Politics in The Simpsons has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 31, 2007 Articles for deletion No consensus August 14, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept November 3, 2022 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 17, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that politics in The Simpsons have caused controversy in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Japan? Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. The Simpsons Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The SimpsonsWikipedia:WikiProject The SimpsonsTemplate:WikiProject The SimpsonsThe Simpsons articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge edit Collaboration: Featured topic Drive Copyedit: Merge: Cleanup: Ralph Wiggum, Milhouse Van Houten Shorten plot synopsis: Free-use images: Jon Vitti, Pamela Hayden, Greg Daniels, Ian Maxtone-Graham, Jim Reardon, Alf Clausen Reference: Bongo Comics Group, The Heartbroke Kid, World of Springfield Expand: The Simpsons Theme, Bongo Comics, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon, The Simpsons: Tapped Out Stubs: Neil Affleck, Bob Anderson (director), Wes Archer, J. Stewart Burns More... United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

It should be noted that the show was rather hard on Bill Clinton, in one episode, it went so far as having Clinton assure Lisa "You've learned a good lesson, if you complain long enough, you'll get your way...", when Marge protests "that's a pretty lousy lesson", Clinton responds "I'm a pretty lousy President", note fellow Dem Jimmy Carter is often ridiculed, in Marge in Chains, the town substitutes an Abe Lincoln Statue for one of Jimmy Carter, resulting in a riot, in another episode, Carter is portrayed as a rapper "I've got a brother named Billy and my teeth look silly",,,GOP Presidents Ford and Bush the elder were treated much better, in the past season however, in an apparent criticism of the Iraq war Homer refers to George W. Bush as "commander cuckoo bananas"....

Indeed, the show has definitely shifted, and hard. Homer, in particular, seems to be the voice of the opinions of whomever is writing for him at the time. Still, this could be part of his character, as he is 'the highly suggestible type' ^_^

In the past I think they tried to be even. Most TV comedies just refuse to say anything negative about the Democratic Party, they were one of the few to buck that trend. Still I think the general message was Republicans are actively evil whereas Democrats are basically good people who are just foolish or unlucky.--T. Anthony 14:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everyone have to be either republicans or democrats? Lisa for example is definitely not republican, but she has said things that are more leftist than the democratic party's capitalist liberal centre-left policies. Like in the episode where she criticized people who have butlers.--DaGrob 18:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But she clearly would vote Democrat, she even says in one episode "I don't like to support Republicans". I think the show likes to take the easier option of just satirising both sides, like in the episode where Bart gets an elephant the elephant walks through the Democrat conference and the banner says something like "we're pathetic losers" and then through the republican conference, where the banner says something like "we're evil and want bad things for you". Once you pick a side you get bogged down in having a message, as well as offending half your viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.46.127 (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the sections should be changed to "right-leaning" and "left-leaning"? --Rubber cat 08:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't list everybody (for example, it doesn't list Bart). It only list those characters who at one time or another have supported a specific party.--Per Abrahamsen 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2017

I happen to think Lisa Simpson would vote Green, I can see similarities between her and Hillary but also with Jill Stein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DcD2510 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the context, but it is necessarily a slam against the show? I suspect that the creators of The Simpsons doesn't think it represents how an American family should ideally be.--Per Abrahamsen 01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Abe and Homer stated as communists? They are more likely mild Republican or non-belligerent. Abe has on several occasions criticized Democrats, and Homer seemed to have a good friendship with Republican former President Gerald Ford. Reason Abe could have the Communist Party card could be because he is senile, and it is typical for Homer if he took the card so he could exploit them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.160.111.57 (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Communist here refers to superficial party association, rather than inner conviction. Which makes the case clear for Abe (being a party member), less so for Homer (stealing a membership card doesn't make you a member).--Per Abrahamsen 14:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics is a common theme in the animated television series The Simpsons, and this phenomenon has had some crossover with real American politics. U.S. conservatives have voiced opposition to the show,^{[citation needed]} perhaps because The Simpsons has mocked traditional authority figures such as teachers and parents. ^{[citation needed]} U.S. President George H. W. Bush has even said that the U.S. needs to be closer to The Waltons than to The Simpsons ^{[citation needed]}(although his son, George W. Bush is an admitted fan of the show). ^{[citation needed]}If the show has a liberal slant, this was joked about in the episode "The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular," in which reference was made to "hundreds of radical right-wing messages inserted into every show by creator Matt Groening." ^{[citation needed]} More recently, however, U.S. conservatives have adopted a derisive Simpsons term for the French, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."^[1].

