Talk:Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind

Cultural references

The entire Cultural references should just be moved here to the talk page. Perhaps if there is no subsection on the article page, people will be less tempted to add unsourced material and original research. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Thats fine with me Ctjf83 ^talk 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

---

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.132.216 (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The information below was moved from the article. When sources are provided, this may be moved back into the article.

• Homer's sequence of wanting to commit suicide atop of the bridge and his guardian angel is taken straight from the film It's a Wonderful Life.
• Also, not entirely sure, but Homer going through his memories and the camera cutting to an image of his face seems to be taken from the start of the "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinate" sequence from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey
• The chalkboard gag, "The capital of Montana is not Hannah" is a reference to the hit Disney show, Hannah Montana.
• The closing song is "Day After Day" by Badfinger.
• Homer jumping into his own surprise party is a spoof of the movie The Game.
• Duffman calling the new Duff Champagne, "The Beer of Champagnes." This tagline is a parody of Miller High Life's tag line: "The Champagne of Beers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominik92 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Homer sitting in the "memory chair" and a little bit of blood seeping from his nose is a reference to a similar scene in the movie [Matrix (film)|Matrix]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.66.64 (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Please leave this here, but if you find a WP:V/WP:RS source to back up something, copy that portion back into the article, and leave this list here as a reference. Just make a note of it on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

• I'm all for it, but at this point, the new users and IPs will be adding this "vital" information so it will difficult to keep this stuff of the page without violating 3RR. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't you think the semi-protection will help against that? Cirt (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

no, all the rvts i've done have been since it has been semi. they are all from registered years Ctjf83 ^talk 23:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A little, but it's only protected for a week. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I restored Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs)'s comment here, I'm assuming good faith all around that this was just an edit conflict between the two of you. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
  • In response to both comments, it looks like so far since I moved the unsourced stuff here we're doing a bit better. Cirt (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
    • Well, I think the big thing is making sure the section isn't there to begin with. If people see it, they feel the need to expand it, but with such sections gone, they are less inclined. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
• Is it possible that we can place a link on the page and when clicked, it sends them here? It would solve all our conflicts. Also CTfj, I'm not trying to vandalize this page so don't give that warning for vandalism again.
  • It is a warning for unsourced not vandalism...and what do you mean a link when they click? Ctjf83 ^talk 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • First to make everything easier, let's let bigones be bigones. I shouldn't have brought back all the souces without a discusion and you should have phrased the warning like a block threat- and Halo 3 is overated. Now, what I mean is like the words you click to get to another article or the big number you click to get to a website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiarecool (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm still slightly confused as to what you are asking. do you want a link from the article to this discussion, or are you asking how to get references to show up with the little numbers. btw, those are premade templates, so i don't control what they say, and again, please sign each of your posts by typing ~~~~ thank you, Ctjf83 ^talk 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
        • The first one Yoshiarecool

it already is at the top of the page, just hit talk when you are on the main page. Notice I found references from a reliable source so i put them back on the main page Ctjf83 ^talk 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Cool and thanks for finding sources. But for people just flicking by who know nothing about wikipedia, they may not know about this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiarecool (talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • yes, but it isn't really logical to link it from the section to this, no one would agree with that, and thank you for properly signing!, well the first time Ctjf83 ^talk 00:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a reference for the badfinger song: [1] under the trivia on that page--Dominik92 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

TV.com is not a reliable source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

i was just gonna say, if it says edit it isn't reliable Ctjf83 ^talk 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call, because that was not the Badfinger version. Sounds like a studio redux because they couldn't get rights to the original, which has happened several times before. Anybody know/recognize the artist(s) who performed it? Alf Clausen's nephew, maybe?74.71.28.76 (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• "While planning for Homer's surprise party, Duffman plugs the new Duff Champagne, "The Beer of Champagnes." Duff Champagne's tagline is a parody of Miller High Life's tag line: "The Champagne of Beers." This is also one if a source can be found.--Dominik92 (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, if you can find a reliable source Ctjf83 ^talk 01:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On a whim, I decided to check out the "reliable" sources used. One was an IGN-link which was a summary + slightly review of the episode that didn't even corroborate what it's supposed to corroborate (it did not mention how Mel Gibson once slandered Jews)! The other was a review by some guy over at TVSquad and said review was quite mediocre, even! The article showed lack of knowledge of the show, so why would we assume the guy has any inside scoop on the writing? It's ridiculous what people consider "reliable sources" nowadays. As per the new stricter rules on CR, the entire section will be blanked (by me) soon unless someone finds reliable sources for them. FallenAngelII 10:39, 20 December 2007 (GMT+1)

