# Talk:Blame It on Lisa

Lisa says Ronaldo was her penpal first, but when he stopped writing, she had to resort to calling the orphanage, and they coerced her into giving donations, and that's how the phone bill got so big...
So they go to find him, and when they do, Ronaldo says he got a new job and he would've written Lisa about it but he didn't know what state she lived in...  so how was he writing her before? How did the orphanage send her a video?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 

Literally doesn't make sense at all I laughed out loud for that 41.133.194.60 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blame It on Lisa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Will review shortly.  MathewTownsend (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources: 

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 
Lacks a "Critical reception" section
A "Critical reception" is more important to an entertainment article, than a huge "Controversy" section. What did the critics have to say?
B. Remains focused: 
"Controversy" is as long as the rest of the article put together, constituting WP:UNDUE. It can be condensed to a few sentences.
Since aspects of the "Controversy" are also discussed in other sections of the article, this article appears to focus mainly on Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and whether or not an American animated sitcom has a realistic plot. The episode is not about real world politics between nations.
Legal issues, the feasibility of suing, the American Constitution, whether Fox is taking the high ground by donating etc. are extraneous to an article on a TV sitcom.
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The "See also" section contains Crime in Brazil and Social issues in Brazil
The "Controversy" section seems to be advocating that this Simpson's episode is making correct geo-political points when it is a sitcom.
Because publications use the episode to make their own political points does not mean an entertainment article in Wikipedia should regurgitate those points. The episode is a comedy. It is not a political publication.
This article should not be arguing for a particular point of view regarding the accuracy of American entertainment writers' take on Brazil.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Will put on hold for seven days.
MathewTownsend (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and your great copyedit! In response to your comment about critical reception: The second paragraph of the "Release" section is the only critical reception from reliable sources that is available, because all the others talk about the controversy. That leads me to your comments about the Controversy section. I have to say that I disagree with you on that point. WP:UNDUE says:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."

I'd say about 95% of all the reliable sources about this episode talk mainly, or only, about the controversy. It's the controversy that makes this episode notable. It's one of the biggest controversies in the history of the show; Jean says so himself on the DVD commentary. So it's only natural that the majority of the article should be devoted to the controversy, explaining it and analyzing it. I did however remove one part that I thought was unnecessary: [1]. Theleftorium (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Reply
IMO, it's not a question of reliable sources. It's a question of what belongs in the article. I've looked at several Simpsons articles that are FAs to get a feel for this. e.g. The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, Cape Feare, The Last Temptation of Krust, Lisa the Vegetarian, Lisa the Skeptic, The Joy of Sect etc. Other elements are handled in various ways, but controversial elements never take over the article.
All such articles have a "Critical reception" or "Reception" section. This article completely lacks one.
A Streetcar Named Marge has a "Controversy" section. Perhaps you could use that as a model. (It is much less emotional, more factual, and only presents comments from relevant parties.)  MathewTownsend (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
None of the episodes you listed have been as controversial as this one. And look, I've written more than a hundred Simpsons episode GAs, and the FA Lisa the Vegetarian that you listed above. I know where to look for critical reception of episodes. Critical reception of "Blame It on Lisa" is virtually non-existent. It's just not possible for this article to have a critical reception section. The one critic that talks about the episode, Colin Jacobson of DVD Movie Guide, writes:

[...] the Brazilians got bent out of shape even before the episode aired, and they protested that it would cost them big bucks in lost tourist dollars. Please – if every country mocked by the series suffered that fate, then the travel industry would’ve died a decade ago.
The whining is unwarranted anyway, as the show only pokes minor fun at Brazil; other nations have gotten much uglier treatment. And funnier treatment as well. “Blame” musters the occasional laugh, and like much of S13, it’s not a bad show, but it’s not a memorable one either. The controversy means it gets a little more attention than it’d otherwise merit, but it’s only an average show.

I had to cut out the stuff about the controversy so it wouldn't feel like the article was repeating itself. But the thing is, all the sources about this episode talk about the controversy and that is why there should be much information about it in the article. You can't complain that the controversy is taking up too much space in the article right now, it's less than a third. Theleftorium (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Reply
Thank you for doing that. I note that the lede describes the reaction well, except for the sentence: "Reportedly, the Riotur officials never went ahead with the lawsuit because they were told by their lawyers that the United States Constitution protects parodies." For the use of "reportedly" read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
I would be happier if you changed the "Controveries" to "Reaction", (unless Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch is followed, where the word "controversial" is one) and removed: "Martin Kaste, the National Public Radio's South America correspondent, reported on April 9, 2002 that since their announcement that they were going to sue Fox, the Riotur officials had been told by their lawyers in the United States that it would be difficult to sue the episode there because of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects parodies.[23]" Off topic.
I also think the second paragraph under "Controveries" could either be removed entirely, or reduced to a sentence or two. This has almost nothing directly to do with the show itself and has an awful lot of passive voice. Also, it is mostly about the workings of Riotur: "The decision to sue was made before the board saw the episode" -  much of it second hand or based on "snippets". This is on the level of gossip, IMO, and is way too detailed. 

