Talk:Shmoo

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: Strips / United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Comic strips work group. This article is supported by United States comics work group. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

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)[reply]

An anon user, as their only edit, added the text "In Australia shmoo is a commonly used slang for the clitoris". I am moving this to talk pending confirmation that this is common slang from our Australian editors. -- Infrogmation 06:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Im from melbourne, and i've never heard that expression.

I remember to some degree the Hanna-Barbera cartoon from the 1980's and am trying to recall the names of the teenagers who accompanied the Shmoo on his adventures, I believe they were Mickey, who was somewhat nerdy,; Nita, a pretty latina,; and Billy Joe, who was a big blond guy probably from the south. However as it was a few decades ago this info might not be accurate. Does anyone else recall that cartoon?-Griffonclaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffonclaw (talk • contribs) 21:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have hazy memories of a show called The New Schmoo as well. sjorford →•← 21:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

The above post is obsolete. Just what the doctor ordered, thanks to Pepso2. --[User:Rackinfrackin] 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.157.5 (talk)

Is it possible that the Happy, Friendly, helpful Schmoo evolved into pasty, mealy, sighing Spoo, the depressing delicacy farmed across the Galaxy in Babylon 5?

Sure, why not.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• • You'd have to read the comic strips. Briefly, the old miser, who makes his living selling rotten food to the citizens of Dogpatch goes out of business, because they have shmoos. He gripes about his problems, all the way up to the big syndicate boss, in a major metropolitan city. The boss doesn't care, he's about to take his floozy out to dinner, who laments that she has to please her sugar daddy to get herself a steak dinner. Li'l Abner, appears out of nowhere and gives her a schmoo, even city folk aren't immune to the benefits of a schmoo. Deprived of his mistress, the boss send the mob to kill every last schmoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.5.127 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall a late 1960's story arc where the Shmoos were involved with one of General Bullmoose's concerna ("General Dy-De namics") which transformed the Shmoos into "Shimfants"- perfect infant-like creatures.Saxophobia 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the plural of shmoo, shmoon?

• No, it's "schmoos". Wahkeenah 01:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either one is correct. 134.39.153.20 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll agree with the above paragraph. Capp himself probably realized his comic plural "shmoon" was confusing to his readers, and rarely used it in Li'l Abner - retaining it only when referring to the "Valley of the Shmoon". Dogpatch residents (never ones to employ correct terms anyway!) invariably referred to the animals in plural as "shmoos" - as did even the urban, incidental characters in the strip. I went back and reread the original stories to make sure. (They're marvelous, by the way.) Capp, ever the satirist, had a finely tuned ear for unusual sounds. He employed playful puns in the shmoo stories - like "smoosical comedy" and "good shmoos tonight", etc. Perhaps Valley of the Shmoon is a deliberate pun on Jack London's novel, Valley of the Moon ? (Capp was exceptionally well-read.) Who knows? It's all academic at this point. Far more problematic (for me, at least) is the mispelled "schmoo" - a spelling which Capp never employed, and seems to be a combination of typos and lazy research. (User talk:Rackinfrackin) 10:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, other then the fact that they are kind of roundish and are animals of some sort, what do the schmoos have to do with guinea pigs? (see 'see also' section) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.74.65 (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. This is an unnecessary reference. At the very least, if guinea pigs have been compared to shmoos anywhere else besides here, it should be explicitly referenced.

Magnetic core memory devices were described using Shmoo Curves. 32.97.110.142 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Dave[reply]

My Mom had a cardboard cutout which you put on a page or something like that where you just see him peeking over the top with his big nose flopped over. She called this a Schmoo. I seem to recall a WWII reference to 'Kilroy was here'. Any more information?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I find no reference to this style in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) or WP:NOVSTY, so I'm removing the boldface. If anyone wants to restore it, please identify exactly where in a Wikipedia style guide there is support for this style. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 01:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made these edits again because they are consistent with the Wikipedia Style as far as I can tell. if anyone can show me that I am wrong, I'll stop making them. User:64.236.243.16's edit summary -- "Undid revision 294073265 meaningless, egotistical changes undone" -- is not helpful, and violates WP:No personal attacks. Ground Zero | t 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Obviously plagiarized", yet the above unsigned poster does not bother to indentify (and presumably does not know) the alleged original source? How absurd. Anonymous disputes betray the disputer's courage of his own convictions. In addition, unwarranted attacks - including unsubstantiated charges of plagiarism - are not helpful and violate Wikipedia's own standards. Please do not make scattershot allegations without the slightest evidence - or, if you do, at least have the courage to own up to it by identifying yourself.