TV squad is run by AOL, so I would think it is reliable. It's either use that, or have no references at all I guess Ctjf83 ^talk 09:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My response: So? Since when is AOL the Speaker of Truths? Just because some random reviewer (who's obviously not well-versed on The Simpsons if you check the review out) says something does it make it true. Especially not when it's a review. He said stuff like "Scrat from 'Ice Age' makes an appearance". This does in no way mean that it's an official statement corroborated by the writers, as such it's not a good source. It might be a good source for stuff like "Well, this happened in the episode". But it's not a good source for "Well, these are the cultural references in the episode" as what the AOL reviewer is doing is Original Search. I don't understand why you're even defending using TVSquad as a reliable source, anyway. Didn't you say something along the lines of "If it ain't got a reliable source, it's gotta go"? Wouldn't that indicate a high bar for sourcing? --FallenAngelII 12:23, 20 December 2007 (GMT+1)

Well if you don't want the page to have any cultural references section whatsoever, then go ahead and remove it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you the one always going around deleting things as "unsourced"? I thought you wanted the sources cited to be reliable. And reviews by laymen with no affiliation with the production of the shows they review whatsoever (not to mention with flawed insight into the shows) are not reliable sources. --FallenAngelII 17:28, 3 January 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelII (talk • contribs)

Sources

None of the sources confirm what is said in the cultural references section, (except the Ice Age thing) the sources are just there as an excuse for original research, I do think that the section is important (unlike most people here) it's probably the second most important part after "reception" but it is becoming a major problem in this article, I mean we're refusing to put all that stuff into the article until we find sources, but half of the Cultural references are in the article without sources anyway, creating an incomplete list.--The Dominator (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. - Yours truly, Superior(talk) 01:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been saying this for weeks. The majority of the CRs are either unsourced (as per usual with Wikipedia) or sourced with crappy sources. (I won't sign this commnt as apparently, I'm doing it wrong and the Sinebot signs it for me anyway) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelII (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add the more apparent references to the article with the "citation needed" sign. btw FallenAngelll, just click the "sign button" on the wiki control panel.--The Dominator (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Really obvious CR should be included. However, faulty sources should not be used. It's ridiculous to use a review by a random laymen as a source. Yuna-chan (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need some sort of source. Ya, I don't like the IGA guy at all, but with no sources, IPs and random users put in OR CRs that are useless and just add to the cruft of the article. At least if we source all of them, we can remove their random CRs. Also, who's to say what is "really obvious" there was a lot of edit warring on Treehouse of Horror XVIII because a user said his CRs were really obvious, but none of us reverters had heard of them. Also, if you take a look at the GAs we have, they have sourced CRs Ctjf83 ^talk 06:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to using obviously "bad" sources such as TV reviews to source facts. Both the IGN and TV Squad articles are merely reviews of laymen. While it can be argued that maybe the IGN guy has some kind of deeper grasp of the Simpsonsverse, he is in no way connected to the production. The fact that he thinks that "X scene is a CR to Y thing" does in no way mean it's a confirmation of such. Using the IGN or TV Squad reviews are sources is the equivalent of using someone else's Oiriginal Research as a source! I'd rather have no source than a "bad" one! What if some lesser intelligent people see this and start using such sources for things other than CRs? Why should we let it slide just because it's CR? Sources should always have to be reliable, especially when we're claiming things like "The writers and producers intended to reference this and that with this scene". Yuna-chan (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is any worse than the hundreds of IPs who add crap with no sources at all. If you are going to remove things without proper sources, then do it the right way and remove the entire section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not deleting unsourced CRs. I'm deleted bad sources. Bad sources, in my book, are just as bad, if not worse, than unsourced facts. How the hell are reviews good sources of what the writers thought, anyway?! It's tantamoune to Original Research based on other people's Original Research! Yuna-chan (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the CR's are OK right now, possibly add the "It's a Wonderful Life" reference, (haven't seen the film but most of the reviews make a mention of it, also "Total Recall" it's probably not necessary to add every song used unless it parallels a film or something like that. We will find sources eventually, but the amount of assumption that we're making right now seems fine, just watch new editors adding obscure unsourced CR's.--The Dominator (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

