Talk:The Finale (Seinfeld)

Untitled

Link to Entertainment Weekly review repaired

This sounds like a parody of L'Etranger. Shouldn't there be a mention of that somewhere? 202.7.183.131 06:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably a parody in your dreams, pal.

Homage to The Stranger?

Somebody explain, this is ludicrous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed270791 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

In Albert Camus' "The Stranger", the protagonist, Mersault, is a callous and self absorbed man who without fellow feeling or even real motivation murders an Arab. In the second half of the book, Mersault's trial, the seemingly innocuous details of Mersault's life are used as leverage to convict him. This episode is VERY similar to the book and it would not surprise me if David based this episode on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.112.157 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, I had never put the two together but definitely see the similarity now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDNick484 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Samaritan Law?

This is a quote from the article. "The four main characters are then taken into custody for violating the fictional Good Samaritan law that requires bystanders to help out in such a situation (although the most serious violation punishment would be a mere $2500 fine)."

If it is a fictional law, then why would there be a "most serious violation punishment" for the offence? If it was fictional, then the most severe punishment is whatever the writers can come up with. The law itself does exist, so I think the word "fictional" should be removed from the article and replaced with a comment about how the punishment was exaggerated for the show.--HDC7777 11:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Fictional" doesn't seem like the right word. Most states have Good Samaritan laws to protect people who try to help someone else--if the helper accidentally harms the person being helped, the helper cannot usually be sued in civil court. Seinfeld stretched the concept--allowing the four main characters to be prosecuted in criminal court for doing nothing. Jbander (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Bill O'rielly

Appearently O'rielly dedicates pages of his autobiography to criticism of this episode citing it as a life changing moment, should that be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.84.121 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Seinfeld-finale.JPG

The image File:Seinfeld-finale.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Jerry, I've always l...

When the plane was falling, Elaine said to Jerry "Jerry, I've always loved...", but in the syndication version, "loved..." is cut. - no. In the original version (which is the one that appears on the DVD), she says "Jerry, I've always l..." and the plane levels off and she doesn't finish. Comments? Dlabtot (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Guest stars

Should all of the guest stars really be listed? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Episodes 3, 9, and 10 of Curb Your Enthusiasm (Season 7, 2009) revolved around Larry David creating a reunion show for the Seinfeld characters. There is a running gag in which Jerry Seinfeld, Julia Louie-Dreyfus, Michael Richards, and Jason Alexander (playing themselves) emphasize to Larry how important it is that the reunion be not as lame as The Finale. In the extras on the DVD, the actors say that they felt that episode 10 ("Seinfeld") was the finale that Seinfeld fans had always hoped for. Jbander (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK.... what is your point? Dlabtot (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Does the Legal Flaws section constitute original research?

Does this analysis of the purported 'legal flaws' in the episode constitute original research, or is it based on material previously published in a reliable source?

---

• Original research. Seems like unsourced personal analysis. Dayewalker (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Not original research, per WP:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a legal analysis, not a compilation of facts and information. Also, the WP:ESSAY you reference, is just that -- an essay. What you should be looking at instead, is policy - specifically WP:No original research. But even the essay you refer to discusses "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources" which is not the case here. Dlabtot (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another policy for you (and yes, it's a policy): "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This is just legal information, contrasted with the episode events. It's not an analysis that requires anything other than "What happened was A, which is in direct contradiction with B." Had the episode shown, say, a talking cat, would you request a source for a sentence that would state that in real life that would not happen because cats don't talk? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest letting this discussion play out, rather than invoking WP:IAR. While it is a policy, it is not a license to disregard all other policies for minor points. Dayewalker (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you kindly explain your meaning of "play out"? Please address the point I've raised. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(OD) By "play out," I mean to let the RFC stand for a little while and see if other editors are going to weigh in. So far two editors have reverted the text, and I would have done the same. Above you appear to be about to invoke IAR, which I would strongly advise against. As for your point, you say this is "just legal information, contrasted with the episode events." Unless those are contrasted in a reliable secondary source, it's original research. Dayewalker (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless it requires analysis that goes beyond basic WP:COMMON SENSE (and in this case it doesn't), it's not original research. Please re-read the policy. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research of legal analysis is not covered under "common sense." Dayewalker (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is no analysis per se here; only "it can't be black because it's white." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Any response at all? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's unsourced legal analysis, which is original research. No matter how you choose to describe it, it's original research. Dayewalker (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• The section is utter rubbish, and shouldn't be included. DC T•C 07:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To Dayewalker – can you prove it's original research? I've proven it isn't. DC – just calling it rubbish (which is your personal opinion that goes against WP:NEUTRAL and WP:COI) isn't a criteria for anything. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome, and is becoming a waste of time. It's a huge chunk of analysis comparing two things (a tv show, and the law), and there are no reliable secondary sources indicating any kind of verifiability. That is the definition of original research.

