Talk:Caillou
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
A response section needs to be added to this article. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc. For more advice or clarification, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. |
 |
An episode list needs to be added to this article to improve its quality, using the {{Episode list}} template. Short lists can go in the main article, while longer lists should go in a separate List of showname episodes article, using other featured episode lists as an example. For more advice or clarification, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. |
|
A plot summary needs to be added to this television show article, or the current one needs to be expanded. |
 Archives |
| 1 |
Contents |
[edit] Request for vandalism protection
Can someone more knowledgeable request vandalism protection from anonymous user for the article? I have just reverted two instances of vandalism but looking at the history of the edits and discussions, major editors need to check for sneaky vandalism and suggest long term vandalism protection akin to the playstation 3 and Barney articles.--Kevin586 17:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Adding sections on controversy is not vandalism. It seems some fans of the show are censoring sections critical of the show - THAT is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.186.198 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, removing unsourced or poorly-sourced criticism, added contrary to discussions on the talk page, is not vandalism. And just to be clear, I am hardly a "fan" of the show; I am, however, a "fan" of WP:VER.Gladys J Cortez 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy section, AGAIN...
To the editor who re-added the controversy section re: Caillou's baldness, Sarah as the devil, and the Whininess Petition...
As you can see by reading the rest of this talk page, we have already dispensed with the baldness issue. Unless you can cite a verifiable source that says Caillou had cancer, it's not going to stay in this article. The "pebble" reference is already included in the article, within the first few lines.
Sarah as the Devil...again, if you can't cite a verifiable source for that info, it's not going to stay.
Online petitions are not considered encyclopedic sources to explain or define "controversy". I could start an online petition demanding that people recognize that the sky is not BLUE, it's AQUAMARINE--but that wouldn't make it so, nor would it be encyclopedic. Now, evidence of a paper-petition campaign submitted to PBS--THAT would serve as acceptable verification that a controversy exists.
Now that this has been explained, any further efforts to include this info, unless it's properly cited, will probably not be treated with the same assumption of good faith. (If that seems harsh, I apologize, but I do get weary of removing the same unsourced info when it's already been covered.) Thanks! Gladys J Cortez 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Crosspost from user page
re: additions to "Controversy" and Caillou's whininess:
To IP 24.61.21.244:
While it's very clear (and much appreciated) that you tried to find sources for your points on Caillou, unfortunately those sources are not verifiable. The tv.com reviews are written by site users, as is the Associated Content link (written, apparently, by a user named "Superdork") and thus, neither of the sources you site are verifiable. Regretfully, because you obviously tried, I've reverted the information you added. Sorry....if you can find verifiable, independently-published major sources saying the same thing, by all means feel free to re-add.Gladys J Cortez 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
User-submitted reviews/critiques/etc do not meet WP:VER. This is policy, not just me being mean. Gladys J Cortez 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- re: additions to "Controversy" and Caillou's whininess:
- Superdork, while having an annoying and unfortunate name, IS VERIFIABLY a person with a valid opinion - an opinion that is shared by a significant number of people. That opinion should at the very least, be mentioned here as a counterpoint. As it stands Wikipedia doesn't even allow ANYTHING but the notion that Caillou is universally accepted as a fine and healthy show for under five year-olds. That does not make for a balanced Wikipedia article. In fact it makes it appear as if the article is written and defended by staunch Caillou fans. That is not healthy for Wikipedia or for parents who ought to know that there are two sides to this story.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeryUSA (talk • contribs)
- Superdork is welcome to have an opinion, and that opinion is likely shared by many people, but unless that opinion is noted in a reliable source, it's not noteworthy enough to include in the article. --Onorem♠Dil 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we are operating under two differing definitions of the word "VERIFIABLE". Yes, the reviewers at the site you referenced are "verifiable" people with "verifiable" opinions. No one is questioning whether they, or their opinions, exist or even whether those opinions are valid--hell, if I had a kid I don't think I'd let the kid watch Caillou either! What WIKIPEDIA means by "verifiable", however, is "PUBLISHED IN A LEGITIMATE, RECOGNIZED FORUM, which has been editorially reviewed for content and which is not a collection of information to which just anyone can contribute." (Because "just anyone" can contribute, Wikipedia won't even accept it if you use ONE OF ITS OWN ARTICLES to source another.) "Verifiable", in Wikipedia terms, has nothing to do with how many people share the opinion--it has to do with WHERE THE OPINION HAS BEEN EXPRESSED and who has reported on it. If there was a piece on the PBS website about the controversy: verifiable. Newspaper article about it: verifiable. Blog: NOT verifiable; anyone can write a blog. Internet forum: NOT verifiable. And a viewer-reviewed TV website: NOT verifiable. So: No one here is a "staunch fan" of anything except Wikipedia policy.Gladys J Cortez 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Kind of ironic that a blog or user forum isn't acceptable by wikipedia policy, since it itself is almost completely user written. What about official blogs and newspaper blogs? - Chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.69.216 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, going by by this strict policy, the link to IMDB should be removed, since by that sites own admission, "the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you." Surely this means it is no more reliable a source than a blog or user forum. - Chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.69.216 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It is ironic, isn't it? But then again, it makes sense--after all, Wikipedia above ALL else knows how unreliable user-contributed content at its worst can be! As for official/newspaper blogs--if there is some form of editorial control by the company or newspaper as to what is posted--some sort of fact-checking--then they are often acceptable (though you'll usually run into a debate or two about it. As for the IMDB question--I didn't see that link. Now that I have, it's deleted; IMDB is not considered a reliable source, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. No one vets that info--anyone can make stuff up.Gladys J Cortez 04:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Appropriate link?
I've removed an external link a couple of times over the last day or two that has again been re-added. I'm having mixed thoughts about it now. The link is for the "official site" of the illustrator, Hélène Desputeaux. Any thoughts about the links inclusion? It isn't being used as a reference, just an EL. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Caillou's name
To the writer who added the comment about "caillou" meaning "bald head":
Are you sure that's the name's derivation? Is there an official source that says so? I have personally wondered whether "Caillou" might be a play on words. His real name might be Pierre, which also happens to be a French word for "stone". "Caillou", therefore, which means "pebble" – a little stone – might be meant as a way of saying "Little Pierre".
Just a thought. Kelisi (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citations for "whininess" controversy...
To the IP who re-added the "whiny" section...that's slightly better. The Amazon.com link is not EVER going to be acceptable as a WP:VER source; it's a random person's un-examined opinion, and doesn't have any editorial oversight. The suite101.com source, I'm on the fence about--if only for the reason that it seems to say the OPPOSITE of what you're asserting. The bulk of the article is about why the people who say that Caillou is a bad influence are WRONG--but it does mention that the controversy exists, which is more than we've been able to get from a VERIFIABLE source thus far. I don't know for sure what WP thinks of suite101.com in terms of suitability for use as a source--I'll run it past the guys at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see what they think--but I'll grant you, it's miles better than any other attempt I've seen thus far. Gladys J Cortez 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Whoops.
Suite101.com is emphatically NOT a WP:RS-- in fact, I'm not even sure how you got that reference to post, because it's on the linkspam blacklist. I'm removing the section (yeah, go ahead--start the flogging and chastisement now, for I am just a Caillou partisan seeking to quash informed debate...whatev) and posting this link here, which will explain why suite101.com articles aren't considered reliable sources for WP articles. [1] Again...this is WP policy, not some randomness I've dreamed up to oppress the masses. There's nothing I can do about it.Gladys J Cortez 23:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
