Talk:The Debarted

Untitled

look leave the trivia section alone already, quite rearranging shit.

1. Assume good faith
2. It is not a trivia section as trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines
3. It is unsourced
4. It is not in any way notable for inclusion, they used a song, so what?
5. Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ The Dominator (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

1. i assume nothing when it comes to wikipedia,
2. you knew what i meant...
3. well look who's the one not Assume good faith
4. by that logic nothing is
5. i'm aware of how it goes Blackdragon6

1. Then you risk being blocked
2. Fine... but I wrote that because you're using it as a trivia section
3. I think you do not understand the concept of good faith properly
4. Not sure what you mean? Episode guidelines discourage song listing
5. Then why didn't you in your last comment? The Dominator (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That Was Fast

I'm surprised how quick it took for people to clean up and fix the initial plot I posted. Even more surprising is how quick it took for this article to become locked? JayAlto (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Other wikieditors: help

As anyone who has seen The Departed knows, the last line made by Wiggum was an explicit reference to the symbolism of the rat in the movie The Departed. I attempted to put this in but Ctjf83 kept reverting my edits first stating I needed a source (which I did add) and later saying that the source was not good because it didn't say that the line in the Simpsons refered to the movie The Departed (which is completely ridiculous since again, it is such an explicitly obvious line meant to go "by the way, if you didn't notice yet, this was a parody of The Departed"). Now a second account is reverting my edits and left messages on my talk page (which I blanked but you can check the history) by a user called Momusufan but is still signing as Ctjf83. Can anyone with a better wiki-fu than I tell me if people are allowed to create dual accounts to back up their primary and help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have no relation to Ctjf83 first of all, second, you are violating WP:3RR by continuing to add false information into the article. If you continue to add false information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Momusufan (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm hardly creating dual accounts, so get that out of your mind. Momusufan has an extensive history, so it is obviously not me. When people use sock puppets they are using either IPs, or an account with a new edit history, not a user whose edits go back 10 months, with over 3059 edits. Read Wikipedia:Citing sources to understand what needs to be cited. Just because it is obvious to you, doesn't mean it is obvious to everyone, so that is why it needs a source. The source you find needs to say the rat in The Debarted is a reference to the rat in The Departed! Ctjf83Talk 05:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, sorry, one of his edits was a revert on my talk page but I didn't see it was a revert so I thought you were posting using a second account. A complete and utter mistake on my part. Second, to Momusufan, adding false information, what abosolute ridiculousness for you to think that. Shame on you first of all for assuming that information was false and you obviously have never seen The Departed or read anything about the topic. And let me ask you this: if the show goes "rat signified obviousness" and the director of The Departed says "the rat signifies obviousness" and the entire show is a parody of The Departed, what evidence are we lacking? If you're looking for a source that says "the final quote is a reference to The Departed" than why was the trivia bit about "this Simpsons show was a parody of The Departed" allowed when it also is not sourced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk • contribs)

It's not necessary to say that, it already says that the episode makes references to the Departed and that's enough. I also suggest you read some of Wikipedia's policies to learn more about editing. The Dominator (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What source is there that says "this is a parody of The Departed." This is what I don't get. Why is the one unsourced (though screamingly obvious) factoid allowed but the other (screamingly obvious) factoid not allowed? It seems to me to be a double-standard here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk • contribs)

Why? Why do we need to include it? We know it's a parody of The Departed! The Dominator (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Source? This is incredibly hypocritical that some sourced statements are allowed and some others (which actually are sourced) aren't depending on the mercurial whims of the editors. What source do you have that says "This was a parody of The Departed"? None. And of course not since it is so incredibly obvious that you shouldn't have to source it. In the same vein, the end line is the one explicit reference to the film and was probably confusing for those that haven't seen the movie. However it is beyond ludicrous that though the implicit reference to the movie need not be sourced, the explicit (and confusing for those that haven't seen the movie) reference has to have a source. It's ridiculous and a double standard; either both references should be allowed or neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, like Dom said, it already said it parodies The Departed. I've never seen it, so it isn't obvious to me. Everything that is similar in the movie and the episode doesn't need to be said. We said it is parodied once, and that is enough. We could probably have 20 things that were parodied, but saying it once is enough! Ctjf83Talk 06:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is utter hypocrisy! You don't need a source to say that this was a parody of The Departed but when I note that the last line is an explicit reference to the symbolism of The Departed (since otherwise, people might not get the line) as opposed to the implicit reference of the episode and I provide a source, it isn't good enough. This is complete hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we just end this little dispute please? It's going nowhere. Lets please try and come up with consensus to this dispute. I agree with Ctjf83 about saying it's parodied once, lets just leave it at that. Momusufan (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Your reference said absolutely nothing about the Simpsons episode. Thus it is not valid. A source is needed to say it parodies the Departed, because again, I haven't seen it, so I wouldn't know, and lots of people wouldn't know. Ctjf83Talk 06:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just forget about it, is there a specific reason why that needs to be included? The Dominator (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For the fourth time: "it's an explicit reference to the symbolism of the movie that will go above the heads of anyone who hasn't watched the film." My mistake when editing the article was that I should have further explained that "the last line of the show is an explicit reference to the symbolism of the rat seen at the very end of The Departed as opposed to the implicit references throughout the episode" instead of just saying it was from The Departed. Let me ask you people this: have any of you seen the movie? Those who haven't, did the final line make sense to you?

