Talk:The Principal and the Pauper/Archive 1

message: :Image:PrincipalandthePauper.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:PrincipalandthePauper.JPG 

message: Josh Weinstein defends it as "trying something different" (Weinstein)
The most controversial one of the Oakley/Weinstein era (Oakley) because of how they changed Skinner's character (Moore)
He is "very very proud of the job I did on this episode. This is the best episode of television I feel I ever wrote" (Keeler)
It is one of Steven Dean Moore's favourite episodes that he directed. Okaley says it's "a good episode. It's solid" (Oakley)
It is not based at all on Martin Guerre. It is based on the Tichborne case, even though many fans had mistakenly assumed it was based on Guerre. (Keeler)
One of the possible titles of the episode was "Skinnersby" (Moore)
Keeler: "This episode is about a community of people who like things just the way they are. Skinner's not really close to these people - he's a minor character - but they get upset when someone comes in and says 'this is not really the way things are' and they run the messenger out of town on the rail. And when the episode aired, lo and behold, a community of people who like things just the way they are got mad. It never seems to have occured to anyone that this episode is about the people who hate it."
In the original draft there were two sentences that Keeler felt illustrated this point even better and they were cut for time, but he feels that they would have made all the difference. (Keeler)
Keeler would often be given the hardest episodes to write and they thought the episode was just another of his good ideas. At the time of production, there was little opposition, although Harry Shearer was a little peeved (Oakley)
The point of the ending was that everyone was supposed to mentally reset that this was Skinner again, but nobody did and that weas part of the problem (Oakley)
Skinner was a popular character, and a favourite of Oakley & Weinstein which is why they did the episode. (Weinstein)
Martin Sheen was brought in because Oakley & Weinstein love Apocalypse Now and feel that one of the best parts is the narration. They felt his voice is amazing and thought he would be a good fit for a Vietnam vet. (Weinstein)
The new Skinner was made to be a nice guy, but just not quite Skinner. (Keeler)
Oakley & Weinstein liked to do episodes that pushed the boundaries and this episode was in the same vein, although it didn't present itself as being an envelope pusher. (Oakley)
The name Armin Tamzarian came from Keeler. He got in a car accident and the name of the adjuster was named Armin Tamzarian. (Keeler) Later, he became a lawyer in the firm that represented the series. (Oakley) Normally when a show is done, to use a name, a database is searched and there either have to be more than 5 or none. (Oakley) After the episode aired, Keeler received a "curtly phrased" letter from Tamzarian. (Keeler) The producers believe that he allowed the producers to use his name because he was a lawyer. (Weinstein)
-- Scorpion0422 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rough Commentary stuff 

message: This line confuses me: Richards disagrees with Turner's assessment that the show plateaued after "The Principal and the Pauper"; recommending the twelfth season episode "Homer vs. Dignity" and declaring that The Simpsons never jumped the shark. Does Richards assert that the show plateaued after "Homer vs. Dignity" or the opposite, that "HvD" shows that the show never jumped the shark?  If the show DID plateau after "HvD", isn't that something at least akin to jumping the shark?  Croctotheface (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see where you're going with this, and I actually wrote very little of the article, so you can stop. The statement is actually unnecessary since this is about a specific episode and not about whether or not the show has jumped the shark. -- Scorpion0422 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea where I'm "going with this", but I'm glad that at least one of us knows, I guess.  I'm fine with your solution of removing the line and agree with your assessment that it's irrelevant to the article.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbled sentence (sentences?) 

message: My only real issues are with the lead. It doesn't fully summarise the article, and the last sentence of the plot description is too long. The mention of where the episode got its title should be put in the production section, as it discusses other potential titles. Alientraveller (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Cirt (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I think this article is just about ready for FAC. What does everyone else think? Teh Rote (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest to check first with , has put some significant work into the article.  Cirt (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'll nominate it now. -- Scorpion0422 15:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion 

