Talk:The Simpsons and Philosophy/Archive 1

Reviews
In the journal Christian Century, Nov 21, 2001, a review of this book which reads: ''One of the wittiest and most successful shows on TV has attracted some clever commentators. Mark Pinsky, a religion reporter for a daily newspaper, documents the many religious elements in the show, and also notes that religion and religious adherents are fondly observed as well as relentlessly mocked on The Simpsons. Like many fans, he is struck by the way the show, for all its cynicism about mainstream values, often ends up affirming community and family, even a family as wildly dysfunctional as Homer and Marge's. But Carl Matheson, in one of the probing essays collected by philosopher William Irwin and colleagues, thinks the heartwarming aspects of the show merely disguise moral emptiness and a withering "hyper-irony." The comedy is based "less on a shared sense of humanity than on a sense of world-weary cleverer-than-thouness." With its avalanche of one-liners and its knowing stream of allusions to popular culture, the show exists only to advance the cult of one-upmanship--to mock everything and everyone for the sake of the next laugh. All of these writers are right about one thing: the wit and the en durance of The Simpsons are worth pondering.''

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor formatting
I did some minor formatting only, didn't really add any new content or new sources, and also formatted the one existing source in the article with WP:CIT. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

Notability
This article currently fails Notability (books). The only criteria that this books come close to fitting is #4, which states that the book is the subject of instruction in multiple schools and universities. The note for #4 also states that This criteria does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science. This book hardly qualifies as the subject of these classes, and instead merely one of multiple learning tools to study the actual subject, The Simpsons.

The bulk of this article seems to be more about the concert of studying The Simpsons then it is about what the book actually says. If you want to discuss Philosophy with The Simpsons, use the book as a resource for an article on that subject. Don't use the book as an article on the subject. The359 (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm still going to work on it. After I'm done, we can take this to Articles for Deletion if you still think it doesn't fit notability.   xihix  (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be better off merged into an article discussing Philosophy in the Simpsons, using this book as a source. The359 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We could do that too. But this deserves it's own article.  I'm and willing to fight for it.  Obviously, consensus won't be reached here, might as well take it to the AFD.   xihix  (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not merge - This article is notable and should not be merged or deleted. The "notability" tag may remain until  has incorporated the remaining above sources, however.  The article fits criterion (1) and (4).  Cirt (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
 * I suggest you re-read #1 and #4, including the extra notes at the bottom. Simple reviews of the book do not count for #1, and the book being used in classrooms does not count for #4. The359 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your opinion. Please allow some for the article to be expanded upon.  If you still believe that it is not "notable" after that, then I suggest you take it to AFD.  Cirt (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

Rating
Upgraded from stub class to "Start" class. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC).

Archive
Setup an archive, discussion threads with no new posts or activity for over one month will be archived. Cirt (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC).

more than two hundred and three thousand copies
"... more than two hundred and three thousand copies..." - while technically this might be true, it's redundant? Do you suppose it is supposed to be "two thousand three hundred copies"? Or "between two hundred and three thousand copies" or even "two hundred and three thousand copies"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.125.127 (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Was changed to numeric by another anon-ip. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC).