Talk:Today I Am a Clown

Similarity

The situation with SLH not having been neutered is similar to The Unkindest Cut of All episode of Frasier. Is this worth mentioning? --MartinUK (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that there's no backstory at all about why Mr. T is in the episode. There must be SOMETHING remarkable about that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"Relevant and notable trivia"?

Could someone explain to me why this entry: "In the episode Helter Shelter Homer is upset that 1895 is too late to save Lincoln and too early to save Kennedy, and in this episode he fantasizes about doing both." is so important to include? It seems to be OR to me, or otherwise irrelevant to this article. Croctotheface (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It reveals a new uniqueness to Homer Simpson. It is only the second mention of his desire to save a president's life. It is the same two presidents mentioned in both episodes. His fantasy in this episode shows that it wasn't a one-off joke in 'Helter Shelter'. The joke in this episode is notable because it made a joke from a previous episode more interesting. There is also a good chance that this fantasy of his has come about because of his days as Quimby's bodyguard. That chance makes it even more notable, because if true it's a full on story-arch. MJD86 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you think it's interesting, but believing it to be relevant because of these connections that you're making yourself is pretty much the definition of original research. Croctotheface (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The entry points out strong similarities which occurred entirely within two different scripts. It makes no mention as to why it should be interesting beyond that. Nothing there contains anything that would have to come from original research. MJD86 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should familiarize yourself with WP:OR, then. The assertion that there are "strong similarities" is certainly your personal analysis of the issue. Croctotheface (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The entry leaves it entirely up to the reader to determine whether the two things are similar. Is a fantasy of Homer wanting to change two specific things from the past similar to him being upset that he could change the past but specifically not those two things? It's even more similar than that as he mentioned there after that it was not a time machine. If he was aware of this while he made that comment in Helter Shelter than that too was a type of fantasy. One episode features a fantasy about him saving Lincoln or Kennedy and another episode features a fantasy about him saving Lincoln and Kennedy. MJD86 (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just by including them you're inviting the readers to make some sort of connection. Otherwise, why else mention something that happens in a different episode unless you mean to suggest that the readers should draw the same connection that you do? You're synthesizing primary sources (in this case, the dialogue of two Simpsons episodes) to make an analysis of Homer's character, motivations, and desires. It's not our job, per WP:OR, to make these kinds of connections or compile this kind of information. It's original research and should not be included. Croctotheface (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention as to why it should be interesting! People are certainly free to believe that there is no connection whatsoever. I do not know if there is a connection, no one does. There was no synthesis as these moments were not combined in the entry. At least by anything further than the word "and" which could easily be removed if necessary. I have not changed the meanings of the moments in either of the episodes. Any connection that people can draw from that is due to the writing staff that decided to include Homer's fantasy in this particular episode. Had they not included that we would be deprived of an interesting moment. You are also free to draw a connection with that last sentence. MJD86 (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we don't know that it's relevant to this episode, how is it relevant to this article? This goes back to what I said before. If we say that we don't know whether there's a connection, then we're just inserting random facts. If we believe there is a connection, then we're engaging in synthesis, which violates WP:SYN. Croctotheface (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As I had intended to restate, there is an obvious connection between the content of the scenes but it is unknown if there is any connection as to why they are there.MJD86 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is "obvious", it is still synthesis. I would also note that trivia sections are discouraged by WP:TRIV. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Homer's friendship with Gerald Ford surely had something to do with his desire to save presidnets lives. Gerald Ford had twice survived assassination attempts. 64.72.6.33 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a big part of the story-arch. MJD86 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I would have to say that making the connection between the two episodes is a violation of WP:SYN. Using multiple verifiable sources to imply a connection not stated in either is considered original research. In addition, this connection is an extremely minor detail, and there is no reason to believe that it is notable. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The "cultural references" section also appears to be blatant OR. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article has always contained blatant OR that was never attempted to be removed by Croctotheface. Croctotheface only wanted the assassination entry removed because of some kind of personal curiosity and never cared about enforcing synthesis policies. MJD86 (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So there is consensus that the cultural references section should be removed? --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for this incredible breach of civility. You seem to concede that I was right to want to exclude the text you wanted to add, so how am I the bad guy here? I suspect that if I advocated removing more text, you'd have attacked me for that, too. Croctotheface (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You never once made any edits reverting synthesis. It's not some rule you've taken in your hands to enforce; you just felt like hurting this page and needed an excuse. You repeatedly went out of your way to put less information on this page. The Helter Shelter page has never had any dispute over it's entry. It is totally unfounded and random that there should be dispute about it here. Your deletions made the page worse - you are the bad guy here! You were dead wrong to delete the text that this page needed! So don't create hoaxes. I introduced meaningful information. - You removed meaningful information. MJD86 (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't see any reason for THIS incredible breach of civility. You're the only one on this talk page who believes your position. If you want to expand the discussion, file a request for comment. If you don't, then you should just drop the issue and apologize for attacking me. Croctotheface (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and is there consensus to remove the cultural references? --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with my position doesn't require you to check the talk page. Because very few find it objectionable that Wikipedia should have information on it. If every contributor agreed with Croctotheface's position all the pages would be blank. Let the people learn. MJD86 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire section. Per WP:EPISODE, trivia sections and OR are discouraged and a lot of things should have some real world significance. The bit about Homer previously wanting to save Lincoln is just an irrelevant connection to another episode, and of no real relevance and doesn't really belong in a general encyclopedia. MJD86, perhaps you should give the Simpsons wiki a try. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

MJD86, instead of making personal attacks and reverting, explain why you think the information people have objected to is not OR. I really don't understand why you are taking these minor details of one Simpsons episode so seriously. Please explain. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse discouraged with forbidden. Although, Lincoln and Kennedy's assassinations are well known they are only discussed in a few episodes, HS & TIAAC being the only ones with both. Only 2/412 that's notable. I've stated before why it's not OR (read). This entry is the only thing that keeps this entire article notable. It is not a minor detail as when the Simpsons add even more to this connection it'll be nearly too obvious to mention.

en·cy·clo·pe·dia \in-ˌsī-klə-ˈpē-dē-ə\ : a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge. By the 3 of your standards it is shocking that Wiki does not mean deprive \di-ˈprīv\ : to withhold something from.

It sickens me when notability is unjustly faught when vandalism is not. MJD86 (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are alone in your opinion here. If you want to seek out more opinions, use a request for comment. If you don't do this, being insistent and attacking me or others won't get us to keep the version you want. File an RFC, and maybe others will be persuaded by your arguments. Don't keep attacking me or others, as that could only end up hurting you. Croctotheface (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)