# Talk:The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show

Someone just corrected the quotes on this page, as the originals were completely wrong. I'd say the same should be done with the other Simpsons episode pages, as a lot of them seem quite different from the actual lines. Seems the original editor/s were going from memory. BillyH 00:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes they do that. Gran2 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nelson made it look like Milhouse liked "the Speedo Man."  Later, the businessman notes it.  http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/scripts/itchy-scratchy-poochie  I really think this is a reference to the He-Man cartoon of the 1980s.  It may point to how cartoons can bring out the homoerotic desires of young boys.  jcm 2/8/13

This section was deleted from the article because unless it can be severely referenced and re-written to allow for NPOV compliance, there is no reason for it's continued presence in the article.Rebochan 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is seen by many commentators as being one of the most important episodes of The Simpsons ever made. The fact that two new characters are introduced for the episode that made the show the longest running American animated series of all time is seen by many as being quite purposeful, and not just a coincidence. This is often seen as a message from the writers to the management team that The Simpsons was starting to run out of space to explore and still keep its integrity. Many people feel that the show 'jumped the shark' not long after this episode was aired, although this episode itself is generally held in very high regard. Also, the episode not only reflects the writers' acknowldgement of the sometimes misguided, selfish opinions of the more hardcore fans (alt.tv.simpsons readers, in particular), but also their disdain at the same fans' "passion" for the show.

In the article about The Itchy and Scratchy show it is claimed that Dan Castellneta and Harry Shearer are the voices for Itchy and Scratchy respectively. However in this episode Homer meets June Bellamy who is credited as the voice artist for Itchy and Scratchy. Who played June?

Tress MacNielle. Gran2 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
That Leno thing is wrong. Leno was evesdroping on a meeting where the executives disscused wether or not to fire him , as Leno's ratings were not as high as they hoped

Actually you are wrong, because Leno wasn't officially working for NBC when he hid in the closet & eavesdropped. Leno was Johnny Carson's permanent fill in host, which he would do the show when Johnny was taking a day off (which was very often in the last 4 years as Johnny would take off one day a week per his contract.)

This episode was shown on Channel 4 today and the couch gag wasn't "A parody of the Sgt. Pepper's album cover" but instead had the Simpsons finding The Flintstones sitting on the couch, which seems a lot more appropriate. Is there any definite source for the gags or are the title sequences often detached and reattached without care? Timrollpickering 18:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

When Sky first showed this episode, they replaced the couch gag with the Flintstones one, apparently to show how The Simpsons had finally beaten The Flintstones in terms of episode numbers.  Clearly Channel 4 are using the same edited tapes... Dave-ros 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah they do, they have a deal with Sky One, Channel 4 play some season, Sky plays others, so they use the same tapes. Gran2 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I was coming here to ask about this because I always remembered it being the Flintstones and I always used to give trivia to people I was watching with why the Flintstones were used for this particular episode. Funny enough, I also always remembered a funny tone that would play during the end of the intro and now I can place that as being the same tone used for the Sgt Pepper intro, referencing the final chord in A Day in the Life. It seems that although they changed the gag, the audio wasn't changed. Maybe this could be mentioned on the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.212.241 (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 

I dunno, seems somewhat important to me.

No. In the CBG's article, yes, but not here. Gran2 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to say that you beat me to the punch on this page. I was literally a day away from working on it. About the writers, you missed a few. See this post for a little more information on who's who. -- Scorpion 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't going to include them all because they arn't all mentioned in the commentary. I missed out Goldreyer, Hauge, and Cary (which were and I will add in). But Steve Tompkins, and a few others, weren't mentioned. Any other work would be useful as well. Gran2 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I found something else for the page: The first mention of "Worst Episode Ever" at Alt.TV.Simpsons, if your interested. [1] -- Scorpion 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, if you want to add it in you can, but I can't think of a good way to phrase it right now. Gran2 18:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


