Jump to content

Talk:The Joy of Sect/Archive 2

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

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 --  Done
  3. Steve O'Donnell --  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)

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)

TFA

  • February 8, 2008 would be exactly ten years since the episode first aired. I suppose we'll have to see what the WP:TFA/R climate is like at that point. Cirt (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
    • I doubt it'd be allowed because everyone will be up in arms "Oh no! That would be the thirs Simpsons article on the main page in less than a year! The horror! This real is turning into Homerpedia, why can't people contribute to better topics!" Answer: We don't want to. Anyway, I was going to nominate Troy McClure for May 28, 2008, the tenth anniversary of Phil Hartman's death. Ah well, looks like that's off the cards, unless I can get Phil's page to FA before May. Gran2 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Why, because you think you have a better chance for TFA w/ the article about Phil than about Troy? Cirt (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
        • Exactly, if Troy were on the main page, it would be three (four if this gets on) in a year, which some people would like. Troy is obviously a direct Simpsons page, but Phil (although tagged as part of our project) wouldn't be seen as such a direct Simpsons article. Gran2 16:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Good luck. Cirt (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

We're probably going to have to wait at least half a year before Raul will even consider it. I was planning on trying A Streetcar Named Marge for October 1 or Treehouse of Horror (series) for sometime around Halloween if it's promoted. -- Scorpion0422 22:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • We shall see. Just a thought. Cirt (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
    • You can go ahead and try, there's no harm in it, but just be aware that it's not likely. Troy's page might have a better chance because it's not about an episode and it's been an FA for a lot longer. -- Scorpion0422 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, we've got a little while before that, and plenty of other things to work on in the meantime :) Cirt (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Scientology

This episode has scientology all over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.63.72 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate

It is said that the Movementarians are based in part on the Heaven's Gate cult but later in the article it is stated that the episode was changed to be sensitive to the fact that many of the cult members commited suicide. I was under the impression that before the suicide, Heaven's Gate was a mostly unknown group. Is this a discrepancy or were they notorious before the suicides? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how that would be relevant unless there are sources discussing this background in the context of this episode. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Cartwright

Has there been any mention of nancy cartwrights feelings on the episodes inspiration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.90.59 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Jerkass Homer

Shouldn't this article feature some mention of Homer's quote, "Out of my way, jerkass!"? The birth of "Jerkass Homer" was what divided many long-time fans and was seen as a major point of change in the series.

No. --Smashvilletalk 19:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned on Homer's article, with 3 different citations. Why not here?

This specific episode is not referenced. And hardly the genesis. Wasn't the football episode earlier in the season? --Smashvilletalk 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Joy of Sect/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.

*WP:FA. Cirt 04:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 04:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Major changes to plot sect

Ylee (talk · contribs) made some major changes to the Plot sect. These changes to a stable WP:FA article should be discussed on the talk page, with the rationale given as to why they were made. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, Featured Article status confers absolutely zero immunity of any kind to further edits. In any case, FA status occurred 3 1/2 years ago, and since then the plot summary crept up to 690 words in size despite WP:TVPLOT recommending no more than 500 words. My edit cut it down to 484. (And, no, despite my enormous love for this episode and The Simpsons in general, there is no reasonable justification for going above the limit. This isn't 2001: A Space Odyssey.)
Many of my edits tighten language and remove extraneous detail; for example,
He only appears briefly, riding through the fields in a Rolls-Royce while waving to his followers from a slightly opened window with a white-gloved hand.
became
He only appears briefly, waving to his followers from a Rolls-Royce.
The details of exactly how Bart, Lisa, and Maggie are brainwashed are relatively unimportant to what is supposed to be a brief plot summary; what is more important is that Marge is the only Simpson who isn't. Similarly, although I burst out laughing every time I see Rover chasing Marge and hear The Prisoner's theme music, it is not necessary to provide the details of the Movementarian compound's security; just that it is heavily guarded. Ylee (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree, many of the parts removed are needed in the plot sect, for they are discussed in later parts of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, nothing was removed that the rest of the article depends on. The elements comprising the compound's defenses are sufficiently described in the Themes and Cultural references sections. Ylee (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I posted a notice to WT:DOH. I would like to hear thoughts of additional editors before moving forward on this issue. -- Cirt (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the edit. Ylee was largely removing overdetailing which was slipped into the article since the FAC anyway. -- Scorpion0422 19:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done, I self-reverted back to the prior version by Ylee (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Cirt for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Joy of Sect. 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:

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) 20:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Joy of Sect. 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:

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) 14:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Joy_of_Sect/Archive_2&oldid=1075384395"