Talk:E Pluribus Wiggum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cultural reference to be added[edit]

can somebody please add this one: in the scene of the meeting of the democratic party, the meeting is chaired by an effeminate, latin-sounding guy. This is basically a reprisal of hank azaria's role of gay houseboy agador spartacus from the robin williams film 'the birdcage'. this should be insstantly recognizable i think to anybody who has seen the birdcage, though i suspect a few people will not make a connection that it's the same hank azaria! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.221.235 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're thinking of Julio from "Three Gays of the Condo". I have seen the birdcage, but I'm sure the character you're referring to is in fact Julio. In the future, please add new posts to the bottom of the list, and sign your post by typing ~~~~ Ctjf83 talk 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cutural References....[edit]

Carl mentions someone who sounds like "Wod Perron," a military dictator who "when he disappeared you, you stayed disappeared." Lenny says he was married to maddonna. Who is he talking about???atom of consumption (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's referring to Juan Perón. The movie Evita was all about his wife Eva Perón, who was played by Madonna. --Maelwys (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph should be transcripted in the article, as well as it should be aclarated that Peron won three democratic elections, without fraud (telephone, mr bush), and that he actually helped the lower classes to access to a better life. Also, in Peron's government there where no dissappeared, in fact, most of the people that the de facto military government killed (estimated 30.000) which started in 1976 and was heavily supported by the USA and the criminal CIA (do you remember Videla, and Pinochet in Chile?), were, in fact, peronists. Moreover, during 1955 and 1973, peronism was proscript and its militants were persecuted and incarcelated. So, please, put this in the main text, because you're difamating and banalizing not only a government that was the only real opposition to imperialism, and friend of the poor, but you're, also, disrespecting 30.000 DEADS that the US criminal foreign policies caused. Cordially.

P V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.28.225 (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you do realize that this is an article about a Simpson's episode right? The DominatorTalkEdits 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i can't sign because i'm a member of spanish wikipedia, but i'd like to add that juan perón's administration never dissapeared anybody, that's a terrible goof in the script. i'm surely aware of the fact that this is not a forum but if the historical data put on the show is inaccurate it should be mentioned. you can check the info on the english wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desaparecidos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.108.188 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't be mentioned, The Simpsons aren't a documentary, and you can easily sign with your IP address, just like normally. The DominatorTalkEdits 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I a from Argentina as well. The is a mistake in the article, the episode has not be shown yet in Argentina. It takes maybe half a year to translate it and broadcast it here. Last Saturday a local magazine published in it website the news and a youtube link to the part of the chapter we are talking about. Someone correct it.

Anyway there are many mistakes in fact. I am not peronist myself. I dont mind Carl says whatever he wants to say, but the truth is that there are some real and important historical mistakes. Peron died in 1974, he had been elected in 1973 with a 63% of the votes (no fraud). The dictatorship started in 1976. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.174.143 (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl's quote doesn't question the legitimacy of Peron's election, it just claims he disappeared people. This belief, which may be incorrect, is probably triggered by three historical facts:
  • Peron's Minister of Social Affairs and private secretary was José López Rega, founder of the Triple-A Death Squad
  • Peron's call for stiffer penalties for sedition were directly followed by an era of state sponsored assassination 1
  • dozens of assassinations occurred prior to Peron's death (admittedly far fewer than in the next several years, but the ball was rolling as early as Peron, according to CONADEP)

I'm sure that Argentians are concerned about slights against a man who made great contributions to their political discourse and to their country, but hopefully they can see why outsiders (like the writers of the Simpsons and myself) might believe (however mistakenly) that Peron didn't die a complete saint. --Thomas B♘talk 08:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm from argentina. i study political science, and i know many analysts consider peron's government a dictatorship. the thing is that here, his followers have made such a vision almost sinful. one objective fact is that, to the standards of today's constitution, peron could not be elected, as he took part of a previous de facto government. and an active part, heading several minitries and as the vp. appart from that, the simpsons is a tv show. people can't make a scandal everytime they say something controversial. it is very primitive to apply censorship in these cases. i still believe that the section should be kept, as it was in the media here for almost a week.--Camilorojas (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

i don't think "citation needed" is required at the end of every sentence in the 'cultural references' section? how is anyone supposed to reference what happened in the episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewfields (talk • contribs) 09:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, items that say "so-and-so references such-and-such" will probably need a cite, otherwise it could be just a similarity in the editors mind alone. For instance, the Bayeux Tapestry. While the couch gag certainly does bear a striking resemblance to the Tapestry, there no real proof that this is what is being referenced....yet. On the other hand, items that say "this happened in the episode" and which prove self-evident by watching the show, don't require a cite. For example, Bill Clinton invoking Hillary. --Captain Infinity (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it can't hurt to have the cite there.--The Dominator (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title reference[edit]

