Talk:Tommy Westphall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 What Were They Thinking? 2 I'm not sure that this article should exist 3 Moved section of original research 4 Deletion Candidate? 5 Nominated for Deletion 6 Suggestions for Improvement 7 Improve this article

[edit] What Were They Thinking?

The actual concept is an interesting piece of cultural commentary. But the content of this article seems to be ripped-off entirely from a chapter in the book "What Were They Thinking?" which is all about television's greatest mistakes. I can't remember the author, but I remember reading a chapter devoted to this very incident.

This is one of the most hillariously idiotic concepts I have ever encountered in my life! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.111.11.69 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

• The idea is discussed in What Were They Thinking?, but there's no plagiarism involved, and the idea of the hypothesis predates the book by several years. --Metropolitan90 23:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not sure that this article should exist

It seems to me that the basic premise of the "Tommy Westphall Universe" is far too shaky to even be writing about. There is no evidence supplied that demonstrates that any writers or producers beyond those from _St. Elsewhere_ intended for their entire show to exist in Tommy Westphall's mind. The article just says things like, "Certain TV producers even enjoy viewers spotting in-jokes that link their series within a fictional sphere" and, "The two series arguably exist within the same fictional universe." Nobody from _Law and Order_ or _The X-Files_ is quoted saying that their shows take place in Westphall's mind.

The claim that "[I]f St. Elsewhere is a figment of [Tommy Westphall's] imagination, then by extension every series that exists within that fictional sphere is also a part of his mind" is quite problematic. "Six Objections to the Westphall Hypothesis" mentions that Michael Bloomberg plays the mayor of New York both on _Law and Order_ and in the real world. Following this line of argument, our lives are merely figments of Tommy Westphall's imagination.

Indeed, the counterarguments are convincing in ways that the positive argument doesn't even come close to being. This article needs to be reworked in a way that indicates that this is just a theory that is supported only by some simple assumptions and not by a weight of evidence or particularly sound logical proof. As it stands now, it is far too matter-of-fact when it has no particular claim on being.

I agree as well. The biggest problem with some of their assumptions are that they are VERY flimsy. They make connections with shows either because they don't know much about the subject, or because they are "playing" ignorant so they can add as many 'connections' as possible. They take references (which in themselves are references to other work) such as "Yoyodyne" (apparently from a Thomas Pynchon novel, not to mention the cult film Buckaroo Banzai) which was referenced in The John Larroquette Show which they claim is the "same" Yoyodyne as in Angel AND Star Trek. Not to mention made up companies (for leagal reasons only for the most part) like Oceanic Airlines. This would mean that ANY connection to real life books/movies/tv shows/companies/events would all be in Tommy's mind. Some serious work needs to be done, keeping in NPOV of course (as much as it's possible with such an 'out there' topic such as this). Radagast83 06:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Proponents of this "hypothesis" are overlooking the fact that the endings of both "St. Elsewhere" and "Newhart" were themselves joking references to "Dallas", where an entire season was revealed to be one character's dream, in order to bring back a character previously killed. Skyraider 23:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I doesn't matter what the intent of the writers was. If their shows and movies can be placed within the same ficitional multiverse as St. Elsewhere then that makes that they are all just a dream of Tommy Westphall.

There are plenty of other interpretations, as the article now indicates (it did not back in March). The article is in a lot better shape now. My initial concerns had been that WIkipedia, by way of this article, was serving to publicize a concept that just did not deserve to be publicized, and that most people who knew about the Hypothesis knew about it from reading this article. I still believe all that to a degree, but I think the article is a lot more balanced now. Based on Weatherson's objections, though, it seems clear to me that the Hypothesis is nonsense, but enough people believe or talk about it outside of Wikipedia that I can understand the reasons for keeping the article. Croctotheface 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved section of original research

This section, while interesting, strikes me as a violation of the no original research policy unless there is a source somewhere else. I've reverted to the previous paragraph.

Another good example of a crossover being insufficient to prove a concrete link between series is the case of the programs Family Matters, Step By Step, and Full House. Steve Urkel, character from the former, guest stars on the latter two programs. This of itself does not create a contradiction; a later crossover does. John Stamos (not the character of Uncle Jesse) also guest stars on Step By Step. During his brief cameo, he mentions his role on Full House. A strange paradox is evident; Urkel's presence seems to indicate that all the three shows are in the same continuity, but Stamos's appearance as himself makes that impossible. Clearly, Step By Step and Full House cannot coexist in the same universe (since the latter is a television show in the also-fictional world of the former). This means that at least one (or possibly both) of the Steve Urkels that we see visit the programs is not from the "real" Family Matters universe, but rather an "alternate Urkel" very similar to yet distinct from his canon counterpart.

How about if I delete the final two sentences, where I draw the conclusion about "alternate Urkels"? I would call my conclusion the only thing that's actually "original research"; the rest is merely facts, or very basic logic to say "something's not right here". Where I could be said to have stepped over the line is afterwards trying to provide a hypothesis to explain the situation.

The very fact that the Westphall Universe is a dream proves there is no continuity problem since all three shows take place in Westphall's dream.

I don't see how this addresses the issue. Unless you believe that "it was all a dream" explains any and every paradox by itself. Croctotheface 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Candidate?

Wikipedia has four criteria for article deletion:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Copyrights

Aside from the fundamentally flawed logic of the premise, it appears to me that portions dealing with the "Tommy Westphall Universe" hypothesis violate at least two of four policies. As for the factual elements included at the beginning, is article devoted to such a minor character worth including in Wikipedia?

I'll content myself with watching the article for now.

As much work as I've put in trying to round out the article, I support deletion. This whole concept was legitimized BECAUSE it received a Wikipedia article, despite the lack of evidence and logic to support it. It never should've been here in the first place. croctotheface 10 May 2006

It was my impression that this scene and the controversy surrounding it were pretty famous even before I read Wikipedia. I'd like to point out that Newsradio had a reference to this scene, complete with snow globe. Jztinfinity 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

About five sentences of the article are about the scene you mention. The rest of the article is about the "Westphall Universe," which is a logical fallacy. Croctotheface 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for Deletion

I've nominated this article for deletion. Please make sure to discuss deletion by returning to the article page and clicking the link to the deletion page. Sangrito 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it survived deletion, which makes me happy, but it did not survive by much of a margin. Now we need to clean up and improve the article. Otherwise, I predict another afd in the not-too-distant future. --Charles 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for Improvement

While this article didn't so much "survive" an AfD so much as fail to generate enough discussion to push the vote one way or another, I'll offer that any article that can generate any reasonable number of adherents should stay. Such are the wages of democracy, protection of the minority, yadda yadda. A couple of points:

1) This article is less about Tommy Westphall than a) a 1980s television fad involving "dream episodes" and trick endings; and b) a pop culture meme. It might be a good idea to retitle the article to reflect the direction of the vast bulk of its material.

2) Stylistically, the article needs serious polishing. The informal tone is reminiscent of the scene in Animal House where two characters get stoned and start contemplating the nature of the Universe.

[edit] Improve this article

It needs to reach Featured Article status so it can go on the front page. People's ears will bleed when they try to comprehend this.Sockatume 13:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)