"The analysis section of this article reflects a non-neutral POV", yet this point could have been raised without unnecessary tagging. Verbatim from the Wikipedia rule book: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Regarding the assertion of POV non-neutrality, links to attributed articles with analyses, questions and/or conclusions about the Shmoo story and/or its subtext - many of which are available on the web from a variety of sites and sources spanning almost six decades - are being provided forthwith. Rackinfrackin | t 16:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's rules regarding unnecessary, drive-by tagging. I will continue to revert your dubious, anonymous edits until you do. talk) 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.52.132 (talk) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [sic] would instantly refute Darwin." TomS TDotO (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First of all, it's Shmoo, not "Schmoo." Wikipedia works best when those with an actual knowledge of the subject edit the pages. Please refrain from editing here again until you have, at the very least, mastered the tricky, one-syllable spelling of the title page.

Next, let's assume for the sake of argument that not all life forms on earth subsist on nothing, and devote their entire existence to the service and pleasure of humankind. The story revolves around an absurdly beneficial animal that couldn't possibly exist, one which performs impossible functions such as producing pre-bottled milk and pre-packaged fresh eggs. The animal will happily commit suicide in order to provide a hungry human with nourishment. It seems to me no further explanation of the author's satirical intent is necessary, especially since that author was perhaps one of the widest-read satirists of the 20th century. I've read this story to a nine-year-old child, who immediately "got" it, satirical intent and all. How much clearer does it need to be?168.161.192.16 (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be clear to the extent of actually saying what it is. Like, for example, "His intent was to satirise..." followed by whatever it is that it's supposed to satirise. Which I still don't get - okay, the animal is absurdly beneficial. So what? What's satirical about that? I get that it's obvious, to you. Maybe it is to many people. But isn't a description that clarifies it better than one that doesn't? I don't know what these things are supposed to be a satire of, so please, PLEASE can we put it on the page? BobThePirate (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, reverted again, once more with no reference to the talk page and now with threats. And given how wikipedia works... well, fair enough. It can remain a mystery for the ages. I'm done with the whole thing. BobThePirate (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I'm also at a loss to understand the angst over this one sentence, which seems perfectly fine to me. I honestly don't think it's mysterious or cosmic for anyone else, but let me try to understand what you're asking:

Are you disputing that the story is satirical? If so, that could hardly be better documented; it's not even something that needs a citation. It'd be like citing that the Shmoo is fictional.

Do you need the story better explained? I'll take a crack at it, it's not terribly dense. The Shmoo is a fabulous gift to mankind, which responds to its purity and goodness with corruption. People argued (and still do) about the precise political message, but that's about all there is to it. If you're able to understand a film like "The Day The Earth Stood Still" (1951, I think), you should be able to get this easily.

If you're wanting all that incorporated into that one particular sentence, that would be a bit awkward, and I think the page already does a fine job of analyzing the story to the extent that's needed. As a compromise, though, we could go with "His satirical intent should be evident (except to BobThePirate)..." (insert Smiley face).Joe Suggs (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant simply and exactly what I said; the sentence claims that the satirical intent is "obvious". This, to me, seems to be unencyclopedic language. I know nothing of the Shmoo, had never heard of it till I stumbled on the article, and when I hit that I thought "Um... what's it satirising then?" I have no idea, and the article simply doesn't say. Do I claim that it's not satirical? No, not in the least. I don't have an opinion on the matter - I just want the article to tell people who don't know already what it is supposed to be a satire OF. You say it would be like citing that the Shmoo is fictional? Well the article DOES say that the Shmoo is fictional, right there at the beginning. Almost every article about a fictional thing says so in the very first sentence.