Dominik has a point, you did say it's already referenced so I wouldn't add it again. and to 72.1.222.140, keep your comments Civil. Read WP:Civil. Momusufan (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. You say my statement need to be sourced. Where is the source that says this episode was a parody of The Depared? Why is that unsourced statement allowed? And for the third time, as to why include it, it's an explicit reference to the symbolism of the movie that will go above the heads of anyone who hasn't watched the film. So people wondering what the last line was about will go here to find out. And how am I not being civil? and I wouldn't throw stones Momusufan, on this page it says of assuming good faith but you said that I kept adding "false information" which is itself patently false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! You've still not explained why it needs to be included. It says that it references the Departed, what else do you want? The Dominator (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to remove the reference to the line all together as it isn't essential to the plot. The Dominator (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats a great idea Dom! It has nothing at all to do with the plot, and we don't list "one time" or quick jokes like that Ctjf83Talk 06:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For the fourth time: "it's an explicit reference to the symbolism of the movie that will go above the heads of anyone who hasn't watched the film." My mistake when editing the article was that I should have further explained that "the last line of the show is an explicit reference to the symbolism of the rat seen at the very end of The Departed as opposed to the implicit references throughout the episode" instead of just saying it was from The Departed. Let me ask you people this: have any of you seen the movie? Those who haven't, did the final line make sense to you?

again, it really has no plot purpose...I just figured it was Ralph talk Ctjf83Talk 06:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

People will come here for an explanation of that final line and you are denying them this for a reason I can not understand. And none of you have explained why one unsourced statement is allowed but another (sourced) statement is. The line "The title and plot of the episode references the 2006 film The Departed." is completely unsourced. There is no proof of it, yet it is allowed to remain. I provided a source that showed that the rat in the film was a reference to obviousness yet mine wasn't allowed; explain the disparity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look, that line is sourced Ctjf83Talk 06:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A source you just now added. And the source is a tv guide site that says "that looks suspiciously like The Departed" which something tells me that if I had added it, you would consider spurious since it doesn't egregiously explicitly say that THIS IS A THE DEPARTED PARODY. Regardless, why, why, why was that unsourced statement allowed to remain and mine was continually eliminated? Why the hypocricy?

I see your point and I'm sure people will come here looking for that line, the problem is that that's not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia doesn't exist to answer every question about everything; only what's encyclopedic, explaining jokes is not. The Dominator (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be the sum of human knowledge. And why the refusal to add this fact which would serve to explain the very ending but allow a "their shirts look the same" comment?

I deleted that a while ago....look we're getting no where, so please stop your random complaining about something not being added in Ctjf83Talk 06:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Admit that you are just being outright hypocritical. There is no valid reason to allow one unsourced statement and block another similar (sourced) statement except for hypocrisy. I've asked all of you for the longest time for an explanation besides this and none was provided. Moreover, I was accused of adding falsities which was in itself a lie. Now because of your intransigence, people wondering what the ending signified shall remain mystified as I myself am mystified why you would push against the clarification of the ending.

