Talk:Politics in Futurama

Untitled

Temporal Paradox!

This snippet doesn't make sense to me: The episode was nominated for the Environmental Media Award in 2003.[10] Al Gore's appearance in the episode, spoofing An Inconvenient Truth, was also listed as one of the 20 best animated politicians by The Phoenix.[7]

The problem herein is that An Inconvienient Truth was not released until 2006. The episode aired in 2003. How can Gore have been spoofing something that didn't exist yet? Unless time travel is involved, this needs some editing.--71.110.43.95 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he really has "001100010010011110100001101101110011" tattooed onto his buttocks! But you're right, that appearance is only spoofing Gore's stance on environmentalism, not An Inconvenient Truth itself, so it's been removed. ~Matticus ^U_C 10:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources for "A Big Piece of Garbage"?

An anon editor noted [1] that information from "A Big Piece of Garbage" should be included in the environmentalism section. Unfortunately, as evident from the episode's own article, I have had difficulty finding any sources discussing that particular episode.It does seem like some mention should be made so if anybody has anything they could add and cite... Stardust8212 14:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Many New Changes

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I made many new changes to the article over the course of today. Indeed, I spent many hours gathing information to make this article better. The only issue this page, prior to my edits, focused upon, was environmentalism. I added sections on "animal rights" and free speech, as well as subsections on the Earth Constitution and on party politics. These sections and subsections were sorely lacking prior to my edits.

It was my belief that these additions would raise this article from a B-Class Futurama article to an A-Class article. (After all, with the article focusing on no other issue than environmentalism, it is bound to leave readers wanting.)

However, despite all my work, Stardust8212‎ deleted my additions.

The reason given for his/her first revision was, "way too much in universe info with no OOU notability." The reason given for his/her second revision was, "too much in universe plot discussion." The reason given for his/her third revision was, "excessive in-universe details not needed or recommended in this article, reliable sources are required to show these are notable."

Those wishing to read my contributions to the article can do so here.

Rather than start an edit-war, I wrote the following on Stardust8212‎'s talk page:

Dear Stardust8212,

I added some sections to the Politics in Futurama page. You deleted my sections entirely, claiming "too much in universe plot discussion."

I'm willing to concede that I may have included too much of the specific episode plots, but I see no reason that this should entail a full-blown deletion of entire sections. I would encourage you to consider what specificly you consider too much; then, we can work on improving those sections. I do believe that party politics, "animal rights," and free speech should have some sort of representation in those articles.

I tried to limit, as best I could, the content of my additions. The "animal rights" section was the hardest, as almost all of the dialogue seemed to have political relevance, and be something worth analysing. So, of my sections, it is the one with which I am least pleased. If you have any suggestions for consolidating that section and making it shorter, I'm be most pleased to hear them.

Conversely, I think I was most concise with my free speech section and my constitutionalism subsection. I don't think there is much that can be cut from either.

Hopefully we can find something that everyone finds accomodating. In the mean time, I simply wish to stress that I believe it to be a mistake to delete the entire party politics subsection or the entire "animal rights" section. Indeed, some sort of mention ought to be given to these topics.

Cheers,

allixpeeke (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote this immediately after adding my free speech section and my constitution subsection. After writing this, I saw that both aforemention sections were also deleted, and thus I added the following remark on his/her talk page:

Dude, you even deleted my free speech section; and quite quickly, I might add. Praytell, did you read my contributions before deleting them? What possible objection could be given to that section? Surely it is political. Surely it was concise.

Curiously yours,

allixpeeke (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am now cross-posting this here. I am doing so for multiple reasons. For one, because I haven't received any response from Stardust8212‎, and am sincerely curious as to why he/she felt compelled to delete these entire sections, rather than simply those portions of the sections that he/she felt were too plot-oriented.

Secondly, I'm cross-posting this here because I do not consider my edits to be unreasonable, and wish to draw the attention of other wikipedia editors/authors to them, so that others can weigh in on them and, if possible, improve upon them.

Finally, I don't see any need to find sources showing that (A) free speech, (B) "animal rights," or (C) constitutionalism indeed are political issues, and thus are relevant to this article.

As I stated in my message to Stardust8212‎, my "animal rights" section is the section with which I am least satisfied. And this is, I will admit, because it replies so heavily on the plot of a single episode. Nevertheless, the difference in viewpoints as expressed by Leela, Gillman, and Waterfall is clearly political, and the reference to “Mankind for Ethical Animal Treatment” (MEAT) is an obvious parody of “People for the Ethical Treatment of Humans” (PETA), a political lobby. I see no way to deny this is inherently political in nature.

My free speech section of this article is the section in which I take the most pride. I have successfully kept it extremely concise, making it shorter than the even environmentalism section. Moreover, I eschewed as much plot from both as one can eschew while still exemplifying the essentially-political nature of the message. If this is not to be included in this article, then I would have to wonder what the point is in this article existing. Free speech is, after all, ever-so-clearly an example of Politics in Futurama.

I find myself so convinced that the public will agree that a free speech section, an "animal rights" section, and a "party politics" section or subsection ought to be included in some manner or another in this article that I submit this to you, the reading public, for your thoughts on the matter. If any vote should arise, I'm sure some sort of inclusion of these sections and/or subsections would be approved.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

———

Update: Stardust8212 and I have discussed this on his talk page. I find his concerns valid, and hope that he will work with me to find suitable compromises that both improve the integrity of this article while expanding its focus beyond environmentalism.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:WAF, WP:V, WP:NOR (and WP:FORUM), and WP:NPOV. It appears much of the content you added violates (violates is a strong word)... much of the content you added isn't in agreement with one or more of these policies. Of course, I recognize these edits you've made are in complete good faith, and I'm sure you respect wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will try to adhere to them as best as anyone else around here can (everyone makes mistakes). -- Chickenmonkey 09:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For those coming to the party late, the relevant section of my talk page is User talk:Stardust8212#Futurama Politics and the correct personal pronoun is "she" not "he". Also I never meant to imply that you were acting in bad faith, only that this was an addition of too much in-universe plot detail with no information from an out-of-universe perspective or any attempts to establish notability. Stardust8212 11:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Politics in Futurama. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213211900/http://www.ema-online.org/awards_13th_annual.php to http://www.ema-online.org/awards_13th_annual.php

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) 20:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)