Talk:Teletubbies: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:44, 16 July 2006

Trivia section

Trivia sections on Wikipedia are considered very bad form. All imformation within this section should be dispersed to apropriate places within the article. --The_stuart 18:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "bad form" policy documented? I can't find it in Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines or Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles. The guide to writing better articles does encourage including "the trivial detail." I'm inclined to put the first two bullet points under the trivia section back in the article, since really, the Teletubbies single was notable (it was a phenomenon in Britain, popular both in mainstream youth culture and the rave/dance scene), and I can't imagine we need or want a subcategory called "Media appearances" or "Teletubbies' musical career" just for that one trivial fact. The last bullet point does need to be integrated into the article, I agree, though it also needs to be rewritten, since the "Teletubbies Everywhere" segments are being used as separate mini-TV shows in a lot of markets, not just as components of the main show. --Chris Thompson 19:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris. The Trivia section is not bad form and should be reinstated. --JimmyTheWig 15:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen of Teletubbies Everywhere, it's a seperate show in the UK - and it would be, seeing as it was made after production of the regular show ended (first shown in 2002, not 2003 as the note says). So whoever wrote it may have got their wires crossed. Billy H 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Teletubbies released a single 'Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh!', which reached #1 when it was released in December 1997. They released 'The Album' in April 1998, but it only managed to reach #31.

Due to the actual size of the teletubbies costumes being well over 6ft the many rabbits seen in the show are actually of a special breed (possibly German Giants) in order to create the impression that the Teletubbies are of a normal size.[1]

In January 2003 after the intro, there's a new segment called "Teletubbies Everywhere" where the background colors changes and the Teletubbies walked with no floor, popped the Teletubbies' characters, and many extras.^{[citation needed]}

One point, the announcer/narrator explicitly refers to each of the teletubbies by gender using either a 'he'/'him'/'his' or 'she'/'her'. Part of this 'controversy' may be explained by Tinky Winky being referred to as a 'he'/'him'/'his' while

carrying a bag which some have said is a female's purse
wearing a tu-tu (a female dancer's skirt) and dancing

Some overprotective parents have way tooooo much time on their hands.

I'm still waiting on the teletubbies conspirary that their vocalization is intentionally done to destroy the English language.

I don't know if that's true, but I have heard that the British made it intentionally this way to make American kids stupid.

It's kind of a sub-text in the note about the subject of some controversy amongst educationalists. I can spell it larger for you if you think it's appropriate... sjc

Curiously, Tinky-Winky was originally played by the comedian Dave Thompson, who was sacked for drinking on set and generally laddish behaviour....

"Laddish"?

An English phrase which covers a multitude of sins... e.g. getting drunk and throwing up, mooning (don't ask), all the sort of things which young English males tend to get up to, in fact...

Re: Tinky-Winky and gayness: it was pointed out that no self-respecting gay person would wear a red bag with a purple outfit....

I recall hearing the spokesman mentioned here say something to the effect of "It's not a purse, it's a magic bag"; that the spokesman and the statement sounded decidedly, extremely gay (notwithstanding the sexual orientation of the character in question).

LOL. It continuously astonishes me that the USA wants to be the role model for the world but has nothing more important to do than out cartoonish characters. :-)

Possessives: children's television is correct. children's' television is wrong. If you feel you want to change it again, maybe you could please discuss it here first or check with a manual of punctuation? Thanks. Nevilley 15:18 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. You are indeed correct without a doubt. For those still in doubt, I will illustrate with some examples:

boy (singular): the boy's bicycle
boys (plural): the boys' bicycle(s)

i.e. when a noun is plural, the apostrophe is appended to the end of the word. Similarly, children refers to more than one child, so the apostrophe is appended to the end. Voila! -- sugarfish 07:15 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I noted that the US version of the show uses American featurettes instead of the decidely English originals. This makes the show less interesting, particularly as the films featuring the teacher (whom I dubbed "the crazy lady") and her kindergarten class, are no longer present. Great shame really. -- sugarfish 07:19 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This of course is because each country uses video inserts that local kids can identify with. Lee M 18:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

About Tinky Winki, I don't think he is the only one gay. They all probably are!