(ec) Nope, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia and comparisons like that are discouraged as they belong on a fan site. The Dominator (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But I still don't understand why you wouldn't want to put in a line explaining the very end. It doesn't seem superfluous

as we've stated several times, that one line has nothing to do with the plot at all. Please, unless you have something relevant to say about the episode, please stop complaining about a one line reference not being included Ctjf83Talk 07:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not "a line" it serves to explain the meaning of the very end of the episode by referencing the symbolism of a classic modern film, giving an explicit link between the two. Honestly, I think you're just being implacable in your utter refusal to add this relevent fact. Is there some kind of vote or some open democratic process when one person doesn't want something in an article and another does. If it does, we should be doing that right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no vote, thats what we are doing now, discussing if it should be added, and frankly, it's 3 -1 on not adding...although we don't count votes...so don't go and find a bunch of random people who want it added Ctjf83Talk 07:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, way to assume good faith. Second, I think that you and the other person with which you colluded are saying no simply to say no as your silence in regards to your hypocricy on allowing some unsourced statements in but deleted other sourced statements and treatment of someone trying to contribute demonstrates. The Dominator has shown to be reasonable so I will wait until he weighs in. But to repeat, you are stoping for whatever small reason the inclusion of a line which would serve to explain the very ending of the episode, an ending which I'm sure some people will come here to have explained and an ending which the explanation that, by your own statement, changes from "oh Ralph saying something random" to "Ralph explaining the symbolism of the rat in the last scene of the film on which this episode is based and giving a final explicit, incontrovertible reference that this episode is indeed inspired from that film." It changes the meaning of the ending; this is not superfluous information, this is notable, this is important and this should absolutely be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF to understand what it is...and what is unsourced that you don't like? Ctjf83Talk 07:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was accused of inserting lies in the article and you just implied that I would do as you did and collude with others; you both failed in assuming good faith; you both held a hypocritical double standard by allowing an unsourced statement but off-handedly deleted my sourced statement and only much later found a weak "source" to keep that statement in; you protected the article making it impossible for me to edit; you told me to "keep it civil" even though at no time was I uncivil towards any of you; I have given several reasons why that line should be included and even you admited that you misconstrued the ending and Dominator admited that yes, people would be coming here searching for the information that I provide and still you block it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I never accused you of lying. Also I never colluded with anyone. If you look at my edit history, i've never once chatted with the person you think is me before you accused us of being the same person, so there was no plotting. And again, your "sourced statement" never mentioned the Simpsons. But I'm overly tired of debating this endless circle with you. So i'm done for now Ctjf83Talk 08:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you were the one, it was quite obviously Momusufan who said I was adding "false information" when I clearly was not. And I have done as you recommended and did check your and Momusufan's talk page and you told him to come here because I "called him out" as you put it and both of you trying to create a 3RR. That would be coludnig. And as for sourced statements, the one you found waaaay after I kept asking you why the other Departed line was remaining in when it had no source says "hey this is really like the Departed." not "This story was inspired, is a parody of, etc... of The Departed" I noted that the last part of the show which notes that "the rat symbolises obviousness" which per your own words changes the meaning of the ending, this is obvious to anyone who has seen the movie or even read articles about it and yet, though you didn't need a source to say that the story was based on The Departed, you needed one for my line. And so my source states that indeed the rat symbolises obviousness within the movie and then you claim that since it doesn't explicitly indicate for even the most addled mine "THE LAST LINE IN THE SIMPSONS IS A REFERENCE TO THE LAST SCENE IN THE DEPARTED" it's no good and then the article gets locked. You are puposefully being difficult and have uneven and akward requirements for statements in the article.

I have fully explained why it is important to have my addition in the article: That line defines the ending of the episode by refering to the ending of the film. There will be people who will not understand the ending and will be coming here for an explanation. The meaning of the ending will change for those people and they will have a better understanding of both the episode and the film. There is no reason not to put this in the article beyond small-minded pettiness. Also, if there is no debate that this episode is fully inspired around The Departed and your flimsy link is a strong enough source to provide this evidence, surely a source comprised of a conversation with the director that states that the rat in the last scene of The Departed among other things symbolises obviousness coupled with the fact the very last line in the episode being "the rat symbolises obviousness", would fulfill the Wikipedia citation guidelines. Moreover, knowing that this episode was a Simpsons version of The Departed, considering the last line of the show being "the rat symbolises obviousness" and that the rat in The Departed symbolises obviousness, wouldn't you have to be severely mentally stunted to be unable to make the connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, a found a better source for it being a parody of The Departed! One that we use a lot for other episodes. Also one admin's opinion doess't really matter. They have no more power during discussion then the rest of us, it is all comes down to a general consensus Ctjf83Talk 09:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, definitely a better source. Anon, what you have to understand is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, just because the article is about something modern doesn't mean you write about it in a different way. If Wikipedia is still around fifty years from now, the Simpsons canceled and virtually forgotten, a person reading the article won't care about explained jokes. They'll care about encyclopedic content. Generally what happened in the episode, reception, production info, general cultural references. If you use Wikipedia to explain jokes, then I'm sorry but you're in the wrong place, use a fansite, there are tons of them. It's completely irrelevant whether it's true or not, it has to meet all Wikipedia's guidelines and in my opinion it doesn't meet notability. And please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after your post. The Dominator (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, I didn't read most of this nonsense. I reworded the section a bit so that it mentions that the ending is parodied, but doesn't have any OR. I do think that analyzing the line is somewhat unnecessary and goes against WP:NOR. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks like you others who have an account added the rat factoid, what with it explaining the ending. Scorpion, as to your last edit of Dominik about changing 'the line' to the rat, what was meant was that the last line of this episode referes to the symbolisism of the rat in the last scene of the film. I can't edit anything so hopefully you folks can solve this yourself. And Dominik, per your own hypothetical scenario, if in fifty years from now someone does watch the episode, wouldn't they be confused as to the last moment. It's not a question of explaining a joke, it's a question of elucidating an unclear ending. The former can be superfluous, the latter is necessary.