Now I've done everything that wikipedia says one should; I didn't edit the article, I posted here asking for somebody knowledgeable to expand on it a little. All I had in mind was that somebody would say "The author's intent was to satirise capitalism" (or whatever the hell it is supposed to satirise). Nobody troubled themselves to respond; not to modify the sentence, not to put something in the talk page discussing the idea. A simple absence of interest. So after waiting a while, I removed the sentence. It seemed to me that it would be better not to have such a thing at all than to have it the way it is.

I was then reverted without explanation. I again waited a decent interval, hoping somebody would come here, read the talk page, and address the issue. No such luck, so I remove it again. And am reverted again, with insults, accusations of disruption, and ominous talk of invoking moderators.

I've done nothing that wikipedia doesn't recommend that editors do. I've been polite, reasonable, used the talk pages, refrained from "edit wars", acted in good faith and taken others as acting in good faith.

In return I've been belittled over a typo, attacked over my contribution history, insulted, and practically threatened. But I'm the bad one here, for the heinous crime of asking that an unclear sentence be clarified. What a lovely way to run things around here. BobThePirate (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I said that it would be like citing that the Shmoo is fictional, not stating it. No citation is needed to verify things that are extremely obvious and objectively true. In this case, the author himself, Al Capp, discussed the Shmoo story as satire several times when asked about it, so objectively, it's satire, and that satire was his intent is obvious in that it was universally received as satire from 1948 onward. (Again, this is too obvious to require citation, especially since response to the story and interpretation of it are well-covered elsewhere in the article).

Furthermore, satire was Capp's widely recognized form- he was often compared to Johnathan Swift, whose satiric intent- forgive me- was also obvious. That's not to say that his exact satiric message was obvious, nor was Capp's. But the satiric intent was obvious.

Maybe that helps, but I've become doubtful that this can be explained to your satisfaction as the issue seems to have become personal to you. I would just suggest in a friendly spirit that you step away from it and wait to see if anyone else down the road thinks the sentence needs improving. If there's actually a problem, or the sentence could be improved, someone else will inevitably think so and address it more effectively. I'm sincerely sorry if you feel persecuted, threatened, or insulted by responses here; speaking only for myself, that was not my intention. I just think it's a good, clear piece of writing that should not be reverted, and others do, too. Joe Suggs (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, BobThePirate, you haven't "refrained from edit wars." Nor have you been "practically threatened," whatever that means. The Talk page is not the proper place for peevishness. If you can't make your edits dispassionately, and in subjects of which you are knowledgeable (as opposed to ones you admittedly "know nothing of"), then I respectfully suggest you pursue a less stressful pastime. Please DO try to play well with others --- and lighten up a little. Cheers! Rackinfrackin (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm not a Wikipedia editor, but I wanted to mention that I clicked over to the talk page specifically because I was also confused by that "His satirical intent should be obvious" comment. Listing the shmoo's beneficial characteristics without summarizing the plot of the story in which they come to have a negative effect (that doesn't show up until a later section of this article) does nothing to show that Capp is being satirical as opposed to, say, wishful. Furthermore, that exact phrasing ("His satirical intent should be obvious") implies that the goal of his satire is obvious, not just that he is being satirical in general. The fact that people have debated the meaning of this satirical story since it was published directly contradicts that idea. "Satiric intent" does not mean the same as "intent to be satirical". That much is obvious to me, and I am self-righteously befuddled that it isn't to you, Rackinfrackin.

Further furthermore, the reason I am not a Wikipedia editor is because of attitudes like what I see here. (Also, since I know you're thinking it: No, I am not a sock puppet for BobthePirate two years after the fact.) I respectfully suggest you do less to make this pursuit stressful for other people, Rackinfrackin. And maybe look up the word "obvious" sometime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.251.20 (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

No, of course not. But section blanking, as happened on 27 March, is a different matter. It may have just been a coincidence that it was the same section. Rackinfrackin (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the reference of fact that Shmoo is a Jewish or Yiddish word for penis removed from the article? I am trying to figure out what the difference between the Yiddish word Schmuck and the word Shmoo is? Is one uncircumcised while the other circumsized? Inquiring minds want to know?

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]