• This should be deleted. The entire thing lacks citations and the only citation given says nothing specifically about only conservatives using these terms. Furthermore, sentences like "conservatives have voiced opposition to the show,^{[citation needed]} perhaps because The Simpsons has mocked traditional authority figures such as teachers and parents. " Are a blatant NPOV violation. The word "perhaps" alone is indicative of an opinion with a POV.Jellonuts 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a reference; please don't delete references. Secondly, the number of fact tags was indiscriminate; "hundreds of radical right-wing messages inserted into every show by creator Matt Groening" is a direct quote from the episode. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, The reference that was there did not have the information it was cited as having. Also, **"Perhaps because..." is an opinion and violates NPOV. Also stop deleting citation requests, if you quote, paraphrase, or make assertations they require citations Jellonuts 22:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. It says right wingers are using the phrase and got it from the Simpsons. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • It does NOT say "It says right wingers are using the phrase" it says that one person, this columnist named Goldberg, said it. That is just an opinion, or a POV if you will, not a fact. The only fact it says is that this Mr. Goldberg said it, not that " U.S. conservatives have adopted a derisive Simpsons term for the French, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"" That implies that most conservatives have done this, and I contest the factualness of that statement without sources. The column that is cited says "according to Goldberg", not "according to U.S. conservatives." Cite a source that identifies the that conservatives in general use this term to describe the French. Right now, this whole paragraph is just stating a POV. How can you not see that; "perhaps because..." alone is a buzz word for POV. The quotes and paraphrases from the President of the U.S. are not cited. " U.S. conservatives have voiced opposition to the show"...now this POV statement makes it sound like most conservatives are opposed to the show. Cite a reliable, reviewed source that indicates this to be true, or add in there that some U.S. moderates, liberals, and everybody in-between have expressed opposition. "If the show has a liberal slant".... encyclopedias are about facts, the nature of this statement also implies that this is not a fact, but a point of view. Cite some sources. However, I do see that "hundreds of radical right-wing messages inserted into every show by creator Matt Groening" is a direct quote from a linked episode, so I apologize for fact-tagging that.Jellonuts 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was all true if your memory goes back that far. But anyway, the source is good- it came from the Guardian, it's citable. On the whole, though, I wouldn't be too heart-broken if the article went to AfD- I don't know if it's important enough to get worked up about. Next time, though, try fixing stuff instead of deleting footnotes and claiming there was never any there, and adding unneeded fact tags. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC) **I do apologize for the mistakes, I am getting better at this but I am still learning as I go. I'll be sure to put things on the talk pages before making a major edit or deletion. Thanks for reminding me.Jellonuts 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• left|150px|thumb|N.Y. Post cover from Dec. 7, 2006 -- Scorpion 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No fair use pics on talk pages please. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very well, but it still proves my point: More than one writer has used this phrase. -- Scorpion 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you Scorpion, but not all of those writers are conservatives and not all conservatives use the term.Jellonuts 04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then why not just say "however, the derisive Simpsons term for the French, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" has been used by some right wing advocates"? -- Scorpion 04:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine as long as you add in there "has been used by some left-wing and moderate advocates" too. Why single out one group when several have said it?Jellonuts 04:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about just "has been used by left and right wing advocates"? -- Scorpion 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse of Horror XIII makes a statement about gun politics. Lisa convinces the entire town to disarm, from criminals to ordinary citizens to police as a tribute to a victim of gun violence. However, this "victim" turns out to be Billy the Kid, and he and his companions tear the town apart, being the only ones with firearms. Homer goes back in time to get the people of Springfield to retain their arms and directs them to the graveyard, where they shoot up the graves of Billy the Kid and his associates. They leap out of their graves and are chased over the horizon, outgunned and defeated. Lisa then admits that guns sometimes are the answer. However, at this point, another Homer appears from the distant future, who warns them of their course of action. He is promptly gunned down by Moe, who proceeds to steal his time machine in order to seek out "caveman hookers". CeeWhy2 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:11:21, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Scorpion the majority of the stuff that you are deleting like the members of the Springfield republican party comes directly from episodes of the Simpsons.I have noticed you like to destroy large parts of pages using the really week OR argument, but you do seem to want to help these pages —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.55.23.102 (talk)