Finally, and this is towards Ctjf83 and Momusufan, I freely admit that I am no expert about the bureaucratic nature of and rules of this site. But I'm guessing double standards, wrongful accusations and automatic mistrust goes against the spirit and the letter of the rules here. This is why I asked an administrator to look at the situation in regards to the rules and whether I or you overstepped any of them and any suggestions of way to rectify this matter, and was not, as you falsely imply, to give an opinion about the inclusion of the line itself. This is all moot since this fact is now in the article despite your vociferous attempts to block it. In all likelyhood, were I a registered user, this would have never been an issue and my edit would have remained. It's quite a hypocritical paradox that anonymous users who are more ignorant of the requirements in editing an article are held to a higher standard than those users familiar with them. But then I'm guessing that in "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" which represents "the sum of human knowledge" it is not acceptable and you two for whatever personal reasons, chose to ignore those very concepts that you clame to profess and want others to follow.--72.1.222.140 (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears a consensus has been reached, I'm out of this discussion. To the IP, what you say about me is not true, please don't say things like that again. Thank you. Momusufan (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you lied. You said that I was vandalising, that I was adding false information in the article despite my sourcing the statement and clearly demonstrating the veracity of the statement, you had no problem with keeping other similar unsourced information within the article creating a double standard. You also threatened to block me if I continued, something that I do know you do not have the power to do, so again lying. You also ignored the rules of assuming good faith. I don't know if there is some mechanism to report bad users, but if there is, I will report you.--72.1.222.140 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you were being threatened with a block because of the three revert rule which applies to all users. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I declare this debate over, or at least I'm signing out, there is nothing more to say here. The Dominator (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I just surfed to the page and couldn't help but notice the poor nature of the reception part. As an international (non-US) viewer of this page I couldn't care less what someone thinks of the episode. If you want to support something, bring ratings. Otherwise, please refrain from quoting some low-life critics who haven't produced anything remotely funny themselves.

Please take into consideration that this is an encyclopedia. If I remember right, Encyclopedia Britannica or Germany's Brockhaus couldn#t care less about a movie's or tv episode's reception, unless it's either a full blow or it rained oscars en masse!

This is one of the things that totally takes the joy out of wikipedia! I want basic information about a movie or tv show. What I do NOT need is a) read some insignificant opinion b) read a summary that won't leave out any tiny detail. Thanks for reading. --perelly (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The episode just aired, give it some time and there will be more reviews. Besides, adding reviews helps prove the episodes notability per WP:EPISODE. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and a reception from some critic's opinion is better than no opinion at all Ctjf83Talk 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

0:30

it was aired 30 minutes late ; so... it should be in the (future) note section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.227.151 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with the episode, and shouldn't be listed. Ctjf83Talk 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Think about this: the only thing this has to do with the episode is the first time it was aired, this episode will probably air another 5, 000 times in fifty languages, in light of that, I don't think it's really significant how it aired for the first time in one country. The Dominator (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

as the person who wrote the initial plot/info of the page, I can say that the episode aired on time for me (check the date if you don't believe me).JayAlto (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My name is earl

Just because they saved packet ketchup in that episode doesn't mean it was a direct reference. People have been doing it for many years before MNiE came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.134.181 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Debarted. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080608021639/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i9a0258b3b015704b84955ea82162e324 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i9a0258b3b015704b84955ea82162e324

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)