Talk:Bart Simpson used to promote Scientology

Video

I tried to see the video, to no avail. The link is here: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b81251_bart_simpsons_voice_speaks_scientology.html . Now when visiting, you get the message "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Twentieth Century Fox." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm just an interesting thought...if FOX is not or not planning on doing anything with the incident...why would they want to claim copyright on it and have it removed from youtube? Seems a little suspicious, and I am not the only one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnoMGqcN554 Not sure how long it will be there though. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I e-mailed FOX...doubt I will get anything back, but who knows. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Theres a screenshot of the taken down video here (this is internal to youtube, so it might disapear soon. basically its a picture of bart holding a telephone). I think its more likely that fox is claiming copyright to these images rather than the audio. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

South Park

Whilst I think it's fine to include a "in a similar incident..." comment about Hayes/Southpark. The line about his subsequent death is at best superfluous and at worst a very strange end to the article. 194.176.105.39 08:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

See similar info at E! Online, the info about his death is relevant background material. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The E! Online article only describes him as "the late singer", it does not give the details of his death. Nor should we; those details are irrelevant to an article about Bart Simpson, Nancy Cartwright, and Scientology. John Darrow (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The current treatment with "the late" is fine. Cirt (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

Revision 759253 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 759253 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Additional sources

• Claire Sweeney. "Aye carumba! Bart Simpson is spruiking Scientology" — The Times, January 29, 2009
• Jesse Perez. "Bart Simpson used by Cartwright to promote Scientology" — Macquarie National News, January 29, 2009
• Chris Matyszczyk. "Bart Simpson robocalls for Scientology" — CNET News, January 28, 2009
• Josh Gillin. "Bart Simpson is promoting Scientology now" — St. Petersburg Times, January 28, 2009
• Roy Edroso. "Voice of Bart Simpson Robo-Calls for Scientology" — The Village Voice, January 27, 2009

Cirt (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Who was called?

The message sounds like it is intended for those already in Scientology and Cartwright is appealing to those who want to go to the next thetan level. It doesn't sound like it is an unsolicited robocall. Is there any indication if that is so? I think that would be relevant. --SVTCobra 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you could find more on this in secondary sources, that would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid that, figuring that someone here (like you) had already read them all and would know the answer off hand. --SVTCobra 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not encountered that particular bit of information in the secondary sources I have come across so far. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Times clearly state in the second paragraph of their article that this was an automated telephone message sent to Scientologists, inviting them to a Scientology event. In other words, the general public would never even have heard the message if someone had not put it on the net. It is not as though these calls talking about "spiritual levels", "auditors" and "wins" went out to 12-year-olds' cell phones.

[1], dd. Jan 28: "We called the phone number for the event that Nancy gives out, and the person who answered was surprised a non-Scientologist got the message -- thanks, YouTube."

[2], dd. Jan 28: "The Village Voice reports that Cartwright, a Scientologist, solicits followers of the Church to attend a Hollywood event." —Jayen466 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Even so, none of these sources say for sure that the message was sent to just Scientologists. In fact your YouTube reference clearly states that it was not just scientologists who got the message. I have talked to at least one other person that also is not a scientologist who got the message. Regardless, she is using a voice of a copyrighted and trademarked character to promote a Scientology event. That in itself is misleading a a form of maybe propaganda. Example: Because its 'Bart' calling, it now makes the individual more likely to attend, influencing them. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) - these sources do not state the message was sent exclusively to Scientologists, and other sources actually refute this. Also, the article's publish date was January 29, 2009, it is a bit late to be making changes. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There were clear mentions in available sources that the message went out to Scientologists and was intended for them. Also, it stands to reason that a message intended for the general public would not have used Scientology jargon in the way the message is using it. —Jayen466 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is another, in one of the sources listed on the article page: Twentieth Century Fox television would not comment on whether Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart on "The Simpsons," will face disciplinary action following her voice message urging Scientologists, in Bart's voice, to attend an upcoming conference. ... The YouTube recording of Cartwright's robocall to Scientology members, which began "Hey what's happening man, this is Bart Simpson. Ha ha ha! Just kidding this is Nancy Cartwright" has been removed from the Web site. —Jayen466 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the sources given in the article; as far as I can see, not a single one refutes that calls were made to Scientologists, or claims that non-Scientologists received the call. —Jayen466 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As a more general point, newspapers often print corrections, retractions etc. in a later edition if they got something wrong. If there is no facility for this here, then perhaps Wikinews should think about allowing article writers to add an errata box after the publish date, to correct any errors that may have occurred. —Jayen466 (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

None of these sources state that the Bart Simpson message was sent exclusively to Scientologists. Perhaps an official statement from the Church of Scientology or from Cartwright's public relations people could clarify this. Cirt (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the "exclusively"; the article should at least (have) state(d) that the calls went out to Scientologists. There are ample sources for that. Frankly, I can't see any reason for the resistance to stating that in the article. It's in the Times. —Jayen466 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I still don't see it. I even said I talked to at least one person who got the message and is not a Scientologist. And regardless of who it was sent to, or not sent to, the fact remains that it was Bart Simpson being used to promote a Scientology event. And if this was sent to just Scientologists, as you claim, then how did word get out about the message? If only scientologists received it, then they would certainly not call up the press to report or leak it. So the claim it was sent to just Scientologists makes no sense whatsoever. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dragon, tmz staff said "thanks youtube" (and posted a link to the video). They did not imply in any way that they personally got the phone message. Who knows, maybe it was some disgruntled member of a Scientologist household who leaked it – I can't see any evidence in the sources that people without any connection to Scientology received the call on their phone number.

We have several reliable sources saying that the calls went out to Scientologists. Again, what makes no sense whatsoever is that the Church of Scientology would send out a message talking about OT7, wins and auditing to the general public. The very wording makes it very clear that the message was intended for Scientologists who would be able to understand this jargon. Cheers, —Jayen466 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A disgruntled Scientologist at OT7? That is very unlikely. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)