No offense, but I believe we're done here. We've had an RFC, and still no one agrees with your section. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

First off, for the record, this is not my section, as I am not the one who created it. Second, the RfC has led nowhere, as you and me were the involved parties, and the only comment from a third party is a personal opinion backed up by nothing. Lastly, mere comparing and contrasting is not original research... oh, and if you feel like pulling the "it's just an essay" card, let me quote the opening template on that page: "While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement Wikipedia:No original research." We're not done by a long shot, and so far you've proven nothing. Proving means that you actually show that there is more in that section than mere statement of easily verifiable facts. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the section shouldn't be included. It is like a commentary on the episode. It might make a suitable Duty to rescue cultural references section. ;) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Isn't the application of real-world laws to a work of inherent fiction with no explicit claim to legal verifiability already problematic? That alone would seem to make the section dubious and irrelevant to the topic. If anything, the section is about as meaningful as a "bloopers/errors" section on a page, which generally fall under trivia (no matter how accurate they are) unless they are brought up by a secondary reliable source. Even if this wasn't the case, the only other way I could see an argument for this being a meaningful addition is if the episode and/or writers claimed legal accuracy, which as far as I can tell on the page itself, they don't. Unless the real aspects of the episode (production, development, writing, etc.) claim real-world accuracy, they aren't bound by analysis of real American law, even if the episode is about characters in America who get sent to prison by a presumably American legal system. One could apply the same logic to other media and one quickly sees how problematic it is--"No one can really jump that high in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Based on the angle with which Warren fires the bullet, Tara couldn't have been shot in Seeing Red (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). They wear the wrong fencing equipment in The Girl Next Door (2004). etc." Since it's a work of fiction with no claim to legal accuracy, writing that the legal aspects used in the episode would never actually happen is redundant and leaving a section that notes all the factual inaccuracies is trivial.Luminum (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What did Elaine say on the plane?

There seems to be an ongoing edit war over whether or not to include a transcription of the line Elaine said on the plane, as they thought it was going down. One version of this page says "Elaine is about to tell Jerry something," the other version says "Elaine tells Jerry 'I've always l...'"

I don't have the episode in front of me, but it seems to me that's a pretty accurate description of what she said. We were obviously led to believe she was going to say she always loved him, and it was cut off because...well, it was Seinfeld, and Larry David would never have gone for a moment like that in the finale. I don't see anything wrong with including the line.

Any thoughts? I've removed the line completely until we get a consensus on it. Dayewalker (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

