Talk:The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 December 2007.
Wikipedia


Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Sources

  1. Staff (March 12, 2001). "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer, Review". Publishers Weekly 248 (11): Page 72. Cahners Business Information, Inc.. 
  2. Green, John (April 15, 2001). "The Simpsons and philosophy: the D'Oh of Homer. Review". Booklist 97 (16): Page 1524. American Library Association. 
  3. Staff (Nov 21, 2001). "The Simpsons and philosophy: the D'Oh of Homer. (In short) Review". The Christian Century 118 (32): Pages 46-47. 
  4. Meola, M (Sept 2001). "The Simpsons and Philosophy: the D'oh! of Homer. Review". CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries 39 (1): Page 134. 
  5. Tayler, Christopher. "Sages of springfield", TLS. Times Literary Supplement, December 14, 2001, pp. i5150 p10(1). 
  6. McManis, Sam. "Homer's odyssey: Berkeley course uses 'The Simpsons' to discuss philosophy", San Francisco Chronicle, Hearst Newspapers, March 16, 2003. Retrieved on 2007-11-28. 
  7. Burkeman, Oliver. "Homer's last stand", The Guardian, Guardian News and Media Limited, May 1, 2002. Retrieved on 2007-11-28. 
  8. Bernstein, David. "Philosophy Hitches a Ride With 'The Sopranos'", The New York Times, The New York Times Company, April 13, 2004. Retrieved on 2007-11-28. 
  9. Williams, Zoe. "Homeric epic", New Statesman, April 21, 2003. Retrieved on 2007-11-28. 
  10. Blair, Jayson. "Word for Word/Deconstructing 'The Simpsons'; The Aristotelian Logic of Bart And Homer. Or Is It Platonic?", The New York Times, The New York Times Company, September 9, 2001. Retrieved on 2007-11-28. 
  11. West, Mason. "MUCH more than an obsession ('The Simpsons' is -d'oh! -)", The Emerald, 2007 Oregon Daily Emerald, February 26, 2002. Retrieved on 2007-11-28. 
  12. Bernstein, David. "I murder, therefore I am", The Age, The Age Company Ltd., April 21, 2004. Retrieved on 2007-11-28. 
  13. Laporte, Nicole. "Primetime philosophy turns new page: 'Simpsons,' 'Buffy,' 'Sex' lend themselves to literal take", Variety, Reed Business Information, January 25, 2004. Retrieved on 2007-11-28. 
  14. Logerfo, Laura. "Author mixes Simpsons, Brecht", The Michigan Daily, University of Michigan, Oct 26, 2001. Retrieved on 2007-11-28. 
  15. Burkeman, Oliver. "Weekend: EMBIGGENING THE SMALLEST MAN: There are few places on the planet where the influence of five bright yellow, boggle-eyed residents of Springfield has yet to be felt, and there will be fewer still with the long-awaited arrival of the first Simpsons movie", The Guardian, Guardian Newspapers Limited, June 30, 2007, pp. Page 22. 

    The Simpsons And Philosophy, a book of scholarly essays subtitled The D'Oh Of Homer, argues that the appeal of Homer is timeless because he speaks to fundamental conflicts about what gives us pleasure in life. We all occupy different points on the continuum of pleasures - from the noble joys of family (which Homer plainly appreciates) to the debased joy of gorging yourself on doughnuts or beer (likewise). "There is something that is ethically admirable about Homer [even though] he [is] not virtuous with respect to his bodily appetites," Raja Halwani, a Chicago academic writes.

  16. Justin, Neal. "Homer's odyssey; Can an 18-year-old sitcom still pack enough punch to be successful on the big screen? Doh!", Star Tribune, May 20, 2007, pp. Page 01F. 

    "-`The Simpsons' is plenty goofy and wacky and has some great side gags, but we consistently try to return to some real emotion," said executive producer Matt Groening, who invented the characters. Gerald Erion, a professor at Medaille College in Buffalo, N.Y., and a contributor to the book "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The Doh! of Homer," said the series contains deep ethical themes that hold up time and time again. He's particularly impressed with how the show doesn't hesitate to tackle religion, whether it's Homer's guilt over skipping church or Ned Flanders experiencing Job-like tragedies, despite doing everything the Bible tells him to - even the stuff that contradicts other stuff.

  17. Mattin, David. "The Times", Simpson mania; Required reading, July 7, 2004, pp. Page 3. 

    Read The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! Of Homer (Open Court Publishing Company), edited by William Irwin, to see how the oafish Homer has become a figure of unique cultural importance, his "D'oh!" now a universal shorthand for the existential angst we all encounter when life refuses to go our way. Other questions discussed include: is Bart a Nietzschean? Why can't Mr Burns achieve true happiness?

  18. Kloer, Phil. "Just Say D'OH!\ In Pop Culture, Playing Dumb Can Be A Smart Move", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 5, 2002, pp. Page E1. 

    In the ultimate vindication of smart-dumb status, the show has been the subject of two recent semi-egghead-y books: Mark I. Pinsky's "The Gospel According to the Simpsons" (which analyzes the show's use of religion) and William Irwin's "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh of Homer" (Bart meets Aristotle), as well as a philosophy course at Siena Heights University in Adrian, Mich.

  19. "Bart joins Homer on philosophy course", The News Letter, December 18, 2001, pp. Page 3. 

    Siena Heights University, in Michigan, is offering the course, called Animated Philosophy and Religion, and basing it on the series. Students who join the course at the Catholic-run college will study Homer's worldview and the use of religion on the show. Set texts will include "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer", by William Irwin, and "The Gospel According to The Simpsons: The Spiritual Life of the Most Animated Family". Lecturer Kimberley Blessing said: "When the Simpsons book came along, I thought it would offer another opportunity to draw people into philosophy.

  20. Staff. "'Simpsons' Philosophy Prof Turns 'Toon Raider", New York Post, December 17, 2001, pp. Page 09. 

    The class at Siena Heights University in Adrian, Mich., has already become one of the most popular on campus. Required reading includes "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer" by William Irwin, and "The Gospel According to the Simpsons" by Mark Pinsky. The two-credit course called "Animated Philosophy and Religion," is the brainchild of Professors Kimberly Blessing and Anthony Sciglitano. They believe the long-running Fox sitcom has a lot to say about life and how to live it. "I thought it would offer another opportunity to draw people into philosophy," Blessing said.

  21. Staff. "Books ponder the world according to Homer and Jerry", St. Petersburg Times, September 17, 2001, pp. Page 7D. 

    A cartoon oaf may seem an unlikely figure along the arc of philosophical thought, but there he is anyway, on the cover of a new book titled The Simpsons and Philosophy (Open Court, $17.95). The book is the second in what is now a series, a follow-up to another TV-themed study of ideas released last year, Seinfeld and Philosophy. ... "One of the challenges of teaching is to find ways of discussing the material that are meaningful to your students," says William Irwin, a professor of philosophy at King's College in Pennsylvania and editor of both the Seinfeld and Simpsons books. "Pop culture is the common language today and using it is a way of making connections."

  22. Ostling, Richard N.; Associated Press. "It's Okay To Love Thy Toon", The Cincinnati Post, August 31, 2001, pp. Page 1A. 

    An anthology, The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer (Open Court), reported religion was an element in 70 percent of randomly selected episodes and the major theme in 10 percent.

  • That's about all I got for now. If that's not enough to expand the article to sufficient WP:DYK size, I don't know what is. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Notability

This article currently fails Wikipedia: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 Xihix (talk · contribs) 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).

[edit] Rating

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

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

  • Y Done - Was changed to numeric by another anon-ip. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Did You Know?

The "Did you know?" entry for this page uses the information about the book being used to teach Philosophy classes in several universities. I looked at the links, and all they show is that there are two universities which are offering classes about Philosophy and the Simpsons. Nothing suggests that any university is using the book to teach a regular philosophy class, as is implied by the "did you know?" entry as well as the relevant area of the article. Unless someone can back this up, that information should be changed. Chachilongbow (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Check the cites, they support this information. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
    • When I said, "I looked at the links," what I guess I meant was I looked at the cites. And like I said, the sentence wording is still misleading. Chachilongbow (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
      • How so? Cirt (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC).