# Wikipedia annoyed me today

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-annoyed-me-today/630356>\
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\
**Created:** [August 4, 2012, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-annoyed-me-today/630356 "2012-08-04T00:11:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-annoyed-me-today/630356/1 "2012-08-04T00:11:49Z")

</div>

Remember, this is allowed to be mundane and pointless. Anyway, I was watching a Simpsons episode “The Man in the Blue Flannel Pants” and thought I’d see what Wikipedia had to say about the obvious parallel to Sloan Wilson’s once-famous book. There was nothing, however, except this on the Talk page:

> [@](#):
>
> The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit
> 
> I have removed this bit of information from the article, because it was unsourced:  
> \*  
> A further reference to Mad Men however lies in the name of the episode which is taken from The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, a 1955 novel by Sloan Wilson. This was mentioned in a season-two episode of Mad Men (“Six Months’ Leave”), comedian Jimmy Barrett (Patrick Fischler) refers to Don Draper (Jon Hamm) as “The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit”—a reference to Draper’s outward professional smoothness and tumultuous homelife.\*
> 
> If anyone can find a reliable source for it. We can put it back in the article. --Maitch (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? This has to be sourced? Could it be ‘fixed’ in the wikiverse by saying “a further likely reference”? And forget Mad Men, does an episode about Homer selling his soul (metaphorically) for business require some sort of “proof” to be linked to that book?

I warned you in advance: Mundane? check. Pointless? 99.94%.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\
**Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-annoyed-me-today/630356/2 "2012-08-04T01:34:24Z")

</div>

> [@Maserschmidt](#):
>
> Really? This has to be sourced? Could it be ‘fixed’ in the wikiverse by saying “a further likely reference”?

Short answer: no, you can’t convince a termite if he’s made up his mind. I have stuff deleted for which I posted multiple sources with verifiable online links. But it was deleted anyway for “not being sufficiently sourced”. I guess that translates as “nothing you can say will convince me to change my mind”.