Talk:The Last Temptation of Krust/Archive 1

Unsourced material moved from article page

I moved the unsourced material below out of the article page. Of course, if anyone finds good sources to back up this interesting stuff, please feel free to add that portion of the material back in, with the appropriate citation. Cirt (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

References to pop culture

Krusty's return to the underground comedy scene may be considered an homage to George Carlin and Bill Hicks, known for their harsh, cynical comedy material in which they frequently criticised corporate America. Numerous parallels between the two can be drawn (such as Krusty adopting an all-black wardrobe, similar to Hicks and Carlin, and his more cynical, truth-driven material).

Deleted scenes

These scenes were not included in the episode:

• Jay Leno asking somebody to "turn down the raunch," and then saying: "We got Bob Newhart!"
• The Internet comic first appears. This makes his later appearance meaningless.
• An original version of the scene where Krusty burns a dollar - but the topic is the government instead of advertisement.
• When Krusty tries to think of new ideas, he says: "The Yellow Pages - What's the deal with that?" A reference to the jokes Jerry Seinfeld commonly uses.

---

•  Done -- Added in mention of the similarity to George Carlin in the later part of the episode, with source to Jay Leno commentary on season 9 DVD release. Cirt (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

This article moving towards GAC ...

Trying to get this one up to WP:GAC status. I don't have the DVD for this. If anyone wants to add some info from DVD commentary and add a Production section, it'd be much appreciated. In the meantime, I will see about getting the DVD, and finding if there are any secondary sources that mention Production info. Also, if anyone else wants to take a crack at expanding the plot section a bit, that'd be appreciated too. Cirt 13:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

• I also had heard that Jay Leno was asked a question about this episode as related to his sidewalk all-stars or "Jay-walking" segments, but I'm not sure about the source for this. More to come later. Cirt 13:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC).
  •  Done Added production info. More notes going forward towards GAC below. Cirt (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

A note on sources

Some sources misspell the title of this episode as "The Last Temptation of Krusty". Cirt 14:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

Then it's probably a good idea to say "The episode is also known as..." with some footnotes. Ribbet32 19:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A good point! Thank you, I will go ahead and do that. Cirt 19:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

 Done Cirt 16:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

Going forward towards GAC

1. Expand the plot a little bit more, to support references made to it later in the article in Production, Cultural references, and Reception. (Not much expansion needed, maybe three, four sentences max.) -  Done
2. Expand the lead, summarizing the article (After above is completed.) -  Done
3. Double-check to see if there's any more information readily available in other sources. -  Done, but always good to see if there's more sources.
4. Copy-edit and proofread, hopefully not much will be needed.  Done, but always good to re-check copyediting.
5. Submit to WP:GAC. -  Done, awaiting GA review.

Cirt (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

Cultural references, image alignment

Please leave the image aligned on the right-side for now. I'm going to expand that section a bit more in the near future, so that will resolve your whitespace issue. As for the left-alignment, the last sentence wraps around and it doesn't look that great. Cirt (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

• Not a big deal though, I'll leave it for now and I won't be the one to put it back, at least, not until I expand that section a bit more to address Ribbet32 (talk · contribs)'s concerns. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  •  Done - I added a tad more info to that paragraph, might add a teensy bit more later. But nevermind on the image alignment - it looks fine on the left side actually. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 14, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Check

2. Factually accurate?: Check

3. Broad in coverage?: Check

4. Neutral point of view?: Check

5. Article stability? Check

6. Images?: Check

With this in mind, I shall be passing this article. There is nothing of importance to be reported back after this review. Just a very good job indeed. Also note, that I won't be removing this or placing this on the relevant GA boards just yet as I'm backlogged by a few articles and would rather remove them all at once. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you. Rudget. 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you to Indopug (talk · contribs) for the latest bit of copy-editing, much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Redudancy

There's a lot of redudant information in the article summary that is written almost exactly or stated further on in the article. Has anyone considered rewriting/reorganizing the article intro for less redudancy? Just a thought. I don't want to tear it up without any further thoughts. P.Mk (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be an adequate summary of the article itself, per WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On that same note: ".. it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". The lead being longer than the plot summary itself doesn't strike me as particularly concise.. "Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article." again is where it seems redundant. It was just a thought I had as I was reading it, however. P.Mk (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the lede is longer than the plot section because it also contains summary info from the other subsections of the article. At any rate, I am not too worried about it as this article has passed successfully through multiple stages of quality review. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Krusty's anti-establishment persona in this episode is a tribute to the late comedian Bill Hicks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.77.139.254 (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to mention that. I have no clue how this got to FA with such a crucial bit of info not in there. I would add it myself, but I'd feel cautious, it being a featured article and all.  Red157  22:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it had an unsourced bit of info like that, then it probably wouldn't have become featured. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Re: Bill Hicks

After seeing a bio pic on Bill Hicks, I realized who the writers were modeling Krusty on - and apparently, I am not the only one. There is a detailed analysis and commentary on the parallels between both comedians at this link:

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/5F10

(search the voluminous text for "Hicks")

It is an interesting analogy, but I don't think Hicks went on to endorse an SUV before he died (although his bio pic shows him quite fond of his Jeep).

