was a fast response, thank you! Cirt 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
(ed conf) You miss the rest of their comments, VonSavage:
*So long as there is not any original research in the plot section, like qualifying a character or something, then it's fine.
*Assumptive items like trying to read a character's emotions should be avoided -- basically, just keep to a descriptive outline of the plot.
See for example: The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) a current WP:FA, which have a plot section that describe only the basic plot, without indulging in interpretations. BTW, the plot section of that article is of similar size to this one... that film being an animated film as well, as is this one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Girolamo. My contention is that the plot section as it stands now, goes beyond a a descriptive outline of the plot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no further comments about this, besides this one: If the plot is sourced to the DVD episode itself, then the six sources attached to the section need to be removed. Otherwise it implies that these sources where used to write that section, that is exactly what threw me when I checked them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • "Curt" or "Cirt" will do just nicely, thank you. Cirt 01:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Look, this is getting ridiculous. All of our other Simpsons FAs use the same sources and yes, the episode itself can and IS used as a source for plot synopsis'. If you disagree with this, then I suggest that you go and put all 5 FAs up for FAR and all 50 GAs up for GAR. I'm starting to have a hard time with assuming good faith here because you seem to be threatening to go to GAR over things that are common occurances on every other Simpsons GA, and this is AFTER you made a post complaining about the number of Simpsons FAs. If you want to help the article, then great, but I think you are starting to go a little far. -- Scorpion0422 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Second Scorpion0422. - I cannot put it any better than what Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) just said. Cirt 01:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
You may have missed my comment above: I have no further issues, now that it is clear that the sources stated in the plot section are not the source of the plot summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please assume god faith: If you come to an article and see a section supported by six sources, and you check these sources against the text and they do not match, what do you do? You challenge the text in that section. Now that it is clear that the sources listed are not the basis for the text in that section, I accept the understanding behind the use of the primary source, which is verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)