100% agree with Dayewalker. It's too obvious to ignore. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Even though there's nothing wrong with the line, it's kind of absurd reason to have it as the importance of the line is hard to reconcile. According to my Aussie DVD Seinfeld Season 9 Volume 8, I anaylzed the scene down to the subtitles and all I get is "Jerry, I've always...". My real problem is the "L" is impossible to be heard in "Jerry, I've always l..." as a popular line for some reason. I seriously recommend as people make up there minds that it would be better to keep that quote out altogether. I hate to say but unless the line is a popular catch phrase, there shouldn't be any excuses just to get a point across as there are many other ways of writing it in without any trouble. Anyway, even if there isn't any proof, I recommend you write it another way or just leave it out so people can decide how they like to know how the episode goes. My explanation is long but I have my reasons. Don't dis it without research. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well... judging by your spelling, grammar and self-admission that English is far from being your first language, we cannot rely on your eyes and ears as a perception device, can we now? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is WAY out of line. Comment on the subject matter, do not make comments about other editors. Dlabtot (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It absolutely should be included, and there definitely is no 'el', as confirmed by watching the DVD at least 20 times. Dlabtot (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The last question is why add it? The reason people want to add it so in a summary, what Elaine wants to tell Jerry on the place that was revealed on the court before the verdict is she loves United Airlines. That's the reason behind it. If you want to include it, put my summary on part two and this thing could be settled. I mean the main story really is the four going to Paris, after learning that "Jerry" is being revived. But the four instead landed in Massachusetts to get a verdict for "doing nothing" as the robbery incident occured, allowing the guest characters from the past to testify in order to give the four a guilty verdict. I mean there's nothing wrong adding it but I feel it only plays for people who likes to know the story in detail than the story itself. So you can understand by this point, I felt frustrated that somehow, someway, people like that line as an obsession. At least understand Wikipedia is not really a fan based site. I'm not doing it because I don't like, it's just a question of what you want people to read. The main story or a story with every little detail added in for our entertainment? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Johnny, it's very simple: Elaine summarized her unfulfilled desire to get back together with Jerry when she thought she was going to die, something that has been vaguely present and hinted at throughout the series' development. You claimed that your ears couldn't hear that, but obviously, more than a few other editors did hear that, so now you're changing your argument to the notability of the line. And to Dlabtot, I was commenting about editing quality, an integral part of which is the command of the language. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You most emphatically did insult Johnnyauau2000 in a highly inappropriate way. Your unwillingness to take responsibility for your own bad behavior is not a good sign. Dlabtot (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am urging you to quit advocating false accusations on another editor's behalf. Please show me where I might have written something that could have been (mis)interpreted as insulting. All I said was that level of wp:competence is a factor in considering one's edits. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Your attack on what you perceive to be another editor's incompetence is indeed a textbook example of a personal attack, targeted at another editor, rather than a comment on the content of the article or the substance of the edits. Dlabtot (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Watch what your saying. You don't want to be the reason why we're all in this together. This isn't a place where one is always right. As with the minor characters talk on the Seinfeld discussion, thanks to you, you better at least promised to have that resolved soon as I now couldn't edit the list anymore. Take too long and I'll reconsider my approach. For the finale, I'm not sure if you're the fan of the show should know better that small details like that does not always have to be included in the story. I would've included in the Jerry character article and Elaine Benes article but it was too much for me. Last of all, my advice is this is not a place to make enemies, if your not willing to work together, what's the point of this argument? Take a few days off then come back to it at least to cool out minds down. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Johnny, before we go any further, would you kindly explain the meaning of "Take too long and I'll reconsider my approach"? Before that, here is some reading material for your enjoyment. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your using every trick in the book. Your just desperate in keeping material over something trivial. Dlabtot is right you know. A personal attack on me doesn't make you a hero. And using the WP rule book to make your point? I won't be surprised that you haven't read any of the rules you want anyone to read but yourself. Just make the point about this article, have it resolved and maybe I'll reconsider what you want in return. Continue with your personal attacks and the deal's off. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've gone far enough on this one. Hearfourmewesique, comment on edits, not editors. Your comment was out of line. Johnnyauau2000, you're in no position to be issuing threats about taking "deals off" or anything else to that effect. This is an encyclopedia, not a battleground.

