Talk:Shmoo

message: Contrary to the article as it stands, there was at least one other Li'l Abner story featuring Schmoon. I believe it was the one with a pair of them as the "Ultimate Weapon" possesed by General Rumbumbo. He used them to hold the USA ransom, Dr. Evil style. Abner was trained to destroy them, but never got the chance, as Rumbumbo deployed them via bomber aircraft. They never reach the mainland, however, as the Schmoon reproduced in the hold and overloaded the plane, bringing it down in the ocean. Abner notes that their last act was, once again, sacrificial in nature - very Schmoo-like.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.81.225 (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumbumbo

message: The entry as it stands desperately needs an image, preferably a cartoon drawing from the strip.  The previous scan (of two happy shmoos emitting hearts above their heads) was removed for unspecified reasons.  Can someone find and post a suitable image for this article, from among thousands of shmoo drawings?  --[User:Rackinfrackin] 10:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shmoo image

message: The lead paragraph now reads "They require no sustenance of any kind." If I recall correctly, they were described as living on air. -- Infrogmation 15:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sustenance

message: The article here gives the distinct impression that the destruction of the Schmoos was purely due to government propoganda, not any real danger the Schmoos posed to society.  However, the other commentaries I've seen on this all seem to say that Al Capp meant them to be dangerous, in a paradoxical way.  Most importantly, I've seen it claimed that Ol' Man Mose in the strip said they were dangerous.  Ol' Man Mose doesn't sound like a government propagandist; it sounds a whole lot like Al Capp trying to drive a point home.  Does anyone have any sources that would shed light on this?
My source for the previous is http://www.deniskitchen.com/thestore/bios_shmoo.html .  Better sources should be used, I think. -HappyMan250.1 User:68.50.195.159 03:42, 9 August 2006  (UTC) 
*The schmoos were Capp's catch-all satire on any social phenomenon that supposedly took away people's incentive to do for themselves. It's hard to tell for sure which side of the welfare state issue he was satirizing, as he himself evolved from liberal to conservative to pervert. Wahkeenah 15:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for Destruction

message: Isn't the plural of shmoo, shmoon?
*No, it's "schmoos". Wahkeenah 01:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is "grammatically appropriate" (for lack of a better term) to create an irregular plural for an originally coined word in English.  English standard pluralization is to add s to the end of the singular (or es when a simple s creates cacophony) and irregular plurals are only correct when inherent, and most if not all irregular pluralizations predate the modern English convention.  So far I have seen shmoos, shmoon, and shmoo (in the externally linked article from the main article about Shmoo's First Appearance) as plurals.  Using shmoon as a serious plural in the main article looks unprofessional and silly.  I think mention of the shmoon plural should be retained only in reference to the fact that Capp deliberately created an amusing plural, but shmoos should be used in the main article.
Mal7798 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural 

message: Magnetic core memory devices were described using Shmoo Curves.
32.97.110.142 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I don't have any episodes of this stuff on tape, but I seem to remember that the Shmoos were mentioned as a genetically engineered livestock that was named after the ones in the comics books. Anyone got some more info on that to confirm? Sweetfreek (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[FTL Newsfeed]] 

message: An anonymous editor wrote as an edit summary: first mention of ea. char. in boldface, as per Wiki stardard". Where is this standard? I have never herd of this before. Please explain. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Boldface

message: The analysis section of this article reflects a non-neutral POV because it reads like a literary analysis that has no in-line attributions. Whoever wrote it needs to clarify, or the section needs to be deleted. 76.105.127.213 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The analysis is obviously plagiarized or not attributed properly 

message: I think some of the trivia information is quite interesting and would like to see it incorporated into the main body of the article. I've added a trivia tag to point it out to someone who may have some time to do the massaging necessary.--99.21.122.177 (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I will accept the rewording, because apparently somebody doesn't understand that imaginary animals are not real counter-examples and therefore that has to be spelled out. However, it took me a bit of work to find the exact reference to Darwin, and I'd like to save that effort for other readers. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to discuss a difference of opinion here in the talk pages rather than engaging in an edit war. But I don't seem to be getting any response from this editor. So I'm asking whether anyone else has an opinion on this. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Darwin quote says that an example in which a living feature in one species is completely for the benefit of a different species would be a counter-example to natural selection. The fact that there is a counter-example means that natural selection is "falsifiable". Dennett brought up the shmoo as being such an example, but Dennett did not give an explicit reference to Darwin. I was hoping to help out an interested reader by giving an appropriate reference to Darwin. If you disagree, I can understand. Reasonable people can disagree. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does no one want to discuss this? It seems that the only way that I can get any idea of what you object to is if I make a change on the main page. That seems to put me in an impossible situation. I'm ready to talk about this, and, believe me, I can be a reasonable person who can change his mind and compromise or even concede defeat. But what am I to do if no one wants to talk about it? TomS TDotO (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why those who don't like my citation to Darwin don't want to discuss it. It seems that the only way that this can be "debated" is if I make changes to the main article. Therefore, I make an additional citation, this time to Pinker. For those who do not have access to his book, here is the pertinent text: "The discovery of a real-life schmoo  would instantly refute Darwin." TomS TDotO (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution

message: I have made a correction in the section about the first Shmoo story. The old man character who unsuccessfully tries to warn Li'l Abner away from the Valley of Shmoos is not Old Man Mose of the annual Sadie Hawkins Day predictions. Although the two characters have somewhat similar appearances, they are clearly different characters, based on the location of their beards, their faces, and the fact that the former but not the latter carries a staff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Old Man Mose 

message: A line reads "His satirical intent should be evident:"... followed by a list of the Schmoo's traits. Well maybe I am dense but it isn't at all obvious to me. Can somebody who knows say what the satirical intent is, exactly? BobThePirate (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the sentence. It is clearly humorous and absurd. It is not clear that it's satire. This does come up later in the article, but there's no need for in the bare description because, from the description, it's not clear at all what (if anything) is being satirised. Adpete (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not obvious 

message: You guys need to invite a moderating editor to review this ?--RichardMills65 (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  editor 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shmoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617090532/http://main.nc.us/books/books.cgi?theshortlife&happytimesoftheshmoo to http://main.nc.us/books/books.cgi?theshortlife&happytimesoftheshmoo
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Maybe the name "Shmoo" comes from Shmuel, which is Hebrew for Samuel? After all, when I grew up, I knew someone known by many as Shmoo, and his more formal name is Shmuel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therav (talk • contribs) 16:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shmoo" as pet name of Shmuel (Samuel)?