Talk:Caillou/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Vandalism?

I strongly suspect some folks have been over this and vandalized it.

about a 4-year-old bald-headed boy named Kuckoo who lives with his 2-year-old little sister, Stinky (Mouse the Rat in the original French version)"
Additionally, the film Caillou's Holiday Movie was released direct-to-DVD and video on 7 October 1914. On 3 April 2006"
Doo-Doo - Caillou's mom. She is an accountant. She wears a red blouse with lace. She is always wise and tries to help her son understand things when they seem too complicated for him to comprehend. She is a loving wife and a mentor for her kids.
Boo-Boo - Caillou's dad. He is very clumsy, and the things he repairs often go haywire on him. Like Caillou's mom, he is also a brunette. He wears a green sweatshirt. He is silly, but nevertheless a good father. Also a Renaissance man: he enjoys spending private time with his wife, Doris. They always recount funny memories about their first honeymoon from time to time.
Stinky (French name: Mouse the Rat) - Caillou's sister. A redhead with a tingle of mischief, she sometimes gets Caillou into trouble, but all in all is a good girl. Rosie is about a year-and-a-half to two years younger than Caillou, but she is growing too. In later seasons of the program, she becomes more talkative and independent.
Grandwee - Caillou's grandma. She is an artist and often comes up with creative ideas to solve Caillou's problems.
Grandpee - Caillou's grandpa. He often takes walks with Caillou and is often involved in outdoor activities with him too. He is Boris's father."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.163.99 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

* Ms. Martin - Caillou's teacher is she likes to tell the kids.

Is this a left-over from previous vandalism? 172.173.243.11 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cancelled?

Any new episodes? What happened? --Maoririder 19:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC) --Maoririder 14:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Plot --Maoririder 14:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, the show is in some sort of limbo. The voice of Caillou, Jaclyn Linetsky, perished in an accident in 2003 (Although apparently, they got a new voice actor to make the movie). And Cinar, the company behind animating Caillou, was bought over and turned into Cookie Jar Entertainment, and apparently some of their programs, one of them Caillou, is apparently frozen in production. --RAMChYLD 05:07, 26 August 2005 (+8 GMT)

Well, this comes too late, but new episodes started 3 April 2006. More are said to be coming in Fall, too. RAM 03:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cinar got into some very serious trouble. There was a big financial scandal, and it took a lot of time to settle. Hugo Dufort (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the Article?

I think this article should be split into Caillou (TV series) and Caillou (book series), as there are apparently details in the original French books that do not correspond to the English-language TV series. For example, the PBS page on Caillou (http://pbskids.org/caillou/grownups/faq.html) indicates reasons other than cancer/chemotherapy for Caillou's lack of hair. Grammaticus Repairo 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

New animation

Are the new episodes really in the traditional "pen and ink" animation? The animation and motion in the new episodes seem to have been done in macromedia flash.--Kenn Caesius 22:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

African AMERICAN?

# Clementine - Clementine was the first to befriend Caillou in the 1998 episode "Caillou Goes To Daycare". She is four years old like Caillou and can get rather bossy sometimes, but all in all she's pretty understanding. She is of African-American heritage. This is a Canadian show! Why is there the assumption she's American? -Rolypolyman 19:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Canada is a part of North America. -WarthogDemon 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Her family could have immigrated from the Carribean or Africa. Unless there is evidence that she is indeed "African-American", which I assume to mean her family has lived in North-America for many generations, the sentence should either be removed or clarified. 76.19.41.138 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Pierre

Why do so many people take issue with the term 'African-American'? If a person from Ireland moves to 'America' and becomes a citizen, that person is, by definition, an Irish-American. Africa is no different. The fact that when we think of 'African-Americans' we automatically associate the term with those black people who have been living in 'America' for many generations (generally as a result of slavery) does not mean that the people who are third- or second- or first-generation 'Americans' who have recently moved from the African continent are not 'African-American'. In fact, the more generations a family has lived in 'America', the more American and the less African (or Irish, Italian, Mexican, Chinese, etc) they become. This is certainly true with regards to culture and often with regards to race/ethnicity (ie 'genetically' speaking) as well.