---

FORMATTING PROBLEM

FORMATTING PROBLEM: The article originally didn't have spaces between some of the paragraphs in the edit preview, which caused the text in the article to come out as one solid block. I've added single spaces between the paragraphs now, but in the article these sometimes come out as double spaces and I don't know why. If someone could fix it I'd be indebted to them, though not in any financial sense.

Erroneous info?

First off, I think this is a stupid show. So does my wife and every other parent I know. Even my 2 year-old hates it. Nonetheless, I think every article in the 'pedia should be as correct as possible. Hence, I removed this information:

Though Teletubbies are, in costume, 10'4", 7'6", 7",and 6'4" feet tall, the fact is disguised by the use of a very large breed of rabbit used as living things for comparison.

First off, one of the teletubbies is 10 feet tall and another is only 7 inches tall? I can buy they are much larger than they seem in the show, but I can't buy that they are that different in size. Perhaps it was just a typo? Secondly, this needs to be backed up somehow. The teletubbies appear to just be normal-sized actors in costumes. If they are as large as this statement says, it'd be almost impossible for them to move is such natural manners as they do. As it stands, it looks like nonesense, added by someone as an attempt as humor.

Secondly, as I mentioned above, most (no, all) adults I know think this show is idiotic, lacking in any type of educational value whatsoever. That being said, I don't think the statement:

"which has crossed the age divide and become a firm favourite, particularly amongst students"

can be accepted as even close to the truth. I also have an 8-year-old and a 12-year-old, both students, who also think the show is drivel. Therefore, I changed the wording on it to make it as NPOV as possible. —Frecklefoot 18:35, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

The statistic about heights in costume is perfectly plausible, assuming 7" was a typo for 7'. Imagine that the tops of the actors' heads are about where the Teletubbies' noses are. The costumes give actors babyish proportions, but that's misleading. I definitely recall hearing something documentary about the teletubbies on NPR that was perfectly in keeping with the information here. In my mind this information is actually pretty interesting and the article is poorer without it.

Also, the fact that you or your children think the program is inane, does not preclude its being "a favorite". Being "a favorite" does not mean it is everybody's favorite. It doesn't even mean it is most people's favorite. It means only that it is many people's favorite, which this show definitely is. Also, please don't confuse "students" with "schoolchildren". I can definitely imagine that the show has a following among college age students, for it's camp value. I see nothing POV or damaging about the statement. All it says to me, is that the show is liked very much by a certain group of people, and I find that perfectly credible.

If I can figure out how to revert back, I will. --Woggly 19:05, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Woggly, thanks for clearing up the typo regarding heights. If it is credible and correct, it should be in the article. I made a number of edits, most of them just copyedit to make the article read better and NPOV.

You can add the "favorite" statement back in if you like with no contest from me, but the way it was before, it made it sound like whole families sit around the TV watching the show, which doesn't happen. This would be as absurd as the whole family getting together to watch a rousing episode of Sesame Street (a show which we don't dislike). I'll take a peek at SS if my child is watching it, but the whole family doesn't get together to watch a toddler's show. Also, I don't think college age students would watch it for more than a few seconds for camp value—it's not that campy.

I see you found a way to re-enter the height information. Good. If you really want to revert the rest of my copyedit changes, you can do it like this (this works for reverting any article):

Click on "Page history"
Find the entry you want to revert to and click on the date
When that version appears, click the "Edit this page" link
A warning will appear that you are editing an out-of-date entry
Type in a summary and click the "Save page" button

Cheers! —Frecklefoot 19:27, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me how to revert. However, I took a look at some of your copyedits, and I think you did a good job. And on second thought, the "favorite" statement, unlike the heights, though it does not offend me, does not strike me as being particularly necessary either. Reverting for the sake of it is just plain spiteful, that's not my intention. I'm happy with the page in its current form, particularly if you are too. --Woggly 19:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The Rabbits

Does anyone have information on the origin/purpose of the rabbits in the teletubbies universe?

When I watched the show, I found the presence of the rabbits profoundly unsettling, perhaps because the rest of the show has such an unreal atmosphere to it.

I did read somewhere that the rabbits copulating on the set ruined many takes, and that makes me feel that there was some deep purpose to them that I cannot comprehend, or they would have simply been removed.

Hopefully someone can resolve this puzzling issue for me and my fellow readers!

David

    I found the presence of teletubbies profoundly unsettling!

I believe that the purpose of the rabbits are to give the 'Tubbies a fake sense of proportion. While I can't comment on TW being 10 foot tall, the characters are played by adults but supposed to be infants. The breed of rabbits are particularly large (are they, ironically, called dwarf rabbits?) which make the TeleTubbies look smaller than they really are. --JimmyTheWig 1 July 2005 12:18 (UTC)

Dipsy the least popular

[Dipsy] is the least liked Teletubby, according to a British nationwide poll, perhaps in part due to the latent racism existent within British society.

Does anyone know the source of this poll? I also remember seeing somewhere that Dipsy was the most popular amongst children viewers (he's my favourite, anyway). I'm also not sure it's entirely appropriate for Wikipedia to ponder on the extent of 'latent racism' in British society. Although there are undoubtedly certain groups of individuals who would channel their hatred at a character in a children's television show, I don't think here's the place to speculate on how this influences such polls. ettlz 19:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing gay icon status

I've added the category due to [2], [3], among others. Tinky Winky is a known gay icon apparantely, and although i've no interest in the LGBT community I added it to this article (along with Graham Norton). Hedley 22:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

they all suck

When will you people understand,shows like dora,barney, and the bohbahs all suck i mean face it the only reason youll watch is because of your kids.Guyi 12:31 jun 2005

What?!!???!!!!????? I love Boohbah!!!!!! How dares you's insulted them?? {pumbles Guyi} bleh. TTFN, wikigoers. Homfrog

"the only reason youll watch is because of your kids"

Well... yes. It is, after all, a kids' show. Er... point? Foolish Mortal 23:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean, I don't have kids. I'm just 9. {rubs his face on the computer screen} BLEGHH!!! CAN'T YOU COMPREHEND THAT???? --Homfrog 21:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hey Homfrog!! ^_^ KinseyLOL

Uh, I dont like Barney or Boohbahs[The Boohbahs creep me out. o_o] eighter, but is stating your opinion really something for a talk topic on Wikipedia? --RandomOrca2 14:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No wars are allowed, that's for sure. 24.188.203.181 05:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falwell

I took this mention out of the article. It's ok to put in, but only if you're gonna show both sides of the issue. Specifically, Falwell denied the comments, and there's no proof he ever condemned, or even cared about the show. Here's his version: http://www.falwell.com/?a=news&news=prstubb

I didn't put in both sides myself, since frankly, I don't see the benefit in putting one or two paragraphs on whether some preacher said, or didn't say something about purple kiddie character. But, if somebody wishes to put this in, go ahead. Just be fair. I'm not trying to censor anything, but just removing POV. --rob 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took the other mention out, under Tinky-Winky (which I missed before). As said before, I don't object to mentioning the whole issue, if and only if done in a completely balanced, and researched manner. If you're willing ot invest the time to get all sides on the issue, record a timeline of what was said, what was denied, and footnote everything; then go for it. --rob 20:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article on the link provided byrob. The only difference I can see between what was previously in the article and what is on that linked page is that the comments were made by "Senior Editor J.M. Smith" in a journal published by Dr. Falwell, rather than Dr. Falwell himself. Surely a small change to what was there would have made it factually correct and NPOV?

--JimmyTheWig 10:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's more than that. There's a debate about exactly what was said, and how the comments were to be interpretted. Part of the text I deleted said "In the United States conservative Christian pundit Jerry Falwell branded Tinky Winky an 'avowed homosexual'". Simply changing who the quote is ascribed to doesn't fix the issue. Did "J.M. Smith" say those *exact* two words? I don't know. The link I provided goes to Falwell's page, which has a link to the original article, but that (second) link is broken. If you can find the original text, and wish to quote from it, and ascribe it to the correct person, please do. My personal view, is the whole controversy on Tinky Winky was a classic case of *both* sides mis-reading what the other side said. Falwell's people thought gay groups saw Tinky Winky as an icon, when they didn't. Gay-rights groups thought Falwell was on a anti-Tinky crusade, when he wasn't. --rob 10:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the BBC did report his comments - [the report doesn't include the "avowed homosexual" quote, but does say:

The Reverend Jerry Falwell, a former spokesman for America's Moral Majority, has denounced the BBC TV children's show. He says it does not provide a good role model for children because Tinky Winky is gay.