what do you propose we do then? Let just anyone put in any random CR they want and turn it into a mess like Treehouse of Horror XVIII was? Ctjf83 ^talk 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, just leave it the way it is and wait till the novelty of editing this page wears off, next Simpsons episode is tomorrow, and we can focus on fixing this one up. The CR section is fairly important to the article in my opinion. It's what the Simpsons are based on.--The Dominator (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How do u propose a GA will pass with out references in the CR section? Ctjf83 ^talk 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We just started this article a few weeks ago, first just get the information in. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is about?.--The Dominator (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

At least with some sort of source, even if it is a "bad source", we can remove unsourced OR from IPs and random users. With out any source, the reason to remove there's is gone, other than, cause I don't like that CR Ctjf83 ^talk 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but to me that sort of seems like cheating Wikipedia for the sake of progress.--The Dominator (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it cheating? would u rather have random CRs that don't make sense, or are highly unlikely? Ctjf83 ^talk 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding bullshit sources is nearly as bad as adding bullshit CR's, but I do oppose removing them, so I guess we can leave those sources in and if something better comes along, great! Except if the sources are already there, most editors will just assume the job's done.--The Dominator (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You are just saying it is a BS source...again, unsourced CRs that are bad can be removed easier if we say they are removed because they are unsourced, instead of I don't like the CR..did you look at the issues we had with the THOH I linked twice? Ctjf83 ^talk 00:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the page and the same thing happened here, and the same thing will happen to the next episode article, you think it would be bad to semi-protect this page again?--The Dominator (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm always up for any Simpsons page to be semi...but the question is, is there enough vandalism for an admin to actually protect it? Ctjf83 ^talk 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there might, just ten minutes ago somebody added another reference to that damn Noah video, and a link to it is still in the External Links! Besides most of the crap added is from IP's and newly registered users.--The Dominator (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you can go ahead and ask for protection, and see what the admin decides Ctjf83 ^talk 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that we're at the external links, the other one doesn't work either. I've never asked for a page to be protected, which admin do I ask?--The Dominator (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done it either, but go here Ctjf83 ^talk 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found it.--The Dominator (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: As per our discussion on adding in the sources, what if I added the Tv.com source, obviously far from reliable but at least it's an external reference--The Dominator (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine with me...I just want something so we can say to IPs, yours isn't sourced, so it is deleted Ctjf83 ^talk 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

wait, strike that, I believe anyone can put reviews for TV.com, so that would be worse then IGN Ctjf83 ^talk 05:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's a second party source. Anyone can contribute? So! Every source is written by somebody, this just makes this one less reliable, you said yourself that bad source is better than no source and it seems like the only site that has a list of CRs right now, obviously we will find a better one, when will the Simpson episode capsule thingy get updated?--The Dominator (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Or what about this?:[2], I think that part is actually written by the IMDb people rather than users.--The Dominator (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks ok Ctjf83 ^talk 07:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDB isn't useable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