Right now, there doesn't seem to be consensus to include the material. I suggest if anyone thinks this small sample size isn't sufficient to generate a consensus, that someone files an RfC here for more eyes. Dayewalker (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? I could swear that your first comment supports the inclusion, at least it lists the right rationale for it. Dlabtot agrees (in his own words – absolutely) with the inclusion, and so do I. We all reasoned it, and the supposedly perceived attack is unrelated to this issue. Looks like a consensus to me... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dlabtot appears to favor including the quote without the final "L" fragment. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Dlabtot. If we're considering including the quote without the disputed "L" sound, I'm not certain what exactly including the quote gives the article. If we want to put that Elaine says "I've always...", I don't really see what that adds. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I would prefer to have that line out altogether. Well with such smart people out there, I don't know if they have the patience to go through the story without having those little inclusions in the way. If I'm going to compromise, Dlabtot is close enough because he like me has seen the episode more than a dozen times and Hearfourwesique I presume haven't seen any Seinfeld episodes. Besides the line bugs me so much, I find it hard to reconcile and the reason to have the line because of its notability. I mean it could've been in the Wikiquotes already. I did say there are other ways of writing it in without the line. Anyway, I've made my point that people just want the story. Times are changing and editors do get smarter every day. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Again with the presumptions, Johnny. I've seen all of them at least twice. This is one of the reasons I still don't understand how you don't get the importance of this line. Even just "Jerry... I've always..." should be instantly understandable to anyone who is even remotely familiar with Seinfeld, because it indicates the repressed feelings she was harboring for him all along. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumptions, have you seen the finale Hearfourmewesique? Times are changing. Before, it was ok to have quotes like "Jerry, I've always...". Now in this day and age, I think there's a lot of smart people out there who just want the story. Because when I look at the whole story section, it's well written but only the line is something I want to clear up. For example, would it be better if you put in a line that says "Before the verdict, Elaine wants to tell Jerry back when the plane is going to crash is she loves United Airlines". How many ways can you write that line? Perhaps to be fair, editors should keep the quotes down to a minimum. Simply because as I said, I prefer a straightforward story that doesn't always involve minor details unless it's important. If I had to get the WP:RFC, well to get a third opinion and maybe someone who seen the show, I will. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In answering your question Hearfourwesique, the importance of the line would've worked had it been written in a different way. I looked at all the other Seinfeld episodes and the way the stories were written, a lot of stories like this doesn't always have to involve quotes like "Jerry, I've always..." because anyone reading this has already got the idea on what the story is about. The simplest way of getting it across is just a sentence which I suggested. Seinfeld scripts maybe reliable but this is an encyclopedia that doesn't involves having big chunks of dialogue. Anyone who watches Seinfeld episodes for real, those episodes don't lie, especially on DVD. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Come on, are you really going to use the United Airlines joke as a reference to anything??? The line is there to show exactly what I already stated, the confirmation of what we were all suspecting all along, kind of a resolution that cannot be stated otherwise. And besides, how is a three word quote a "big chunk of dialogue"?

Finally, what is the meaning of your last sentence? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Simple. Dialogue isn't always everything. We're not reading a play. This article is meant to inform about this episode. When you have big chunks of dialogue, your giving viewers predictable expectations and could easily spoil what they're going to say and what they're actually going to say. So that's the reason behind it. For the second one, fan or not, people who go straight to this article without watching it will only get the idea what the episodes about. Watching the episode if people have it on DVD will get the whole picture. Anything else? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A part of "what the episode is about" is closing the series, it's the finale. Elaine thinks she's about to die so she almost confesses to something everyone's been suspecting all along, but has never been confirmed until that moment. Without the line (and again, it's not a big chunk, it's only three words) a vital part of the story is taken away. Now, I have stated this more than once, yet you keep ignoring my reasoning, while repeating the same "it's not a fansite and we're not reading a play" bull. Please start actually discussing the issue. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between watching the episode and reading the article. The difference lies in the need for dialogue. When you watch the show, you get the dialogue, you get to see the people and you see the way the scenes is shot. When you read the article, dialogue is not a concern. The job for the article is to give you an idea of what the story is about without the need for dialogue. Besides will people get the importance of the line "Jerry, I've always..."? When you write it another way, people will get it because that's what they want to read. Look at other articles that tells the story. Dialogue isn't important unless it's popular. If there's a website that allows for this line, I'll let it go. But with the high standards of Wikipedia, we should definitely avoid using the dialogue as it only works on plays and scripts. You shouldn't be this extreme over a line without rationale and format about how it's written into the story. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Where on Earth have you dug out this "policy" from??? "[W]e should definitely avoid using the dialogue as it only works on plays and scripts"??? I'll repeat: the four main characters are certain they are going to die soon, so Elaine almost confesses to Jerry how she has been feeling all along, but since the plane lands safely, she manages to play it out with a joke ("I've always loved United Airlines") as appropriate to the series. Therefore, it is acceptable to use a three-word quote, as it describes this vital plot part in the most efficient way. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It would had been vital, had it been written in another way. Your just pushing on things that works a few years ago. I just want to write it in without using the line "Jerry, I've always". I mean it's hard to say no but to take it personally because we want the readers to believe that Elaine is going to say she loves Jerry when the plane is going down? Your rationale is truly fan based. The only thing I'll ask you is have you reach a consensus and a critera over a three word qoute? I'm talking more about the overall story and the reason why I want to change that line so it doesn't come across as being too predictable. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Where do you come up with this stuff? Wow, I've never seen such inventive excuses... would have worked a few years ago? And wow, your inconsistencies keep growing, from "Hearfourmewesique must have never seen an episode of Seinfeld in his life" to "your rationale is truly fan based" (which, as I explained several times, is not, but rather the best means to convey that part of the story), or from asking me multiple times what the words "consensus" and "criteria" mean to waving these terms around like it's flying right off your tongue. The other editors seem to agree with keeping the line "Jerry... I've always..." and all possible rationale has been stated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about me or this article? Even if the other editors agree with you, I haven't seen any other messages proving your point. Besides, it's getting old and seriously needs to change because the line is predictable. Haven't you heard of reaching an agreement or are you afraid what would happen if the quote is taken off? If your afraid of change, that proves my point all along. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not afraid of change, I do not want disruptive change that would strip the story of an essential part. How many more times should I keep saying that until it gets through? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there an official script? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Check number three on References near the bottom of the main page. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I should start over. It's my fault for starting the war and so far haven't reached an agreement on it. Hearfourwesique implies the line "Jerry, I've always..." is a line to keep. For reasons, I don't know yet. What I wanted to do when I recently see episode articles like "The Seinfeld Chronicles" and "The Contest" is to simply write it in another way. I was thinking well how about "Elaine is about to tell Jerry when the plane steadied itself". For part two, I suggested "What Elaine wants to tell Jerry before the verdict is she loves United Airlines". After all, these are the suggestions and in no way disrupt the change of the story. The main point really is what should we agree to? I'm ready to rest on a more sensible idea. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm really beginning to lose my patience here. "For reasons, I don't know yet"... I stated my reasons at least three times during this discussion, very extensively, and I am not going to do this again. United Airlines??? If you are really using this as a "legitimate" suggestion then I really have no idea how to communicate with you further. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Johnyauau2000, I'm coming to agree with Hearfourmewsique; xe does state reasons above. I'm beginning to feel like Wikipedia is either a game or a learning experience for you. Unfortunately, that's not the point of this project. We're here to build an encyclopedia; if you want to do that, then you have to listen to what others say, communicate clearly with them, and make edits to articles designed to make the articles better, not just test and see what can or cannot be changed.

