Talk:Mike Scully

Ridiculous

I took a lot of time adding to this article (as an anon editor), and have found that my additions have been gutted out. I think the reasoning on this page is poor, and way to wordy. I am going to present my arguments here without jumping into the fray below, because I think that discussion went nowhere.

Nothing I added breaks anything in Biographies of living persons. For example, for the slate article, lets go through the list of requirements for living persons:

   * Verifiability
   * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
   * No original research for living persons

• "Verifiable ... means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" - Obviously a check because we are quoting Slate, a reliable source
• NPOV occurs by presenting both sides, not neither. If 95% of reliable sources criticize him, the article should reflect that to truly have a NPOV
• This is not original research, we are attributing everything we say

I am adding the Slate article back. Rm999 20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Balanced article

I have removed the following from the article:

Scully has earned an unpopular reputation with some Simpsons fans who feel the show's quality began to decline during his tenure. During Mike Scully's tenure as the executive producer, some fans believe that there was an increased use of celebrity guest voices, more reliance on slapstick and lowbrow humor, and that the characters seemed to become more one-dimensional. In addition, many episodes during Scully's period centered around Homer, who was portrayed as very mean-spirited and a bully, giving birth to the term "Jerkass Homer". Nonetheless, the show remained popular under his tenure.

An editorial on Slate accuses Scully of converting The Simpsons from a realistic show about family life into a typical cartoon.

"The Simpsons no longer marks the elevation of the sitcom formula to its highest form ... Episodes that once would have ended with Homer and Marge bicycling into the sunset (perhaps while Bart gagged in the background) now end with Homer blowing a tranquilizer dart into Marge's neck."

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the relevant policies on this. Critical information on living persons, and ultimately all information on Wikipedia, must be explicitly substantiated by citing reliable, secondary sources. It is not appropriate to have sentences like "some fans believe...", etc. The Slate editorial and other critical commentary from published sources can be acceptable, but need to be provided in an accurate context, including positive reviews according to their weight in publications. —Centrx→talk • 08:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This diff may also have useful information for the article. —Centrx→talk • 09:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that the language was kind of weasely, I know from experience reading fan boards during the years that Scully ran the show that the fans genuinely disliked him. If there exist positive reviews of Scully, we should make reference to them. However, if we edit with a bias toward including "balance" for its own sake or finding balance where there really is not balance, that is exerting a point of view. The Slate article serves to source most of the material that was removed. I'd be in favor of putting basically all of it back. If there had been a superior version of the aricle that someone modified to contain only information about Simpsons fans' dislike for Scully, then I'd support drawing on both versions to expand the article. Croctotheface 02:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First, fan forums are not reliable sources; and cannot be added to the article as sources in themselves. This article must conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Balance for its own sake is not appropriate, but it is quite doubtful that 100% of critical commentary was negative—and that itself would require its own sources. The article must accurately reflect the levels of critical response to the person's tenure on the show, and the amount of space in the article devoted to criticism positive and negative must be commensurate to the size of the article. Sections on criticism are to add to and inform the fullness of the article. Having a sentence about being producer on the Simpsons and a sentence about being involved with other shows, and then a paragraph three times that size about criticism does not accurately reflect the person or his encyclopedic importance. WP:NPOV#Undue weight is informative here. —Centrx→talk • 21:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You may find it "informative" to note that I did not suggest citing fan forums to source the article. You may also find it informative to reread the part of my post where I mention that the Slate article could source just about all the negative information you removed. However, you seemed to dispute the notion that "some fans" disliked him. Fan forums may be a window into what "some fans" think. Your declaration that it is "doubtful" that critical response to Scully was overwhelmingly negative carries no weight. There is no reason to exclude mention of negative reviews simply because you expect that there may be some positive review out there somewhere that is not cited in the article. As far as the business of undue weight, I would not be opposed to leaving out some of the text that you cut; however, there is no reasonable basis for cutting all of it. Besides, if Scully never wrote for The Simpsons, he would not merit a Wikipedia article. He is best known for it, and it should form the foundation of the text. Croctotheface 22:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, here are some sources that are either criticisms of Scully or refer to the criticism, starting with the Slate article: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I left off posts on fan forums, which were generally critical of Scully, but did feature rare praise or "he wasn't so bad". (The general tone of the posts, though, supports my belief that the conventional wisdom basically everywhere is that his tenure was a failure.) Groening endorsed the work of "the writers, led by Mike Scully" here: [8]. Croctotheface 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Balance for balance's sake is POV