People, please take a moment and think rationally about this. Putting it down as a "fact" that the writers are making a cultural reference is claiming that the writers did something. In order to this, unless it's so blatantly obvious anyone could see it, most of the time, you need a reliable source for this. A reliable source for stating that the writers did something is not a TV review made by random people with no affiliations to the show! What you're doing by sourcing CRs with TV reviews is doing original research and sourcing it with other people's original research. I think "bad" sources should be avoided. It'd rather not have a source than provide an obvious bad one (in the context). We're claiming the writers intended this and that with the episode here. You cannot source such statements with other laymen's original research. Yuna-chan (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, for the final time, why don't you remove the entire section then? You argue against using TV reviews as sources and yet your an advocate for completely unsourced sections? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1) There are parts of IMDb that are not operated by users, I think it's as reliable as we're going to get. 2) Remove the entire section? Why? Because one or two people don't like the sources? Just leave it the way it is, there is basically nothing wrong with the section right now. What is a reliable source for you, maybe if you give Matt Groening a call then he'll clarify all this. We've found three semi-reliable sources that state virtually the same CRs. If you think the section is not important. THAT IS YOUR OPINION! 99% of the Simpson episode articles have the section, so removing it doesn't solve anything.--The Dominator (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, unsourced cultural references sections are strongly discouraged by several Wikipedia policies, including WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CRUFT and WP:TRIVIA. Maybe 20% of the episode pages have proper sources for the CR sections, but the rest could easily be removed and policy would back it up. The only reason this HASN'T been done is because if I did that, I would have to fight dozens of IPs and less policy bound users who would continually readd the cruft so it's really not worth it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't the Wikipedia policies also want us to have realiable sources? In the context, the sources provided aren't reliable. I'd rather leave it unsourced than let people run around using unreliable sources willy nilly. It sets a bad precedent and example. Yuna-chan (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things: 1. Why do you think that the CR section is less important than the rest of the article? 2. Why do you think IMDb is unreliable?--The Dominator (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a sourced cultural references section like this can be very good, and I often try to include them in articles. But the unsourced ones ARE discouraged (like trivia sections). And IMDB is unreliable because a lot of it is contributed by users, most film FAs include a link to it, but none of them use it as a source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." That is from WP:TRIVIA, but that section of IMDb is not contributed by the users!--The Dominator (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:NOR say that things without proper sources can be immediately removed. And it doesn't matter, IMDB still isn't useable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just leave it in! Is it hurting you that there is a reference from IMDb? It's just temporary until let's say the Simpsons site updates and includes this episode. Just like Ctjf83 said, it's just a source so we can tell the IPs that they can't add unsourced CRs.--The Dominator (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You obviously aren't going to listen to anything we say, so go here and ask them about IMDB. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

STOP undoing my edits! We have not reached consensus, you are starting an edit war that I don't want to be in! I said I wish to use IMDb as a temporary source. It's definitely the most reliable source out of the three.--The Dominator (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Noah Kalina

I was surprised to see the obvious parody of Noah Kalina's Youtube video was not mentioned. It's very obvious that's what it is, no one could find a reliable source saying that? The song playing in the background is the one from Kalina's video, and it was verifiably written specifically for that video (says the New York Times: [3]). A cursory search of my own did not reveal any really reliable sources discussing it, but one's gotta be out there somewhere.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if one was found, this is something that people keep adding without a source and linking to the video on Youtube (a copyright violation), personally I have no strong objections to adding it without a source, but others do. We've really searched and there doesn't seem to be a RS online.--The Dominator (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put this back in. This information was as easily verifiable as it was obvious and shouldn't have been removed. Linking to the actual youtube video is not a copyright violation as the video itself is not a copyright violation (Noah Kalina put his own video up and not someone else's without their permission). This article is suffering from WP:OWN and not being edited per WP:CONSENSUS. --Oakshade (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's being affected by policies like WP:V, WP:A, WP:RS and WP:NOR. You really should assume good faith. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I second Scorpion that you should assume good faith. That said, I have no problem with the reference being made, except that it's not as notable as some of the others. The Dominator (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Way We Weren't

It should be noted that the particular memory Homer crashed through that Lisa said was his first kiss was taken from The Way We Weren't in season 15--Dan2paul (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Way We Weren't

It should be noted that the particular memory Homer crashed through that Lisa said was his first kiss was taken from The Way We Weren't in season 15--Dan2paul (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328221643/http://www.observer.com:80/2007/d-oh-tube-internet-sensation-scores-big-simpsons-moment to http://www.observer.com/2007/d-oh-tube-internet-sensation-scores-big-simpsons-moment

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) 23:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)