Very well, I will explain why I removed what I did.

*[[List of celebrities in The Simpsons#Sideshow Mel|Sideshow Mel]], the party's gossip *[[Bob Dole]] *[[Ralph Nader]] *[[Count Dracula]] *A bloodthirsty troll-like creature

• I can't remember Mel ever being shown in the party and the rest are real life or non-Simpsons figures.

==Springfield Cultural Advisory Board== Springfield's Cultural Advisory Board was featured in the episode "[[The Seven-Beer Snitch]]", a group that decides what to build to attract touring to Springfield. They also hold degrees relating to art. Known members of the board include: [[Marge Simpson]], the leader *[[Julius Hibbert]] *[[Ned Flanders]] *[[List of recurring characters from The Simpsons#Helen Lovejoy|Helen Lovejoy]] *[[Carl Carlson]] *[[Moe Syszlak]] *[[Seymour Skinner]] Among one another, the board is shown as quick to coming to decisions, and they seldom mock one another. They are intelligent, though dim at times. Indeed, [[Julius Hibbert]] is also a member of the Republican Party and Mensa Society, however practices medicine illegally. The rest of the board is shown as a contemptuous group (a homemaker, a doctor, a religious man, a gossip, a drunk, a bartender, and a principal).

• How exactly does that relate to politics? As well, calling them a contemptuous group is POV.

== Independents and minor political parties == None of the characters in the Simpsons animated series have been labeled as being an independent or affiliating with a minor political party. However, third political parties do exist in the fictional universe, albeit they are often not shown as a viable choice. * When [[Ned Flanders]] first opened up the "Leftorium" ("[[When Flanders Failed]]"), it almost went under and Ned made a comment to Homer that the Springfield [[Libertarian Party (United States)|Libertarian Party]] would be using the space occupied by the store. * When [[Maggie]] is sent to day care, she is sent to one that operated under the principles of [[Ayn Rand]], who is sometimes seen as a major influence on American Libertarianism. * Frequent [[Green Party (United States)|Green Party]] presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] is seen in the Simpsons episode [[Brawl in the Family]] as secret member of the Springfield Republican Party, no doubt a joke based upon the belief that Nader cost [[Al Gore]] the 2000 presidential election. * In the [[Treehouse of Horror VII]] segment ''Citizen Kang'', aliens Kang and Kodos abduct [[United States presidential election, 1996|current US presidential candidates]] [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Bob Dole]] and impersonate them. Several political jokes are made throughout the segment including a joke where Kang and Kodos, after being unmasked by Homer, state that they could either vote for one of them or "throw [their] vote away" on a [[Third party (politics)|third party candidate]] (to which [[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]] candidate [[Ross Perot]] is shown in the crowd.) Kang ends up winning and enslaving humanity. * In [[Brother from the Same Planet]] a [[Springfield Isotopes]] game is delayed whilst a representative of the Springfield Communist Party attempts to give a speech before being pelted with tomatoes.