Clementine is clearly intended to be an African-American (or African-Canadian) character. We don't need to clarify or remove the sentence pending the results of a family background check. -Grammaticus Repairo 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rolypolyman. The show is Canadian. The entry - if it is meant to be politically correct - could just say she is "of African origin" or something like that. Same thing for "Chinese American." The whole African-American question isn't whether or not the character is of a different ethnicity, which clearly she is, but whether it makes sense to say that the character is "African American" if they are Canadian. The term isn't meant to refer to the continent of North America - but to the United States of America. And if the show was set in Africa would we point out that Caillou is "Canadian-African" or that Clementine was "African-African?" (And Africa isn't a country anyway, nor is it an ethnicity.)Trevor Sinclair 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Show's Origin

It would be good to state at the beginning of the article where the caillou books and shows originated. This seems to be standard practice for other similar children's characters. 76.19.41.138 02:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Pierre

Great Orator

Has anybody else noticed that Caillou speaks perfect English? His sentences may be simpler, sure, but he always pronounced every word perfectly and uses correct sentences. It's kind of strange to hear a supposed young child saying, "I would like to go to the store to get some ice cream, Mommy." Maybe it's just me.203.131.167.26 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

He pretty much HAS to, if he's going to be of any interest to kids; particularly because he began in books. "It's much hard a lot too reed if en eash bok Cailou's sentenaces were wrote like these." I could be mistaken but I think there's a term for this when talking about teaching your kid speech. It has to be dumbed down somewhat, yes, but it still has to maintain a certain amount of coherence. As a final note, you'll notice for example that when the Storyteller mentios that Caillou is feeling a certain kind of emotion, Caillou doesn't explain it the same way; he says it more "child-like" since he IS a kid like you said. This is all probably information overload so I'll digress here. Just adding my two cents. -WarthogDemon 00:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Boris a software engineer?

The impression I get from the CONTEXT of one or two episodes of the series is that Boris, Caillou's dad, is a software engineer. True? Demf 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The name Caillou

BTW, isn't Caillou some sort of nickname common in Europe (and, indirectly, in Quebec)? I'm from Puerto Rico, and when José Miguel Agrelot was alive, he occasionally referred to one of his grandchildren, Carlo Giuseppe, as "Cayú", which is the phonetic spelling of Caillou. When the series came about, I was surprised by the coincidence. Excuse my francais, but stretching the analogy a bit, wouldn't the name Caillou be a contraction of Charles and Jean or some other French name? Demf 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cancer?

Does Caillou have cancer? If not, why is he bald?--70.162.46.19 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I must confess, dear IP editor, that I too have thought the same. It would be remarkably unnatural for a child of Caillou's age to be completely and totally bald unless they were undergoing some sort of Chemotherapy or Radiotherapy to treat a cancer/tumour. Maybe someone with a little media knowledge could possibly shed some light on this for us... Thor Malmjursson 10:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed he was like Charlie Brown from Peanuts. He could have Alopecia or something similar, but it is probably just to make him distinctive as a character. From the article, I take it that his parents called him Caillou because of this trait, though no reference to the condition has been made from other characters I've seen on the show in the U.S. airings. It is possible that he is supposed to have very short fine blond or translucent hair and we just can't see it because the parents keep it so short, but I think his baldness is something the artist and writer (of the books) must have just come up with.Trevor Sinclair 15:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Brown had a symbolic scribble of hair, ala Homer Simpson. Caillou does not have extremely short blonde hair. He is absolutely completely bald, and its weird. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I can not see any trace of short blond or translucent hair at all. So who can help us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.201.186 (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Caillou was much younger in the original books than he is in the TV series. Because the image of a bald Caillou was already established and well-known, they chose to keep him bald in the cartoons even though he was made older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.234.103 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Leo Martin?

It doesn't seem (at least in the American TV version) that Calliou's friend Leo is the son of the daycare teacher, Ms. Martin. Leo refers to his teacher as "Ms. Martin" (e.g. "Ms. Martin said it would work.") -- he never mentions that she is his mother. Ms. Martin and Leo's mother both have red hair, but Leo's mother has freckles and Ms. Martin does not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lastwomanstanding (talk • contribs) 18:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, but in the sleepover episode, Mrs. Martin is his mom. Janet6 12:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment re: Caillou learning a bad word from a teenager.

