Talk:Rod and Todd Flanders

Comments on rod and todds age

In an episode named Lisa's first word It seems that the flander todd is the eldest because he is about bart's age when he is a baby and rod is know where to be seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.155.89 (talk • contribs)

...and that's the flexible reality of the Simpsons!

See The One That Looks Younger Is Really Older Than The Taller One.

Age

I have edited the information boxes to the right of the article to reflect the ages that have been heard on screen. Height is not a reliable indication of a child's age (especially a pre-pubescent one). Todd was mentioned as being ten at the golf tournament and Rod turned ten in season 7. Obviously we have to take the "true" age of any television character with a grain (or entire bag) of salt but I believe it is more accurate to give the on-screen ages instead of saying "probably 10" and "probably 12". However, if future episodes contradict past episodes it will be worth noting in the "age discrepancy" section I have created. 195.93.21.40 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact that Todd is definately older than 8. This is because he and todd both play with Bart in episode 9F08 "Lisa's First Word".The sound 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Todd is a contemporary of Bart, thus his brother Rod is older, but this changes from time to time.

Jealous of girls

Which of them actually said this? ("I'm jealous of girls, because they get to wear dresses") The article says it was Rod, but this contradicts http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Simpsons which quotes Todd. Google results are mixed, but seem to sligtly favour Rod. Gavinatkinson 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was Todd. --Ted87 20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it was the older (taller) of the two. Benjiboi 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Rod Flanders' section

Rod's section of the article is copied from the Simpsons' official site (see [1]). Someone please correct this. 82.39.52.221 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

Rod's got an image and todd hasn't!!Paidgenius 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Benjiboi 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

The infoboxes make it seem like both their parents are dead. Lots42 09:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated them for clarity. Benjiboi 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I certainly don't agreed with your characterizations of content removed could you please explain why you also deleted that Maude is deceased in the infoboxes? Benjiboi 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Tag

Okay, now this one is just silly. Todd made one statement that could be interpreted as him being gay. So, how can that have any importance to your project? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please refrain from labeling another editor's work as "silly." As the article states, or at least used to state, the characters have been identified as gay in a future-telling arc of them and the series has made numerous cultural references to their unique upbringing that contributes and speaks to issues of Christian parenting of gay children and the irony that certain accepted forms of protectionistic parenting actually manifests in gay appearing characteristics. Several characters on this worldwide, mainstream show are considered gay identified or gay icons. I'm not sure why it's such a big deal that you feel you must remove a project tag for a project you're not involved with and ask that you defer to members of any project rather than potentially disrupting their work. In the case of Wayland Smithers you were mistaken and now several LGBT project members are contributing to that article. Do you really want to repel people from improving articles? Is the tag really that big of deal? Benjiboi 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is silly. Future episodes are non-canon, so that does NOT mean that they are gay, and tagging this article because they could be gay is poor rationale. And yes it is a big deal, because projects shouldn't go throwing tags on random articles that are only slightly related to the topic. Ralph Wiggum said "I like boys now", so why don't you go tag his page too? Seriously though, if you are going to tag this page over a couple of jokes, then you'll have to tag practically every single character, because there have been jokes like that made about the vast majority of them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree and, again, please refrain from demeaning my contributions as silly. Material from the same original source is canon; with the Simpson's the Halloween episodes are an exception. Implying that I have thrown a tag on an article seems to violate WP:AGF so please chill on that as well. And per your example I've never seen nor heard of Ralph Wiggum being referenced as a LGBT character whereas I have for Smithers, The Flanders' boys and Patty as well as minor characters like John Waters' John. Benjiboi 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Under your logic of a character being considered part of a project because of a couple of jokes, the Homer Simpson page could be part of the LGBT, Canadian, Connecticut, Atheism, catholicism, christianity, buddhism, and film wikiprojects. As for Ralph Wiggum, watch The Simpsons Movie and you will hear him say "I like boys now". I'll give in on Smithers because his alleged sexuality is a large part of the character, but in this case we are talking about a couple of one-off jokes. I also dislike that I am suddenly not allowed to clean up the article. Future episodes are NOT considered canon, that's why there's no mention of Lisa's Wedding on Homer's or Lisa's page. As for Maudes death date, death "dates" are not noted in any other Simpsons article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²²

I think the Homer Simpson article could potentially be considered part of many projects but that's really for those projects to sort out. If an article is wikiproject tagged, for example Canada, I would expect to see some reasonable correlation within the article itself to understand why that is. I personally would hesitate to remove it though, even if I didn't. I think (if it really stuck out as wrong) I might message the talk page of that project and ask what's up. It may have been placed in error or the relevant content removed ... or the project itself simply gone dormant. In any case this entire encyclopedia is a collaborative effort so, to me, it seems like encouraging people to help improve an article trumps nuances of tags on the talk page and I'd much rather err on the side of leaving a tag on a talk page than pushing away well-intentioned editors. This also seems a good moment to share with you that, in general, mainstream LGBT magazines as well as the many large metropolitan LGBT newspapers usually don't pop in google searches so the references of gay icons are out there but often need to unearthered by more advanced searches much like the google search techniques you shared on the Smithers page. You are certainly welcome to clean-up and edit any article just as I am. I think in this case we disagree on what is considered Simpson's canon and I think you're mistaken in this regard as only the Halloween episodes are considered non-canon. Realistically a middle ground should sort out the articles content to our mutual satisfaction - specifically these are children with little expectation of active sexuality or sexual behavior so we should be able to address our concerns. I suggest we back-burner this and instead focus on Smithers as that's where the time-sensitive editing needs to occur. I've amended off Maude's death date but re-added deceased, the main issue was to address that Maude is deceased not both her and Ned. Benjiboi 02:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And the two lines are such MINOR parts of their character, so why should 1/4 of the section be devoted to it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. Hard for me to assume good faith when you've simply removed the content but I'll point out that there are ways of dealing with the material that can represent multiple viewpoints. When I have some time I'll start documenting and referencing material whether or not you feel it's inclusion is appropriate I think we should treat the topic appropriately, simply removing gay references don't make them disappear. Benjiboi 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving deleted gay material

It has been suggested the two are gay or suffering from gender confusion. Rod stated in 'Tis the Fifteenth Season he was jealous of girls because they get to wear dresses. In Bart to the Future, an episode depicting the future, Ned thanks Bart for not outing Rod and Todd who are shown bare-chested washing a cabinet in a slightly feminine way whilst wearing tight denim cut-off shorts and sporting mustaches, known as the Castro clone style fashionable in gay culture in the 1980s and popularized by Freddie Mercury. Rod and Todd are both extremely sheltered from girls as their father consider girls to be a temptation along with rock and roll music. In another future-set episode, "Future-Drama" Bart's girlfriend mentions she wants to make love to him on prom night, and becomes disappointed when he denies her. She says, "I never had this problem with Todd Flanders!", implying a strong, though latent, sexuality in the boy. Also, in Home Away From Homer, Ned moves away and then moves back to Springfield. When announcing this to the boys, Rod says he has a girlfriend. Benjiboi 22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the latest version also removed. Benjiboi 03:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Although some do not consider future-set episodes canonical the boys were clearly depicted as gay men in Bart to the Future when Ned thanks Bart for not outing Rod and Todd who are shown washing a cabinet in a slightly feminine way whilst wearing tight denim shorts and sporting mustaches known in the LGBT community as the "Castro clone" style.