• Entire section is NN cruft and OR.

A debate on government funding of education, a classically [[Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#Some_positions_associated_with_modern_liberalism|liberal]] position in the [[United States]] versus the opposition of [[Conservatism in the United States|American conservatives]] towards increased [[American_conservatism#Conservatism_as_.22ideology.2C.22_or_political_philosophy|government taxation]] can be seen in "[[The PTA Disbands]]". [[Edna Krabappel]] claims that the demands of the teachers are reasonable, asking simply for better supplies and a modest cost of living wage increase. Principal [[Seymour Skinner]] replies that the school is on a very tight budget as it is, pointing out that there's no more money in the school's budget even after the cutbacks he has made, since the school's funding has been cut yet again. Mrs. Krabappel is urging parents to support the teachers in their strike to better their children's futures, while Principal Skinner claims that to pay what the teachers are asking, they would be forced to raise taxes. The audience at the PTA meeting is left debating over whether the education system is worth greater investment through taxation.

• Again, no sources, POV and OR.

The episode "[[Homer vs. The Eighteenth Amendment]]" can be seen as a statement against [[Prohibition]], as a Prohibition scheme fails in the episode, and an officer charged with enforcing the law is [[catapult]]ed out of town. While "[[The Cartridge Family]]" clearly mocks irresponsibility with firearms hiding behind the [[second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]], Krusty is seen making a speech about how guns are valuable ''if'' handled responsibly ("Guns arn't toys. There for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals and keeping the king of England out of your face.").

• Once again, no sources, POV and OR.

The episode "[[Bart-Mangled Banner]]" relates to concerns about the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and free-speech. In the episode the Simpson family is sent to a "re-education center" for defaming the USA, almost completely by accident. There they meet [[Bill Clinton]] who had been sent to the center for criticizing [[tax cuts]]. The family eventually escapes to [[France]] before returning to the US as [[immigrants]].

• Yet again, no sources, POV and OR.

==Sugar Lobby== The episode, "[[Sweets and Sour Marge]]" features Marge filing against a sugar company, Motherloving Sugar Co., which can in many ways be seen as a reference to the "Big Sugar". In the episode, Springfield gets in to the Duff Book of Records as the "Fat City USA". This makes Marge question the obesity in town and discover that all goods in Kwik-E-Mart are overloaded with sugar. The episode also features an arrogant sugar boss, Garth Motherloving (who claims his actual last name was "Hitler", although this could be sarcastic.), who was voiced by [[Ben Stiller]] and his company making sugar out of dump.

• What exactly does that have to do with politics?

==Immigration== ''The Simpsons'' has also covered [[immigration]] controversies in the episode "[[Much Apu About Nothing]]."

• No sources.

I always find it amusing when random people who have no knowledge of Wikipedia policy try to argue policy with experienced editors. If you want random "In this episode ____ does _____" facts, then start your own site, or join the Simpsons Wiki. I have a vast record of improving articles and take a look at The Simpsons, which is a Featured article and then this one and you'll notice a HUGE difference. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing Wikipedia annonimesly at different addresses for over two years, and and it seems that must of the "improvements" you make are deliting large portions because you clame they are ether cruft or OR, just because you are not familiar with it. You have deleted several things that I have written involving both the simpsons and wrestling but until now I never had a good enough case to challenge you, I am going to re add the information with sources and explanations, but you do not seem to know much about u.s. politics(which is ok since you are Canadian). you seem to want to do a good job but editing is more then just deleting stuff it involves tagging and finding sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.55.23.102 (talk)

If you really have been here for two years, then you would know that SNPP is not a reliable source. This is the kind of topic that could have a nice long and well sourced page, but it would require work. You need to back up all claims with sources, even if it does seem like its common knowledge. If you are interested in cleaning up the page, Planet Simpson is a good source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected the page for 5 days. Debating in edit summaries is inefficient and just leads to more reverting. Use the talk page folks. CIreland (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments for the removal of the section:

1. It's overdetailing and giving undue weight to minor jokes, perhaps the party itself figures slightly into the plot, but none of the members do.
2. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
3. Like it or not, it is cruft.
4. The only reasons you seem to be able to find that favour keeping it are essays that are used to attack arguments.
5. You said "It has been here a long time before you decided out of the blue that it was cruft", so? The amount of time something stays in an article does not add to its notability. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long for me to reply scorpion, I could not get to a computer this weekend My arguments for the keeping this section

• you are siting an essay on one persons thoughts not guidelines
  • A lot of uses agree with it, and last time I checked WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#INFO were policies. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It is a short list that is vary relevant to the article
  • Take a look at all of the Good Simpsons related articles and see how many have a list like that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As for your under weight argument, it seems to me that republicans being involved in politics is the majority viewpoint, and by erasing it you are violating the guidelines (do you even read these befor you link to them)
  • The republicans being involved IS important, but a list of the members is not. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Like I've told you before just because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information douse not mean that you can openly discriminate against information.
• I am tired of your cruft argument please read the following essay WP:ITSCRUFT
  • It seems to me that I've used several other policy based arguments. By the way, you criticize me for always citing an essay when you yourself have started citing essays. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• When you did your typical mass deletions in this article month ago you agreed that this was not cruft what made you change your mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.40.155 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the list is NOT relevant at all. Them being republicans doesn't effect their day to day lives in the show. And what are you talking about "discriminating against information"??? We don't have listcruft anywhere, you act like we have it in a lot of articles, and we just don't want a list of republicans. That is illogical and incorrect. We remove all cruft. Ctjf83^talk 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must include Mr. Burns

The Springfield Republican party is presented as an evil organization, so that it's highly-relevant that the evil Mr. Burns runs most or all the meetings. AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

republicans are evil...but I'd agree to listing him as the Springfield republican leader, but there is no reason we need a list of all the members. Ctjf83^talk 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to do a major rewrite, since this was the worst Simpsons article based on the number cleanup tags assigned to it. Basically, I have removed everything that was unsourced. If you want to include this again, then you better find sources for it. --Maitch (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After "Blame it on Lisa", several comments have been made about Brazil by the Simpsons. In the tenth episode of the 18th season, Lisa claims that Barnacle Bay is the most disgusting place they have ever travelled to. Bart then asks "What about Brazil?", and Lisa replies "AFTER Brazil". In an even later episode, someone in the family suggests they go on another vacation to Brazil, but Homer replies by saying that he heard the monkey problem was now even worse than the last time they were there, clearly a reference to the monkey comment that was supposed to be an especially grave insult to Brazil. Should this be referenced in the article? It's quite obviously references to the dispute. 83.109.72.15 (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are really more comments on the episode rather than the dispute and belong to the episode article.--Maitch (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty minor point in the context of the whole article, but I wanted to call it out because I think a better reference could be found. I just added the bolded text below, based on this reference at the end of the sentence:

Smithers is shown to have a passionate and deep love for Mr. Burns; as late as 2007, during the show's 18th season, Matt Groening and executive producer James L. Brooks wrote in an interview that Smithers, being focused on one particular individual, was not homosexual, but "Burns-sexual".