Regarding the script site, for some reason I can't access it, though I'll try from a different network later. But just reading the google summary, that doesn't appear to be an "official" site. If it has no affiliation with the creators of the show, then what they write has no validity. If we don't have a script, and we can't agree on what the people said, then we have to leave the line out. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Qeyrxian, you might be right on this one but what now, should we keep the line in and add a payoff to that line on the second half? I'm close to point blank in getting blocked over a line so at least give me some ideas. But if all else fails then rightly leave the line out. Same thing in regards to the list, it's a lightning rod to edit wars by Rydernick I think. I hope that's his username if I spelled it right. By the way, I checked the official site with the finale and there's no mention of the line. I'll see the Seinfeld script one more time. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the Seinfeld Script site, the line is "Jerry, I've always loved...u...". I wouldn't count on it after watching the DVD twenties times thinking that line would be there. I mean where's the extra few seconds? I think it was cut in Australia or this is how Seinfeld originally aired and I'll just say even if the website is right and we should rely on web sources, in the end, it's like following web of errors where mistakes becomes a sobering answer to the article. Like Jacopo or if I try to pronounce it, Ja-co-poh. Anyway, I just want to express my opinion. Even if you shoot me down or is dead serious that you have or have not seen the episode my only point is websites would've been reliable, had it given out correct information that people could follow. You can criticize me on this one but I like to understand the philosophy behind it. That's all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no philosophy here--it's policy. As far as I can tell, that site is not a reliable source--in fact, it sounds like we don't have a reliable source for what the sentence says. If we can't get a reliable source, the sentence should come out. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really, quoting this: "the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy[...]can be verified by watching the episode in question." However, it's also mentioned in this book, which looks like a RS to me. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. If editors agree on what the line is, then we don't need a source other than the show itself. In cases where there's disagreement, we'll need a neutral arbiter (i.e., a reliable source), which, luckily, you've produced. So, now we know what the show says, definitively. Is this conversation done, or was there some other problem you had, Johnnyauau? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's done. It would've been different have you guys signed up to Seinfeld WikiProject as I did. One thing is correct from Hearfourwesique. The television show itself is the source as the accuracy can be verified by watching the episode in question. So I'm now going to give a go ahead as long as it works well with the story. As long as the subplot of what Elaine is going to say in the plane and court has been resolved, then I'm happy. Don't take it the wrong way but that's how I feel that we can finally put it to rest now. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason Alexander's Wife Appeared Uncredited

In an interview on Howard Stern's show, Jason explains how his real life wife appeared in the final episode. Theaternearyou (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

References