message: I think these particular changes to the plot section only hurt it: . Since I had copy-edited the plot section, I'm not going to take it upon myself to revert this edit. But if anyone agrees with me here, please do discuss this. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:25, 29 Apr 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate? I have a reason for every one of those changes. I was mostly trying to eliminate wordiness ("tells" instead of "goes on to tell"; "allowed" instead of "chose to allow", etc.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I have made a few adjustments, but I think the rest of my edits should stay. Zagalejo^^^ 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: New diff: . I'm not going to go through each individual change and try to explain to you why I think they were better the other way. That would take too long. I'm just calling attention to this in case others agree with me. If not then it can stay the way it is. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:58, 29 Apr 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you at least comment on a couple of changes? I need something to work with here. Zagalejo^^^ 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: Here are some things we need to discuss:
*1) The big thing to tackle is the article's organization. There's a lot of overlap within the "Production", "Controversy", and "Reception" sections. We really need to define the scope of each of those sections.
*2) Once we have the basic organization figured out, we need to work on the prose, and the organization within sections. Some sections are rougher than others. The first paragraph of "Production", for example, doesn't flow very well at all. We jump from one topic (the claims adjuster) to another (Martin Sheen), and another (Sommersby), and then another (Mark Twain). We really need to work on transitions and paragraph development. (Those are problems in many Simpsons articles, not just this one.)
*3) We might need to be more selective about the quotes from the TV writers. Chris Turner's commentary is valuable, but I don't see how the Cantor quote adds much. Does he say anything more insightful? 
*4) Frankly, I think the most interesting commentary comes from the alt.tv.simpsons archives. There are many reliable sources that explicitly mention how the "people on the Internet" complained about the episode. Would it be possible to throw in a couple of representative newsgroup quotes? I might ask about that at the Village Pump. 
*5) Just what are we to make of Keeler's comment that he couldn't remember the "two lines that would have made all the difference?" That just seems... weird. Zagalejo^^^ 01:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on these now and over the course of the next day or two. Qst (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'd really want is a group discussion about some of these things. Zagalejo^^^ 20:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Regarding Keeler's lines, I just found it odd that he couldn't remember any of what he had written, and hadn't tried to look it up before the commentary taping. Makes me wonder if he's just pulling our legs. Zagalejo^^^ 18:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do 

message: I've finished going through the article at this point; there may be some tweaking required as references are checked to verify I haven't changed any information with the restructuring. I think the points identified above have been addressed. I understand that there have been some changes in practice with respect to dates from the FA perspective; I'll verify what it is and then make any changes necessary.  It's an interesting article, and I will follow it through the FA process and assist where necessary in copy editing.  Thanks to all for your assistance.  Risker (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional copy editing notes

message: On the way to FAC? Some comments to hopefully help you out.
*"a friend from the army," - I think this needs clarifying (it's (to me) a bit confusing currently and the prose could just do with a bit of smoothing)
**How is that confusing?
*"The episode was the last written by Ken Keeler" - last written???
*"As punishment, Armin had to join the Army" - punishment for stealing or hitting the judge? I can't remember if it says which in the episode.
**Yes, it was punishment for hitting the judge.
*"Marge Simpson heads to Capital City with Edna Krabappel, Agnes and the Simpson family." - why mention Marge specifically when you say the whole family goes anyway?
**In the episode, it was Marge who initiated the trip, so it makes sense to mention her specifically.
*"was partly due to the fact that it was not immediately apparent to viewers that this was such an episode." --> "was partly because it was not immediately..."?
*"In a 2001 interview with the Dallas Observer..." - you cite the East Bay Express .... Clarify
**The interview was with the Observer, but the original article has since been deleted, so we had to use an article from a source that also published the article.
*Feel free to revert this.
*"following King of the Hill" - which episode?
**I don't think it was a new one.
***Was it this one? I don't remember if King of the Hill was airing on the same day as The Simpsons that season, but that's the only new episode that aired during that Nielsen timeframe. Zagalejo^^^ 05:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 16:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: From "Reception": Giles Richards, writing in The Observer, notes this "Golden Age" referred to by Turner but disagrees with the assessment that the show plateaued after "The Principal and the Pauper".
::So.. what else does Richards say? I don't think this really belongs in the article unless we can elaborate on what he said. Zagalejo^^^ 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glen Richards comment 

message: The plot of the episode is similar to Martin Guerre story.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.210 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin Guerre is briefly mentioned in the article already, although Ken Keeler said that he was more directly influenced by the Tichbourne case. Zagalejo^^^ 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeler says in the commentary to this episode that the Martin Guerre story wasn't an influence at all, that it was based soley on the Tichbourne case.  69.158.138.200 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Guerre 

message: Al Jean confirmed the episode is non-canon following the premiere of "Walking Big & Tall". --Frederick Malcolm (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-canon