Talk:Yokel Chords

Vocal cords

Does anyone else believe that this episode is a play on "vocal cords" ? --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 07:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so too.68.183.202.72 07:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Scary Story Tune

What is the name (or where is it from) of the tune that plays while Bart is telling his scary story in the beginning? Tazzy531 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's it! 12 monkeys... Thanks Tazzy531 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dark Stanley's Style

When Dark Stanley's story is told, the animation is styled differently. Does anyone know if it was referring to anything? It was so precisely stylized, I figured it had to be a take of something else. I recognized the music throughout the episode as being similar to the main theme from "12 Monkeys", but Bart's fictional story, and the style in which it is told, are something else. Any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.137.26.36 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

I thought it was reminiscent of the artwork Edward Gory, especially his work The Gashlycrumb Tinies with the children drawn as little adults with oversized heads. But this falls under the heading of original research, which will just earn us a smackdown. We better wait for a supporting article or DVD commentary to come out. 69.37.10.148 03:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So why is the reference to Gorey still in the article? I, for one, don't think Gorey inspired the Dark Stanley animation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.239.92 (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it more specifically references original Gorey animation on PBS' Mystery! opening https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG7SyxaXGwU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 06:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Raccoon Gag

Why was the mention of Cletus hanging the raccoon edited out? I think that it was a subtle but significant joke that has racial undertones (unless someone else can come with another explanation for the scene), and was appropriate under the heading of Trivia, which someone has also deleted from the text.

Maybe so, but it seems to me like they just did it to illustrate that he's a slack jawed yokel. Either way, it's all speculation. -- Scorpion 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Scorpion, how is this speculation? It's quite an obvious statement. To speak, for a moment, in stereotypes (I apologize if anyone is offended by this...my only reason for doing this is to explain the reasoning behind the Simpsons) Cletus is a hick, and a 'redneck'. 'Rednecks' are stereotyped to be racist (as well as incestuous...another offensive joke if you ask me, but another issue all together). So to depict a "redneck" lynching a raccoon from a tree is a very obvious statement. Calling an african-american a Raccoon or a "Coon" is EXTREMELY offensive, and an awful thing to do. African-Americans were hanged from trees for many years, this we know as a fact. How can you not see this as speculation? It's a direct statement that Cletus is lynching a "Coon", but he is so stupid that he thinks he's supposed to lynch the animal. That was the joke. Ha ha, it's so funny. Cletus is so stupid he thought "Lynching a coon" meant hanging a raccoon. Ha ha! That's so funny, and not offensive in the slightest! Please. There is no sensitivity there at all. And only 5 days after Black History Month ended. It was a joke in poor taste.

Unless they confirm that it was racist, then it doesn't get added. It's all speculation. Probably, they just thought it would be funny to do that. Besides, several members of the Simpsons writing team are African-American. People are just saying there is a controversy when there is none. If a bunch of major news outlets and the NAACP start making a big deal about this, THEN it's a controversy. Otherwise, it's just a couple of bloggers whining about things. -- Scorpion 18:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I do not think it's up to the insulter to decide whether they were insulting. It's up to the insultee to decide whether they were insulted (within a reasonable limit). Are you so unsympathetic to say that there is not anything offensive about hanging a raccoon? What about if they had a raccoon picking cotton in a cotton field? What if they had a german person send a bunch of accountants, and lawyers into a gas chamber? Afterall, Jewish people are stereotyped to be accountants, and lawyers...and this is a clear allusion to the Concentration Camps and is VERY offensive. These are all offensive things, how can you not see this? (I apologize if my examples were offensive to anyone)

If the incident actually does become a controversy, then it can be noted here. -- Scorpion 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless a site other than the blog can be found that mentions the scene as being controversial, It most certainly doesn't belong here.Hondasaregood 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I did provide another link: http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.tv.simpsons/browse_thread/thread/e823a503b150d91e/c6dac985b986b9ac?hl=en#c6dac985b986b9ac

That won't do, either. See WP:V.Hondasaregood 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hondasaregood, this is a comment about how people felt. What is a reliable source? Should ABC, or FOX publish that people were offended? Would that be a reliable source? I've provided you with sources of people saying they've been offended. That IS a reliable source. Who are you to decide what is offensive or not? Who are you to decide whether these sources are reliable?