On April 6, 2002, it was reported by the Brazilian media that Riotur, the tourist board of Rio de Janeiro, was planning on suing Fox for damaging the international image of the city.[7][20] Riotur stated that Rio de Janeiro was portrayed in "Blame It on Lisa" as having rampant street crime, kidnappings, slums, and a rat infestation,[21] and it was thought that this would discourage foreigners from visiting the city.[22] The decision to sue was made before the board saw the episode, and the tourism officials based their accusations on detailed reports they had received from Brazilian reporters in the United States, as well as on snippets of the episode they had downloaded from the Internet.[23] Over a period of three years up to the airing of "Blame It on Lisa" in the United States, Riotur had spent US$18,000,000 on a campaign to attract tourists to Rio de Janeiro.[24] The tourist board now saw this as a waste of money since they believed the campaign was undermined by the portrayal of the city in the episode.[24] Riotur's planned lawsuit was supported by the Brazilian government,[25] with president Fernando Henrique Cardoso stating that the episode "brought a distorted vision of Brazilian reality".[22]
MathewTownsend (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

See my changes to the article: [2]. I am not willing to cut any more stuff from "Response in Brazil" section. The part about the Constitution is not off-topic. Without it, readers will be thinking: "So why didn't they go ahead with the lawsuit?" Theleftorium (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Reply
Then this should be included (from one of the sources used to support "the tourist board of Rio de Janeiro, was planning on suing Fox for damaging the international image of the city"):
"It's a far cry from the bout of international laughter which greeted one the country's tourist board's decision to try and sue the Fox network two years ago, following an episode of The Simpsons."[3]
Most of your sources can't be accessed, including the Planet Simpson book for which you give no page number, or don't provide any information.
"Rio's tourist board said it was considering legal action over the episode in which the Simpson family - father Homer, mother Marge and children Bart, Lisa and Maggie - visit the city in search of an orphan who Lisa has sponsored.[4]
Many of your references just go to DVD adverts. This news article barely mentions the episode: "Some of you may recall that the season thirteen episode "Blame it on Lisa" caught some flak for not portraying Brazil in a positive light, a little fact that made this exchange between Bart and Lisa even more funny as they approach the island and find it's now a smelly trash heap".[5] nor this link[6] This one barely does, but it's take is lighthearted.[7]
I'd check more but many links to to a WP article, or else freeze my browser. I'm not convinced that the sources support per WP:UNDUE the detail in the article about the law suit. Please point out the sources that support general, serious, media emphasis on the lawsuit over this episode.
MathewTownsend (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment from another editor.
The first paragraph of the section currently titled "Response in Brazil" is all about the reactions in Brazil and could easily go in the "Release" section. What if we moved that section up to "Release" and renamed the remaining two paragraphs to "Lawsuit threat" or something similar. --Maitch (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, we could try it. But read the sources first. None of them seem to think it was a huge deal, and many regard the incident as laughable. Hardly a big international deal. One article connects it to a serious of incidents related to the US change in immigration policy and the requirement that Brazilians be finger printed. So blowing this up into a huge deal over this Simpson episode doesn't represent reality. At least one of the sources is a press release,[8] and naturally The Simpsons producers would like to think it was a big deal - good publicity for them. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. This incident received coverage in several independent newspapers as shown in the article already. This is not normal for an episode of the Simpsons. It is also mentioned in Planet Simpsons pp. 325-326 and Morgan Spurlong spend most of the time on the incident in the documentary The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special – In 3-D! On Ice!. It is the most important "controversy" in the Simpsons history. You can't even compare it to previous "controversy" episodes. I think this review should seek a 2nd opinion. --Maitch (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Also. Yes, one of the sources is a press release, but he only uses it for providing a release date. You are being unfair. You don't get release dates of television shows in The Times. --Maitch (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Reply to MathewTownsend
Okay, this is starting to get on my nerves. Here are the online sources in the article that talk about the controversy only: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Those are just a tiny fraction of all the newspaper articles available about the controversy. I literally found a hundred articles about it on Newsbank, some of which I have cited in the article (the offline news articles). Perhaps you should have a look at this special from TIME magazine: [15]. On page 4 you will see that they list "Blame It on Lisa". Also, here's a featured article for you that has a heavy "Controversy" section: Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Theleftorium (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Here are some results on Google Scholar, including some foreign sources: [16]. Some more online sources: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21],  [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Theleftorium (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
