Talk:The Simpsons

Why would u delete my thing

hey guys, why would u delete my edit? i was trying to acknowledge on the article that the show is one of the best and wat-not. there is no excuse for u deleting the edit!!! but plz just lemme know why Oh babe (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)oh_babe

I have removed your recent edit. We already have listed tons of awards, The Simpsons being the series of the century, a star on Hollywood Walk of Fame, and the adoption of d'oh! into the English dictionary. That should be more than enough praise for the show, keeping in mind that we have to keep it neutral. Also, most of your sources are unreliable essays. --Maitch (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's good, but the articles for "the sopranos" and "friends" say that as well, but they also say something like "this is one of the greatest shows of all time". so i just added it for "simpsons" as well. Oh babe (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)oh_babe

Actually, when reading the Friends article it says the #21 best show of all-time. The Sopranos has been cited as the best show of all time by a reliable source, so it fair to mention that. The Simpsons has been cited as the best of the 20th century. That is pretty big. Keep in mind that there are lots of opinions on this issue. It is not Wikipedia's job to find out which show was the best of all time. We just report from reliable sources. Your sources consisted of essays that anyone could have written. Those are not reliable sources. I could easily start a blog myself and then write that "Power Rangers" was the best show of all-time, but that does not mean that it should be included on Wikipedia. --Maitch (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-English versions of The Simpsons

I am proposing to rename the article Non-English versions of The Simpsons and I would appreciate th views of other users in the discussion at Talk:Non-English versions of The Simpsons. C. 22468 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Middle class

Since user Heonsi is intent making the Simpsons "working class", I'll provide a quote from Homer himself: http://www.quotefully.com/tvshow/The+Simpsons/Homer+Simpson/125/ "HOMER SIMPSON Whoa, careful now. These are dangerous streets for us upper-lower-middle-class types. So avoid eye contact, watch your pocketbook, and suspect everyone."--Asher196 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• but it is a long term consensus from the articles creation to november 2011 , so you are the one changing it based on some joke the series made , see family being working class , your broken 3RR as well Heonsi (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)this user is a block-evading banned user, feel free to ignore tham and to undo any edit they have made anywhere, regardless of its quality. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The citation states very clearly "Middle Class". If you have another citation, then please provide one. Otherwise Wikipedia policy favors verifiability over anything else.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• • what is wrong with [1] , it is a good sholary source for encyclopedia Heonsi (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It appears (and please correct me if I'm wrong) to be an essay/dissertation written by a student. It certainly doesn't appear to a peer-reivewed academic journal. But I could be wrong. As a way of comparison, "simpsons working class" receives 2.36 million hits on Google, whereas "simpsons middle class" receives 15.7 million. Gran² 16:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • In my opinion:

        Season 1-2: Working class

        Season 3-now: Middle class

      • Overall, I believe middle class would be the best way to describe them. --Maitch (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I need a subsitute editor.

Matt Groening is an undeniabe script author during the first season, which is contradicted at section 2:2, first paragraph. 203.11.71.124 (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it contradicted? Groening isn't listed in the group of writers Simon assembled because he wasn't one of the writers, he was the executive producer and showrunner, along with Brooks and Simon. Gran² 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism of declining quality" section of "The Simpsons" article is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article

Hello Gran2,

It's clear that a claim of "declining quality" for "The Simpsons" is not supported by any sort of general consensus. Out of the thousands of writers and commenters for the worldwide "mainstream" media, only two such sources (BBC, CNN) are cited here - that's hardly any kind of general consensus. The CNN commenter, while more critical, qualifies his remarks by writing that the glory days of the show are long past "for MANY fans". He didn't write "most", just "many". How many is many? Also note that the BBC writer cites a 2006 episode as one of his Top Ten favorite Simpsons episodes ever.

Also, both the CNN and BBC articles were published more than two years ago, so they don't even reflect the most recent seasons of "The Simpsons" !!! The rest of the comments in the "declining quality" section are selective quotes by individuals and fansites, some of which date back to the year 2000 - hardly reflecting any kind of consensus.

Here's the main question: Is this "Criticism of declining quality" section appropriate for Wikipedia? Wikipedia content should be as fact-based as possible. When dealing with something as subjective as whether a show is improving or declining, the person making the claim needs to show clearly that there is a general consensus, one way or the other. We don't have that here. The section is long, has many quotes, but doesn't reflect a general consensus. "The Simpsons" is routinely ranked as one of the best comedies ever (see the "Awards" section) and it will be with us for a long time to come. Individual opinions about whether the show is better now than ever, or worse than it was before, should be discussed at length in chat forums, not in a Wikipedia article.

Finqqq (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

I can assure you that the general consensus is definitely that the quality of the show has declined. Certainly more than 90% of fans and critics have that opinion. Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

Leftorium: You're missing my main point. Subjective opinions belong in chat forums, not in Wikipedia articles.