1)See Reliable sources, and 2), Forum members say a lot of things, so this is not reliably sourced.Hondasaregood 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Then start your own blog and report it there. Wikipedia is not a place for POV. -- Scorpion 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of this edit warring, I've nominated it for a POV-check.Hondasaregood 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is now in a terrible condition, so I'll try to clean it up. -- Scorpion 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

M'eh, it made me laugh!! I know it's a highly sensitive subject but I felt it at least needed mentioning in the article, after all we can't deny the joke happened and we certainly can't deny the horrible events that it refers to happened. I hope my addition to the article is not offensive, either to whites from the Southern US States, the vast majority of whom I assume are not racist rednecks, or blacks anywhere who's history is marred with such horrible events.

I did try to make my addition to the article as neutral as possible but as a white person from the North of England perhaps my POV is different to yours so please check! -- RPXA 11:08, 09 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad Taste?

I agree some of the jokes in the episode were not very funny (I got the coon and Jew jokes, but I wasn't laughing), but I hardly think there was a major outcry against them. Hence I removed the part of the article that suggested the blogosphere was up in arms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.183.202.72 (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

You're over-exaggerating the statement in the article. The statement is "While this was making an observation about the Spuckler family's prejudice and racism, some bloggers regarded these scenes of the episode to be in very poor taste." This is not claiming the blogosphere wasn't up in arms, but that some bloggers have written about it and were offended, as well as other people just talking about it.

The jew joke was hilarious! Tolerance has nothing on funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PoorLeno (talk • contribs) 12:37, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Strange

Was this episode structured strangely to anyone else? Almost like a 'skit' episode, but not quite. I mean, in the beginning you have the Dark Stanley part, the Willy-catches-the-kids montage, the multiple musical numbers... Was there something different in the way it was written? Webrunner 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Raccoon Joke II

If anything, your one source contradicts your claim that it was an intentional refernce because the one post says "It certainly wasn't intended to be racist - it was along the lines of Brandine drowning the rats in 'big Girl' - but I imagine that some might also find cletus "lynching a 'coon" quite rascist, if you have that imagery in your mind as a first reaction. It certainly might be taken as offensive, though..." It should be noted that the poster who wrote that is an insider from the show (I think he's one of the main cast member's lawyers). Either way, you can't just cite a couple blogs and forums. -- Scorpion 18:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the fact that it's an insider from the show has to do with anything. If you notice on the blogs and forums people are in debate about it. Not everyone AGREES that it was racist...but it had sparked some debate, and some people were offended. The remark is legitimate, and the sources are verifiable and attest to the claim. And why did you remove the Trivia section?

Because it wasn't needed. Read the policy, forums and blogs can not be used as sources. -- Scorpion 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

"Who are you to decide wether these sources are reliable?"

Incorrect. The references you are adding clearly fail to meet our Reliable source criteria, and therefore should not be added. The other problem is that the statements that "some viewers" and "some bloggers" were offended by this is what is known as weasel wording.Hondasare^{GOOD (talk)} 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that using blogs and forums to support your claims ( as well as what you and your friends think.) qualifies as Original reasearch.Hondasare^{GOOD (talk)} 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Scientific Literature

There seems to be a striking similarity between the fictional article titled "Effectiveness of Clozapine versus Olanzapine and Risperidone in Patients with Chronic Schizophrenia" by Dr. Stacey Swanson (see 3:39 of this clip) and an actual article below:

McEvoy JP, Lieberman JA, Stroup TS; et al. (2006). "Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment". The American journal of psychiatry. 163 (4): 600–10. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.163.4.600. PMID 16585434. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

--Uthbrian (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes

The section labeled 'Mistakes' confuses me. Is it a goof or not? I've never quite been able to tell myself in dealing with the head-shrinky people. Lots42 (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Goof probably would be more appropriate. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)