The thing is, I was surprised to have read this in a 2007 interview. I think the above quote was totally defensible and presumably true before, certainly, about season 5 or 6 or so; but I think the quote became false as the show progressed. I'm convinced this is true but maybe someone knows of a reference that would defend this "transformation" being added to the article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Politics in The Simpsons. 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 https://web.archive.org/20061211005910/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/12072006/news/nationalnews/iraq_appease_squeeze_on_w__nationalnews_.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/12072006/news/nationalnews/iraq_appease_squeeze_on_w__nationalnews_.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081008152204/http://www.glaad.org/eye/ontv/2008/broadcast.php to http://www.glaad.org/eye/ontv/2008/broadcast.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 21:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the earlier seasons, there are often gags implying Milhouse or Martin are gay. These are quietly dropped as society changes and the show progresses. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Politics in The Simpsons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 15:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be interesting to review, even for a non-Simpsons fan. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Is there any chance we could include the Arnold Schwarzenneger parody in Real-life politics section using this source? . I know it's not referenced in the show but in its 2007 movie tie-in, but it'd be quite a shame this article miss out on it considering the relevance... Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, but Metro has been designated as an unreliable source on Wikipedia (WP:METRO). I added a mention to it from one of the books that's already used in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::Thanks. I have additional minor issues with this section:

• you committed a typo inline with the Turner source supporting the recent edit, 2010 instead of 2004, which is why it returns an "error" when I click it
• if both "real life" and "real world" are to be used as adjectives, be sure they're hyphenated
• is there a reason why "cast-members" is hyphenated?
• the Bush quote should be rendered a blockquote since it's 301 characters
• In cite 23, use |last= |first= parameter for Jon Henley for consistency
• Please be sure each sentence in this section and elsewhere meticulously observes proper logical quotation; for instance, since "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is a sentence fragment followed by a clause, the comma should be placed outside. Might wanna link said phrase, too

Expect additional comments soon. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I've fixed these issues. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Here are some of my next concerns:

• "was pitched by Scully" -> Link Mike Scully
• "it's that a man like Homer should not own a gun" -> No contractions
• Link Milhouse and ADHD medication
• Convert % symbols into words (WP:PERCENT)
• "for either season seven or eight" -> use numerals in this for consistency
• "short term" in short term memory loss should be hyphenated
• "Bart is a troublemaker that continually defaces school property while Lisa is an ideal student that is unsatisfied with her schooling." -> separate clauses with a comma
• Reduce abundant use of "Lisa" and its genitive equivalent by instead referring to her by her pronoun in the first paragraph of Environmentalism
• "Portrayal of alcohol and smoking in The Simpsons" -> remove struck redundant phrase
• Cite 48 is not a reliable source
• "In an interview, Matt Groening expressed his friendship and support to gay individuals. According to him, "gay men are starved for positive portrayals of lasting love". -> I think these two sentences could be merged into one sentence
• "The first appearance of a character implied to be gay was in the season 2 episode "Simpson and Delilah" in which the character Carl (voiced by Harvey Fierstein) kisses Homer." -> separate clauses with a comma Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These should all be fixed now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::OK. Onto the next one:

• "The controversy is over an exchange between Lenny and Carl. Carl says "I could really go for some kind of military dictator, like Juan Perón. When he 'disappeared' you, you stayed 'disappeared!'". -> Try merging these into one sentence using the relative pronoun "who"
• "The clip was viewed on YouTube over ten thousand times in Argentina and some politicians in the country called for the episode to be censored or banned." -> Use the Oxford comma on this, and convert ten thousand into numerals for consistency with 8,000
• "in the U.S. Bart use to watch violent cartoons," -> typo?
• "Some reacted negatively to Lenny's response to Carl's comment: "Plus, his wife was Madonna", a reference to the film Evita, where Madonna played Eva Perón." -> unsourced
• "Argentinians had protested the filmmakers' decision to cast Madonna in the role of their beloved first lady." -> Dubious claim. Firstly, did all Argentinians really protested or was it just her supporters? Because according to the source cited, Eva Peron was apparently a polarizing figure in her country, both idolized as a saint and vilified as a "whore". Therefore, her Argentine critics couldn't possibly have cared less whether Madonna played the role. As such, "beloved first lady" sounds borderline POV claim not otherwise cited. Secondly, what was the reason for the protest? Was it because her supporters felt Peron's down-to-earth image contrasted with that of Madonna? This should be stated briefly
• "In an unprecedented decision, Fox decided not to air the episode in Latin America. In an e-mail sent later to the media, the network said that this decision was based on "the possibility that the episode would contribute to reopen wounds very painful to Argentina". -> Merge these sentences with a semicolon
• "The board's exact words were "What really hurt was the idea of the monkeys, the image that Rio de Janeiro was a jungle ... It's a completely unreal image of the city". -> precede quotation with a colon
• "However it was international news for a while." -> follow subordinating conjunction with a comma
• Delink United States and link New York Post
• "Republican American" -> should be "American Republican"
• "Some argue the phrase's success reflects deep antipathy in the U.S. towards countries such as France who oppose the U.S. in international forums." -> As per source, it's "European countries" since the phrase was not only directed toward France but also in a few European countries. So, it should go "toward European countries, such as France, who oppose the U.S. in international forums". Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These should all be addressed now. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the "foreign relations" section on this article, but I didn't feel comfortable deleting it while I was working on the article, so I had tried to clean it up a little bit and add some more examples. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Cites 60, 63, 71, 73 are broken; however, there should be archived versions of these available at the Wayback Machine
• Inline citations on non-English sources should use |language= parameter and state what language in which the article was written
• Link all publishers on online sources but make sure not to overlink; link authors to their Wikis, too, if available
• Cite 49 has no publisher
• cites 52 and 72 don't use "|last= |first= parameter on author Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I linked to the names of websites and periodicals in sources. I put archive links for three of the articles, one was not available at the Wayback Machine. Last names, language, and publisher name have all been fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you find a better alternative source for cite 60? I feel like it's a blog and does not pass the GA criterion for reliable source. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the story only ran in blogs and gossip magazines, which basically means it's not notable enough to include on Wikipedia. I removed the sentence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I thank you for addressing all of my concerns. I'm happy to announce that the article has passed the review—it's well written, broad, neutral, illustrated with licensed images, and verifiable. This is something I could see becoming a Featured Article in the future. If you do plan to go that route, my advice would be to use a consistent inline citation format to even better sources, as well as put in a request to the Guild of Copy Editors to achieve the "engaging prose" demanded by the FA criteria. I would also recommend nominating this newly-promoted GA to the main page via Did you know to increase its readership somehow; the article has only had 4,298 pageviews as of late, which is such a shame. Anyway, congrats for having passed the review. Regards, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that politics in The Simpsons is a microcosm of local government? Source: Woodcock, Pete (June 1, 2008). "Gender, Politicians and Public Health: Using The Simpsons to Teach Politics". European Political Science. 7 (2): 153–164. doi:10.1057/eps.2008.5. ISSN 1682-0983.
  • ALT1: ... that U.S. Senator Ted Cruz references politics in The Simpsons despite protest from the show's cast and crew? Source: Bradley, Laura (February 22, 2018). "A Brief History of Ted Cruz's One-Sided Obsession With The Simpsons". Vanity Fair. Retrieved September 2, 2022.
  • ALT2: ... that politics in The Simpsons has caused controversy in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Japan? Source: ARGENTINA: Reel, Monte (April 17, 2008). "D'oh! 'Simpsons' Again Angers South Americans". Washington Post. Retrieved April 20, 2008.
    AUSTRALIA AND JAPAN: Dobson, Hugo (2006). "Mister Sparkle Meets the Yakuza: Depictions of Japan in The Simpsons". The Journal of Popular Culture. 39 (1): 44–68. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2006.00203.x. ISSN 0022-3840.
    BRAZIL: Turner, Chris (2004). Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Documented an Era and Defined a Generation. (1st ed.). pp. 325–326. Toronto: Random House Canada. ISBN 978-0-679-31318-2. OCLC 55682258.
  • Reviewed: [[]]

Improved to Good Article status by Thebiguglyalien (talk). Self-nominated at 16:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Thebiguglyalien: Good article. Since this seems to be your third nomination no qpq is required. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Twirling Towards Freedom Rally to Restore Sanity.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]