Actually, you are making my point for me. Suppose I told you that I can assure you that the general consensus is that the quality of the show has improved and that certainly, more than 97.3% of fans and critics have that opinion. Where would that leave us? An endless argument on a subjective opinion?

My point is, you're using Wikipedia to promote your own personal opinion. That's not what Wikipedia should be about.

Finqqq (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

I kinda agree that the criticism section is the weakest part of the article. Some of the sourcing is not really great. We use a quote from Scully that obviously was a joke. We use two top 10/15 lists from ten years ago. Neither of those seems like fair "evidence" that The Simpsons has declined. I don't want to go as far as removing the section, but I certainly think we could do better. Maitch (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it is subjective. It is a fact that that a sizeable section of the shows fans and critics think it has declined. It doesn't say that it has declined. It doesn't say that all fans think it has declined. It's merely reflecting a very broad trend of opinion. That the BBC and CNN articles are two years out of date doesn't impede the point of a fan perception of decline over a lengthy period: that's exactly what they state. If you can find multiple reliable sources saying that a majority of fans think it keeps getting better then fine, that should be included. The section features opinions of those who don't think it has declined and if more can be found, they should be added as well. The section is not perfect, but it should be there in some form and I'm not just saying because I hate the show now. Other sources: [2], [3] Gran² 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

Gran2, Maitch -

I'd like to stay focused on the central point here - the "Criticism of Declining Quality" text might be OK for a chat forum, but it really doesn't meet the standards for a Wikipedia article. Of the Wikipedia "Five Pillars", the first pillar ("Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia") states that "Wikipedia is NOT for unverifiable material" ... the content needs to be verifiable. The second pillar states that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". Starting with the section heading, the text is definitely not neutral - it strongly supports the opinion that the show has declined.

Words like "improved" or "declined" actually ARE subjective, by definition. They are not measurable, they are opinions. We can cite the opinions of the BBC and CNN writers, but that doesn't mean they're right. We could be like Comic Book Guy and collect dozens of quotes from the internet from various sources to support one opinion or the other, and then dump them all into Wikipedia. But that wouldn't actually prove a thing ... it would just be a collection of opinions that wouldn't "verify" anything.

You've made it clear that in your opinion, the show has declined and your opinion is highlighted in the article. We could have an endless discussion about it on chat forums, and it might be interesting, but it wouldn't be appropriate on Wikipedia. The "declining quality" section can't be fixed by adding additional text or quotes. The problem is that an opinion piece just doesn't belong in the middle of an encyclopedia article.

Finqqq (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

With all respect. You have missed the point of Wikipedia. The world is subjective. If we only wrote articles solely based on objective facts, we would hardly have anything interesting to write about. Wikipedia have many articles that only deals with the criticism of a subject. Type in "criticism" in the search box and look for your self. The fact we can find plenty of reliable sources on this subject from sources such as BBC and CNN says it is notable - and not a report from a chat forum as you phrase it. Regards, Maitch (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

Maitch - The world is actually objective (it has a fixed size and shape and it orbits the sun in a defined path), but people's opinions are subjective. Another objective fact is that Wikipedia has "Five Pillars" which define "the point of Wikipedia." I'm not citing my opinion about Wikipedia, I'm citing Wikipedia's Pillars Number One and Two. Pillar Number One contains the statement "Wikipedia is NOT for unverifiable material". Pillar Number Two states that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view".

Here are some pertinent objective facts:

1) Wikipedia articles are to be written from a "neutral point of view" (Wikipedia Pillar 2)

2) The "Criticism of declining quality" section is clearly biased in favor of the opinion that the show has declined.

3) Gran2 has stated "I hate the show now" (see above).

4) You also appear to share the view that the quality of the show has declined.

5) Both of you edit "The Simpsons" article, but you both have a strong opinion on this particular issue.

6) Wikipedia's Pillars also state that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." It should not be used to promote a particular viewpoint, it should be written from a "neutral point of view".

I honestly believe that what you're doing with this section is very unfair, for the reasons stated above. You can argue the fine points, but in the big picture, you've taken your personal opinion and carefully framed it in order to promote your viewpoint in a Wikipedia article. Injecting this topic into a mostly fact-based article makes it stick out like a sore thumb. Editors of reputable newspapers recognize when they have a personal bias and are unable to be neutral about a subject (I'm talking about news stories, not editorials) - they recuse themselves in cases like that. I know it's not easy, but I'm asking you to be a little self-critical, take a fresh look at the issue and try to see it from the perspective of someone who disagrees with you. Being a good editor isn't easy - it requires you to be your own harshest critic if you want to do the job well. Thanks.

Finqqq (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

WTF cannot edit??!

This article is shockingly wrong!! Why the hell does it say 499 episodes when last night was the 500th??!??!

And to make matters worse, this error cannot be corrected because the page can't be edited??!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.237.238 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)