... In an article called Parents Alert: Tinky Winky Comes Out of the Closet, he says: "He is purple - the gay-pride colour; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol.

... He said the "subtle depictions" of gay sexuality are intentional and later issued a statement that read: "As a Christian I feel that role modelling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children."

Even Falwell's site says

The article in the February edition of the National Liberty Journal, which encourages parents to screen the content of what their children watch on television, is not the first to mention the implicit sexual preference of one of the Teletubbies characters. [emphasis added]

...I find the flat denials of such a portrayal by Teletubbies producers to be disingenuous and insufficient in answering the questions that have been raised about the Tinky Winky character since the series premiered in England in 1997.

At the very least, the article ought to mention the controversy, including the earlier articles mentioned by Fawlell (The Washington Post (January 1, 1999), Time magazine (July 20, 1998) and People magazine (December 28, 1998)). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you got enough sources to justify putting something in now, so please do. --rob 11:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

The edits on 30th August 2005 were... 13:17 by 81.130.180.196 - removed loads of text. 16:44 by Boycottthecaf - minor links in Controversy section. 17:06 by 143.231.249.141 - added mention of Falwell.

I have reverted to the version from before these edits and applied Boycottthecaf's minor edits to this. Given the existing discussion about Falwell on this page I am not going reapply 143.231.249.141's edits. I do believe Falwell should be mentioned, but in a more carefully worded sentance. Though if it wasn't for the 81.130.180.196 vandalism I wouldn't be reverting at all.

--JimmyTheWig 10:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Laa-Laa

A couple of weeks ago, the spelling of Laa-Laa in the article changed to La-La. I've only just got around to bringing it up.

Before I change it to Laa-Laa (see [4] for an example of it being used) I thought I'd better check that La-La wasn't a regional spelling.

--JimmyTheWig 16:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like 64.222.147.45 agrees with me! --JimmyTheWig 09:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even tohugh I don't care, I think that the thing about Tinky-Winkie being homosexual was mentioned way too much (three times).

The name of the Noo-noo

I just changed the text from referring to "Noo-Noo" to referring to "the Noo-noo", to match the one mention I found on the BBC's Web site (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/teletubbies/goodies/sounds/sounds.shtml?noonoo). I'm not sure this is correct, but it fits with my memories of its name. --bjh21 12:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler

The comment about Hitler and aliens at the end of the article Since many believe Adolf Hitler had contacts with "other species" at the end of WW2, some compare the Teletubbies to photos found supposedly showing Hitler shaking hands with an alien is just plain wrong. I don't think "many people" believe that. Perhaps "some conspiracy theorists who also believe the Earth is visited by aliens" would be more accurate.

"Here Comes the Tubby Custard?"

The article currently contains this sentence: Some think the removal from the show was due to the 'Here comes the Tubby Custard' episode rumoured to have happened on-set but after hours although this too has (understandably) not been confirmed either. What does this refer to? Googling the phrase "Here Comes the Tubby Custard" yields no results other than this Wikipedia article. What is the rumor? Is this just some sly vandalism that was inserted and never removed?

The more I read that whole paragraph, including the earlier part about the "strip-o-gram", I'm more and more convinced that it's some kind of joke that was inserted into the article and never caught. Does anyone have any hard, verifiable information about the Tinky Winky actor change? --Chris Thompson 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spider fighter?

What's a spider fighter? Somebody who fights spiders? -User:KinseyLOL

Channels Teletubbies has been seen on

I live in the USA and I am a huge fan of Teletubbies. I want to get a list of all the channels that have broadcast the program outside of the USA and the UK.

@@ Line 214: / Line 214: @@
 ''Some think the removal from the show was due to the 'Here comes the Tubby Custard' episode rumoured to have happened on-set but after hours although this too has (understandably) not been confirmed either.''
 What does this refer to?  Googling the phrase "Here Comes the Tubby Custard" yields no results other than this Wikipedia article.  What is the rumor?  Is this just some sly vandalism that was inserted and never removed?
+: The more I read that whole paragraph, including the earlier part about the "strip-o-gram", I'm more and more convinced that it's some kind of joke that was inserted into the article and never caught.  Does anyone have any hard, verifiable information about the Tinky Winky actor change? --[[User:Chris Thompson|Chris Thompson]] 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 == spider fighter? ==