You write that "None of [the sources] seem to think it was a huge deal". Yet The Guardian writes: "The issue threatens to become a diplomatic incident."[31] And how can it not be a big deal when even the president comments on it? You should also listen to this, an entire segment about the controversy that aired during All Things Considered. Theleftorium (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Part of the problem is that only selected bits from articles are being used, and the context is sometimes being misrepresented. Also, the content is repetitious, probably coming from an news service, uncredited. But there is very little original info in these articles.
The Guardian  uses the word "fray" - usually not a word used for a serious clash, and does not call it a "controversy".Doh! Rio blames it on The Simpsons
The info from The Guardian used is selective, and doesn't represent the tongue-in-check parts.
Part of the anger in Brazil about The Simpsons is that, as well the stereotypes, there are many inaccuracies - Marge, the mother, finds that the local mode of transport is the "conga", which is a Caribbean dance. (She takes a conga to the hotel).Also, the family visits a samba school to learn the macarena - a Latin dance not performed in Brazil. There is also the penetrada, a fictitious and lascivious dance shown them by the teacher.Rio's tourist secretary, Jose Eduardo Guinle, said: "If Fox is so worried about Brazilian orphans and the poverty of our children, it should donate the profits of the episode to the city's social work programme."The tourist board is now studying how best to proceed with legal action.In January, the mayor of Rio threatened to sue a weather forecaster who predicted, wrongly, that there would be storms on New Year's Eve. The weather forecast kept crowds away from one of the biggest festivals of the year.
Another The GuardianSimpsons say sorry for 'doh-plomatic' disaster - also doesn't use the word controversy. - also fails to depict tongue-in-check tone.
The cult cartoon's executive producer, James Brooks, said sorry to the "lovely" people of the Brazilian city for the show that sparked what was quickly dubbed a "doh-plomatic incident".He added: "If that doesn't settle the issue, Homer Simpson offers to take on the president of Brazil on Fox Celebrity Boxing."
This is a repeat from Doh! Rio blames it on The Simpsons
From the BBC - doesn't use the word "controversy":Simpsons apologise to Rio - only article that doesn't make a joke of the incident, except the one  from estadao.com.
From the scotsman D’oh! Simpsons’ holiday in Rio backfires on Fox - doesn't use the word "controversy".
From estadao.com [32] - Gives basically the same info as the other articles; says Brazil felt humiliated and Fox apologized. Article gets into the hypocrisy and irresponsibility of Americans and how easily they can ridicule a nation, using incorrect information, and spread their mockery of a nation worldwide. None of the other news article above took this aspect seriously and it isn't mentioned in in this WP article, but it is a valid point. Actually mentions "controversial"!
Regarding the Time listing, this all comes under the rubric of ENTERTAINMENT. Every article I've looked at so far (except the BBC) has treated the issue as an entertainment piece. And only one used the word "controversial" and none used "controversy" and also mentions the Fox Celebrity Boxing offer.
In conclusion, this is a very shallow version of the so-called "controversy", that really only furthers the ends of The Simpsons show, IMO, by repeating their jokes over and over, and ridiculing Brazil.
MathewTownsend (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. You don't want to use sources, because they don't have the word "controversy" in it. And the source that does feature the "controversial" does not count, because it is in the entertainment section. Obviously, any newspaper would put an article about The Simpsons in the entertainment section. You seem hellbent on whitewashing this article and remove anything relating to the reactions in Brazil, so that the article can be more positive. This is not what WP:UNDUE means. I have been reading the original article before all these "improvements" (cuts) and it provided way more context for the reader. Request a second opinion now, Theleftorium! --Maitch (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend, the article doesn't mention the word "controversy" anymore. Your arguments make no sense. So what if some of the sources think the reaction in Brazil is laughable? It's still facts and the reaction should be covered in this article. Maitch, how do I request a second opinion? Theleftorium (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, I think that all of us are requesting 2nd opinion.  For Theleftorium, just state: I request 2nd opinion.  ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Well it seems I have already gotten two second opinions already from Maitch and you, but sure: I would like a second opinion. Theleftorium (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
ok, I got a second opinion. He said the new version of the article seems reasonable, and actually I agree with him. So PASS!
Reevaluation after fixes

1. Well written?:  Pass
2. Factually accurate?:  Pass
3. Broad in coverage?:  Pass
4. Neutral point of view?:  Pass
5. Article stability?:  Pass
6. Images?:  Pass
Congratualtions on a well written article!
MathewTownsend (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blame It on Lisa. 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/20111209001817/http://www.dvdverdict.com:80/reviews/simpsons13bluray.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/simpsons13bluray.php
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Blame It on Lisa. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/simpsons13bluray.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100703010041/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=362 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=362
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108013237/http://www.estadao.com.br/arquivo/arteelazer/2002/not20021205p6680.htm to http://www.estadao.com.br/arquivo/arteelazer/2002/not20021205p6680.htm
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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)