Should a reference to Bill Hicks be added to this description? Seems like the Canyonaro thing really drowned out the real point of the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.167.146 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does this keep getting deleted?

I post updates to the article, to the effect that the song makes reference to the Ford and Firestone controversy, and it keeps getting deleted. Why is this?JIMfoamy1 (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Because you are not providing a reliable source and you saying it is a reference is original research both of which are detrimental to a top of the line "featured article" CTJF83 19:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify more, no where in the song is Ford or Firestone mentioned. WP:OR means you are saying, well since they are talking about car fires, and it was around the time of all the SUV rollovers due to Firestone tires on Ford SUVs, it must be a reference to that situation. While it most likely is, without a reliable source, it is just your analysis and therefore WP:OR. CTJF83 19:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense. I'll check the source list and see if I can find any official reference.JIMfoamy1 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No mention of pun in title

i.e. that it refers to The Last Temptation of Christ (film), that the plot is recapitulated, etc. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Title related to "The Last Temptation of Christ"

This article doesn't mention the obvious reference of the episode title to the novel and film "The Last Temptation of Christ". Is there any specific reason for this? I would add it but since it's a featured article, I assume this has been discussed before. Thanks. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

this is redundant with the thread above. Your presumption is presumptuous. Just do it. Lycurgus (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And undone. I'm not a Simpsons fan and don't want to dirty myself with this, but the matter of fact is obvious and can doubtless be sourced. Apparently there was more than one episode taking off from it, with a Temptation of Homer as well. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can get a source: great. But it doesn't matter how obvious it is, it needs to be sourced. Otherwise it's a slippery slope. There's a lot of stuff I know for a fact, that I think is really obvious. But without a source it doesn't matter. Gran² 12:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In this case it doesn't but in general it does. Reality/truth always trumps local conventions at the level of principle/character/etc. I've no doubt this could be sourced if there's someone with nothing better to do with their time, especially given it was used in more than one episode. Also a distinction should be clear between "apparent"/"obvious" and a situation like this which is more than just that. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The title is most certainly a reference to the book/movie. If you prefer to have no information rather than one without an immediate source, then you are harming this encyclopedia. And yes the other title The Last Temptation of Homer is also a parody. Please take your bureaucracy elsewhere.[1] Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Making clear the speakers in this thread are of one mind (I'm Lycurgus). The person or person who reverted Hamsteropthicus' edits haven't weighed in. 99.69.231.238 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I put the reference back in the article as IMDB has now officially acknowledged the OBVIOUS reference in the title of this episode. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:UGC. Gran² 16:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you removing the content without any consensus? The parody in the title is so obvious that it won't be found in a published book or scientific paper. It's simply implied. It's a genuine and legitimate piece of information that should be included in this article. If anything, it could be left with a citation needed tag but not deleted. Should we delete everything in Wikipedia that doesn't have a hard reliable source even when it's completely obvious and acknowledged by many people everywhere to the point that it is discussed without disclaimer elsewhere? This is a connection that any unbiased observer would make and it should be addressed in the article (WP:FACTS). And finally, this information is neither harmful nor in an article about a living person so it does not merit deletion. I suggest you read WP:NOCITE. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed" -> I am challenging this because, to quote myself above, "it doesn't matter how obvious it is, it needs to be sourced. Otherwise it's a slippery slope. There's a lot of stuff I know for a fact, that I think is really obvious. But without a source it doesn't matter." Reliable, verifiability. Not truth. And if it as painfully obvious as you say, why does it even need to be mentioned? "Should we delete everything in Wikipedia that doesn't have a hard reliable source even when it's completely obvious and acknowledged by many people everywhere to the point that it is discussed without disclaimer elsewhere?" If something is as "obvious and acknowledged by many people everywhere" then a reliable source shouldn't be too hard to come by, but otherwise, yes it should be deleted. I'm not being a jerk for the sake of it, but letting something in in one case, no matter how obvious it may be, is a slippery slope. For example, in "Homer at the Bat", the scene where Burns sacks Don Mattingly for not shaving his sideburns is quite obviously a reference to when Mattingly was dropped from his team in real life over his haircut. That was what was widely believed and discussed. Except that it wasn't. The episode was already recorded and it was a total coincidence. Just because it is "obvious" here doesn't mean it should be let off. By all means start a discussion in some wider community area about this issue and I will gladly yield if that goes against my view. But I believe all cultural references must be sourced. Gran² 19:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have not let the statement sit in the article long enough for someone else to see the citation needed next to it and help us out. Unverified statements should ONLY be removed if they are harmful, on an article about a living person, or if consensus has been reached about removing it (which it hasn't). What you are doing, deleting things as soon as they are written because you may not agree with them, is the REAL slippery slope (see WP:FACTS#Pedantry, and other didactic arguments). You cannot single-handedly claim consensus. I think we need more opinions about this issue before we can decide that it is settled and to do that we should let the statement sit in the article with a citation needed tag. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What? I haven't removed it, I just moved it to the cultural references section, which is where it is supposed to be... Gran² 16:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced info

1. I've gone ahead and removed some blatantly unsourced info, see diff.
2. This article is of WP:FA quality.
3. It should not have blatantly unsourced info.
4. As much as possible, every single sentence in this article should be cited to secondary sources.

Thank you.

— Cirt (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)