In the soon-to-be cultural references section, should we write that the title is a reference to E pluribus unum? - Yours truly, Superior(talk) 03:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, there will probably be alot of bitching about sources though.--The Dominator (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please dom...AGF Ctjf83 talk 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "bitching" I simply meant trouble, not a direct reference to anyone.--The Dominator (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then...I am, however a bitcher :( Ctjf83 talk 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title as shown on this page is incorrect: there should be no period after the E. It is not an abbreviation. Captain Infinity (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search and all the results had a period.--The Dominator (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All except FOX's Simpsons page, which calls it "E Pluribus Wiggum". Captain Infinity (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a link?--The Dominator (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Go to the current FOX schedule at http://www.fox.com/schedule/ and click on the Simpsons link. Info about the episode is provided in a java window which includes the episode title. Captain Infinity (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the copyright database and the official press release as "E. Pluribus Wiggum", so we should wait until the plot synopsis at TheSimpsons.com is up before any page moving is done. -- Scorpion0422 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protect[edit]

OK, maybe we can get some serious work done now.--The Dominator (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! Ctjf83 talk 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesy McMayor?[edit]

Is that the name of the burger mascot shown at the meeting? Whatever it is, it's a play on Mayor McCheese. – Homestar-winner 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Wiggum[edit]

Everyone keep an eye on the page and watch for people who add "Ralph Wiggum in 08" or crap like that. Maybe a couple sentences about the episode, but for now revert any propaganda or large sections. If this actually becomes something notable, then it might warrant extended mention. -- Scorpion0422 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

How about we all forget about the cultural references for a while, and focus on the plot (please use proper grammar! This is not a war!) anyway, where I am it has not been broadcast yet, so I can't help with the actual summary, just spelling and grammar.--The Dominator (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title Fix[edit]

The title is now 'E Pluribus Wiggum' on FOX.com: http://www.fox.com/schedule/showinfo/simpsons/si_1903.htm and on IMDB. Moved. Joehaer 07:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back, per our discussion above here Ctjf83 talk 08:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright data base doesn't have the period [1] Ctjf83 talk 08:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official press release does though, and that's the most official source we have. -- Scorpion0422 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thesimpsons.com has no period. Apperantly they don't consider Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind and Funeral for a Fiend episodes as they aren't even listed. Ctjf83 talk 20:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chalmers[edit]

was also seen at the Republicans meeting. please someone add this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.22.232.112 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been deleted, as it is Listcruft Ctjf83 talk 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson's vs. Simpsons'[edit]

I'm a bit confused so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it The Simpsons, not the Simpson family but the Simpsons, plural form + the possessive= Simpsons'. So the Simpson's form only applies if it was referring to one of the family members, is that right?.--The Dominator (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try it this way: let's remove the s from Simpson completely. How about if it said "the Simpson family's couch". As you can see, the possessive for the family is apostrophe s. Saying "the Simpson's couch" is the same structure, so Simpson-apostrophe-s is correct. But let's toss the whole thing and remove the problem. I'll make the edit now. --Captain Infinity (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup.--The Dominator (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... my native language isn't English, but I'm pretty sure that "the Simpson's couch" indicates "the couch of a single Simpson". Yuna-chan (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I thought, but we'll just leave the "Simpson family's" version in there, so people don't keep changing it.--The Dominator (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have corrected several times with Mr. Burns...s's is for singular nouns and s' is for plural so if the family as a whole is a singular unit, it would be s's....but i like Simpson family's better anyway Ctjf83talk 23:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe-s denotes possession. Why is this difficult? Simpsons' is correct. "Simpson's" would be very, very incorrect.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, if you say Bart Simpson's skateboard, that would be correct for a singular person. Ctjf83talk 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We were discussing the plural ;) ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does somebody here have a piece of Simpson's literature they can refer to?--The Dominator (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ambiguity in this phrase: the Simpsons' object. Their name is Simpson, so they are the Simpson family (singular), and they're also all Simpsons (plural). An object often belongs to a set of people with more than one member: the Simpsons' house is a house that belongs to the (plural) Simpsons. Joehaer 19:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely Simpsons', it is different from Burns, since that is one person who's name ends in s, the Simpsons is a plural, one Simpson, five Simpsons. Therefore it is a plural noun that gets only an apostrophe at the end.--The Dominator (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, OK. It sounds like we don't disagree about that, then... however, we both most likely disagree with the AP. Joehaer 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arianna Huffington[edit]

Wasn't she also spoofed in this episode? (Along with her gay ex-husband debacle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.72.161 (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant extra mention.--The Dominator (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Elmo?[edit]

The item about the Elmo needs to be reworded, or removed entirely. First of all, Ralph wasn't saying he liked Elmo; he was just saying something completely random that the local idiots would naturally misinterpret. Secondly, we don't have anyway of knowing to which Elmo he was referring, we assume it was the Muppet simply because of Ralph's character.--Supernerd 10 (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did, he said "I like Elmo".--The Dominator (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canon?[edit]

Is this episode canon? Does Ralph become president and marry Lisa?--86.121.65.239 (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, everything goes back to normal afterwards. Rhino131 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator[edit]

I think the claim that Juan Perón needs a cite as it's not uncommon he's called a dictator. While many may not agree with this view, to say outright he's not one is potentially misleading Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E Pluribus Wiggum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make America Great Again[edit]

Really? No mention of Ralph using that phrase? It even has its own article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again 2003:CA:3F19:F12:F1F1:3F1A:7494:BAF4 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E_Pluribus_Wiggum&oldid=1196284144"