### Update
Believe it or not, but BILL OAKLEY responded to the above thread [2] and identified all of the writers. I don't know if you can use that as a source though, but he is an EP, so he might be considered reliable enough. -- Scorpion 03:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A very good article; my main comment would be that there are too many very short sentences (especially in the production section) which might flow better if they were connected. Laïka 14:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gran2 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember hearing somewhere that the voice of Roy in this episode was the guy who won the "Who Shot Mr. Burns" contest from the year before.  Does anyone know if there is any truth to this?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. The person that won the WSMB contest was an old lady that was randomly selected from people that said it was Smithers. No one actually won the contest, by getting the answer correctly, so no one was added into the show or voiced a character. Roy was voiced by Hank Aziria. Gran2 06:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A paragraph I added about Happy Days was immediately deleted with a one-word explanation - "uncited". Here is the section:
Roy's sudden introduction, which mirrors the rather random introduction of Poochie into Itchy and Scratchy's universe, may be likened to that of Fonzie in Happy Days. Fonzie suddenly appeared in the middle of the first season, then emerged to become a leading character and a frequent presence in the Cunningham's living room. Roy's "Mr. S" is a reference to the "Mr. C" address Fonzie used for the Cunningham father, and his final remark about "two sexy ladies" is a typical Fonzie statement. Happy Days is significant to the message in this episode, as it is the classic example of a show which stretched its lifetime by introducing new characters. Happy Days is the source of the phrase Jumping the Shark, a phenomenon typified by the introduction of new characters such as Poochie and Roy.
It was not uncited at all, as it included references to three separate wikipedia articles and I re-added it on that basis, after which it was re-deleted with the explanation "no they are not sources, although its near certain, you have no proof that it was actually inserted as reference to that, and wikipedia itself can never be used as a reference".
I don't fully understand what is stated here ("that it was actually inserted as reference to that" - I don't get this???). Anyway, one thing is clear - it asserts that (a) something can be ruled out of wikipedia because it has no sources, even if it is "near certain" - that would rule out 98% of wikipedia and any other academic writing as you'd have to cite every sentence; (b) wikipedia itself can never be used as a reference. This is news to me and I'd like someone to point me in the direction of this claim, since it seems absurd for an encyclopedia not to trust its own references, and instead force writers to dig out primary sources from other articles and re-cite them.
(Parenthetically, I find it disappointing that a piece of text whic is clearly relevant, whether well-cited or not, which someone had contributed could be shut out without discussion. I'm only pursuing this because I'm curious about the process involved; saner people  would have given up by now and the contribution lost.) -- Mahemoff

Please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR. Those are not proper references. You'd need an article that says exactly that, and you have not cited one. -- Scorpion0422 15:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how you think that is cited. Three links to other Wikipedia pages is not referencing something. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR. You can't use Wikipedia to reference something, you need another, outside source. And, as said, you need a source to actually show that it was meant to be a reference to Fonzie. There's a 99% chance it is, but unless there is a sourcing saying that the writers intended it to be so, you cannot say it. If you find an outside source, you can have it in the article. This is a GA, so everything has to be sourced. (Edit conflict: Scorp beat me to it, and said almost the excat same thing..) Gran2 15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I understand more - you're looking for a source that makes the link between the episode and the show. That wasn't really clear from the log messages. How is http://www.snpp.com/episodes/4F12.html as a source?
If you look up the article for Fonzie, you will see it says basically the same thing as here (about this Simpson episode), sans reference. You will also see about 30 other inferences, none of which don't cite their source and should therefore be deleted under this policy (as with most of Wikipedia).
BTW The text never claimed it as a certainty ("may be likened to"). In any event, I do appreciate that this article is very well cited, but I would have thought a statement with 99% certainty could at least be retained with "citation needed", not junked at whim.
--Mahemoff 22:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't use SNPP as a source, because it is essentially a fan site, but I'd consider making an exception in this case. And also, as this is a GA, a citation needed tag, wouldn;t look very good. If you want to add this, with the SNPP ref, call the heading Cultural references though, please. Gran2 23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that this is the correct line dubbed into the dialogue, in place of Homer's "give Poochie a chance" statement - I would say it's just Roger Meyers being an asshole, as per usual. Bluebird207 (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Surely this is a major thing being parodied?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.194.84 (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show. 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/20080709045709/http://www.avclub.com/content/node/47756/2 to http://www.avclub.com/content/node/47756/2
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) 22:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"They’re giving you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? If anything, you owe them!"
Not long after, The Simpsons completely jumped the shark. No wonder given attitude the show-runners developed by then. 
Those fans are the people making your comfy job possible. Writer-boy: You owe THEM everything you've got.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.135.159 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC) 

I believe this article, at its current state, may need to be reassessed for GA status. The "Reception" appears to lack organization and the lede does not seem to adequately reflect the contents of the page. There may be other issues with trivia in the page, as well as synthesis with respect to a reference to Scrappy-Doo. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessment will follow the same sections of the Article.  Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 
Instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment


### Observations
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Prose is good, follows MOS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Citations are accurate and well presented.
Some link rot has been observed.
Running the Internet Archive Bot over this page may sort that issue.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Article touches a lot of bases, the coverage is sufficiently broad for this specific genre.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
This particular episode flags falling ratings and in-show strategies to revive the series. As such, the coverage is remarkably neutral.
NPOV is presented in this article
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Page created 11 July 2005
Page has 599 edits by 307 editors and has 34 page watchers
90 day page views =  6,144 with an average of 68 views daily.
Internet Archive Bot has visited twice; Cluebot NG once.
Listed as Good Article: March 14, 2007

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
No images; comprehensive infobox used;
Overall:
Article meets all six criteria for GA status.
 
 Passed