If there is a critical source that praises Scully, find it and put it in. I did search, and I did not find a single positive critical review of Scully. I have no interest in engaging in a hit job on the guy, but nothing is gained by ignoring the fact that he became a boogeyman to hardcore fans of the show. If you Google him, you'll find a lot of sites that list him in the credits, a handful of sites that quote him in Simpsons related articles, and a good bit of commentary about how bad he was. I did not find commentary about how GOOD he was, though I found some "he wasn't so bad" or "this other guy is worse". Your goal here is balance for balance's sake. You won't do the research to find these elusive positive reviews (or perhaps you tried and couldn't find any), so the solution is deleting legitimate content because it is critical of Scully. Your first argument was that the criticism received undue weight in the article. Now that it's one sentence, you've still deleted it. Your edit summary indicated that this one sentence constitutes an "extended interpretation." I have trouble seeing how one sentence is an extended anything, but here is the text from the Wikipedia article: "many fans of the show believe that the quality of the programming declined during this period and that Scully himself bears a great deal of responsibility" and here is the text from the Slate article: "The past five or six seasons just haven't been up to snuff. Who's to blame for this state of events? Some of the die-hard fans who populate the news group alt.tv.simpsons have settled on a "lone gunman" theory—that one man single-handedly brought down TV's Camelot. One problem: They don't agree on who's hiding in the book depository. Many fans finger Mike Scully, who served as executive producer for Seasons 9 through 12 (generally considered the show's nadir)." I don't see interpretation so much as paraphrasing and citation here. I don't expect you were serious about the idea that the Slate article does not suffice as a source because it discusses other things. How many sources could we use if they needed to discuss only the fact being cited? Otherwise, if you want a "total description" of his tenure, write it. I don't really know what that would entail. My edit basically said "a lot of people were watching the show, and a lot of fans were panning him on the Internet." What would make the description more "total" besides these elusive positive reviews? Also, BLP guidelines are designed to prevent "speculative, 'I heard it somewhere' statements" and tabloid-style gossip. That's not anything close to what this dispute is over. Slate is a reliable source--the article was written by a journalist who researched fan opinion and discussed it in a context. I also cited six other sources that refer to fans' distaste for Scully. The content is legitimate. Croctotheface 11:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, here's a search of Google Groups for "'mike scully' simpsons". I think that even a casual browsing of the results shows that he is/was very unpopular. Slate's characterization that "many fans" blame him for what they perceive as a decline in the show is extremely fair. It could be worded a lot more strongly and still be accurate and verifiable. Croctotheface 11:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's editorial POV dreck, and you're propagating it.24.224.233.94 09:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the notion that Scully was not good for the show is a point of view. However, it's a point of view that has a large number of adherents and has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources. It is possible to write about a point of view while maintaining a neutral tone in your writing. The content relating to this matter is sourced, brief, and does not overwhelm the article. As such, it is appropriate to include. It is certainly not the case that Wikipedia articles should ignore criticism of public figures or their work on artistic projects. Croctotheface 20:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The critical paragraph is out. A single editorial (OPINION PIECE) from slate.com is not enough to create an article that essentially creates a negative view of the subject. Please read WP:BLP. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Until there are enough sources to actually make a proper article, the article needs to stick with plain verifiable facts. As it stands, there are no reliable sources in the article, so all we can have in the meantime is plainly obvious true/false statements. —Centrx→talk • 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care anymore. You win. Croctotheface 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Scully himself

This was recently added to the article by MikeScully:

In response to the criticism from this one online article, Mike Scully wrote to Wikipedia on July 15, 2007 with the following statement: "I feel very proud and lucky to be associated with a high quality show like "The Simpsons." I'd be lying if I said there weren't a few episodes produced under my tenure that I'd love to have a second crack at (every showrunner feels this at one time or another), but the uninformed opinions of 20 people who have nothing better to do with their evenings than exchange angry postings over the quality of a singular episode of a TV series are of very little concern to me. I continue to find the show very funny and better-written than most anything on television, a truly astounding accomplishment after 400 episodes."

I am removing it for the following reasons:

a) It may in fact have been Scully himself writing it, but there is no way to be sure
b) It is unencyclopaedic; if the quote were in an interview, it could be added to the article, but as it was only added to Wikipedia, it is not verifiable. --DearPrudence 03:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If we were sure that Scully made the post, it would be fine to include. Croctotheface 18:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just by itself - it would have to have been quoted from somewhere else. --DearPrudence 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-generated content can be acceptable if it is by and about the author. In other words, a message board post would not ordinarily be a reliable source for information about Mike Scully, but it would be a different matter entirely if we could verify that the person making the post is Scully himself. Croctotheface 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

[9] Gran² 16:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

[10]

Silly quote

This article contains the line: "When asked in 2007 how the series' longevity is sustained, Scully replied, "Lower your quality standards. Once you've done that you can go on forever."[34]" I can't read the source as it's behind a paywall, but I'd be almost certain that that quote was meant as a joke and not to be taken seriously. (He is a comedy writer, after all.) I sincerely doubt he was saying 'we intentionally lowered our standards so we could keep making the show forever', which is what its use implies here. (If anyone has access to the original article, feel free to correct me.) Robofish (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a joke (although an accurate one), so I've changed it to reflect that. Gran² 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mike Scully/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This article is well written and is sufficiently compliant with the MoS.

   I made a few minor copy-edits.[11]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All on line references are live

   The article is adequately referenced.

   All references appear to be WP:RS

   All the on-line sources support the cited statements. I assume good faith for off-line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is braod and focussed. It will need contious updates as Scully's career progresses.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One image used, correctly licensend and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well, this is good to go. I am happy to list this as a good article. Congratulations. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks very much! Gran² 22:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Outraged!

Since when do you have to jump through hoops to prove a first marriage, and that Mike Scully has two children from a previous marriage. I referenced two sources. I was told by Gran2 who is hellbent on not allowing this information, that IMDB isn't a good source. We can use his ex wife, or how about dragging his children into this.

Maybe because he and his current wife are pushing a show, and someone made the comment that it is based on his life with their 5 children. First off as I said in my revision, he has two daughters from a first marriage. She has two daughters from her first marriage. They have one daughter together. This source has more information than the imdb it was not copied from there.

A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.139.65 (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)