If I recall, a small minority in the US kicked up a bit of a stink over a similar situation in a popular US cartoon called Berenstain Bears; an episode existed where Brother and Sister were caught watching a movie intended for teenagers (Trouble at Big Bear High) and learned a word which although not offensive in real life, was treated as being such in the toon (I believe they were calling their friends and others "Furball"). I don't personally see what all the fuss is, since you bet your life that before a child hits 5 they will have learned an obscene/offensive word and used it without knowing its meaning. People should be thanking the makers of toons like this for helping them and their kids understand the value of not using "bad" language. Thor Malmjursson 10:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I just removed the entire controversy section. I spent almost an hour trying to find sources for that information and I have not been able to find anything anywhere that comes even close to being a legitimate resource. Plus, the "infamous" petition to get the show off the air is not mentioned anywhere except the petition's own website and a couple message boards. The section can be replace if it becomes sourcable at some point in the future. Trusilver 23:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I included sources in the section. This is blatant censorship. If controversy exists over the show - and I can cite many sources, Wikipedia should show it. If there exists a petition to remove Caillou from the airwaves - as you admit - it should be noted. The controversy over Caillou is hardly a tiny group of dissatisfied viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.186.198 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can site many VERIFIABLE, REPUTABLE sources--not blogs, not user reviews submitted by "superdork", not some online petition (which anyone can start about any crackpot notion they take--why do you think they are almost universally ignored by the subjects of such petitions?)--then so be it. But none of the sources you used meets WP:VER, and no amount of repeating yourself will change that. Gladys J Cortez 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the controversy section because Wikipedia has never demanded the sort of sources you seem to want. Some of the sources I've referred to ARE verifiable and reputable. If Caillou is being attacked on blogs those criticisms need to be shown - even if some of them are written by authors with silly names. Besides, attacking the person making the argument is an ad hominem attack - if the argument is wrong, you should address that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.186.198 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All the sources you've posted are either message boards or blogs - not reliable sources. Also, our neutral point of view policy states that only viewpoints that have a reliable source should be represented (see WP:UNDUE). Evil saltine (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I have made no ad hominem attacks, unless you call "repeating yourself" an ad-hominem attack, in which case I don't know WHAT to say to you. 2. I have brought this to the attention of the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents WP:AN/I-- [1]] to see which interpretation of WP:VER is supported. If they say "hey, blogs and user-reviews are fine", then I will abide by that. In the meantime, I'm leaving this issue alone. Gladys J Cortez 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs, forums, message boards: none of these is a reliable source. Period. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion from WP:AN/I can be found here. [2] Policy appears to support the interpretation given by Orange Mike above. Gladys J Cortez 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, many parents find Caillou to be objectionable. Clearly there have been many attempts to point this fact out on Wikipedia but it seems there are people here who are loyal fans of the show and who will not permit any criticism to appear here. I remind people that Wikipedia is not a fansite - it's supposed to be an encyclopedia - a place people go to for UNBIASED knowledge. Sadly, some people here are trying to stifle the idea that Caillou is not universally liked. That is not what an encyclopedia should be doing. If people here want to praise Caillou they have that option - on their own website. As well as telling people about the show's positive aspects (which the Wikipedia article does), in order to be fair, Wikipedia should contain criticisms too. The fact is, there are many people who find this particular show to be distasteful and harmful to the very children it's being targeted towards. Wikipedia should make note of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeryUSA (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, where are the reliable sources reporting this fact? You can't just say it is so, or point to somebody's blog or somebody else's private website: we need verification. I don't watch the show, don't care about the show; I do care about verifiability. People come here for solid facts; in spite of the vandals, the naïve, and the point-of-view pushers, we attempt to provide them. If you've got some solid sources, please provide them; but don't keep breaking the rules because you have The Truth in your pocket! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Caillou is regarded by some parents as being a bad influence on their children. One reviewer has even called it "The most dangerous show on kid's TV." [3] while a critical viewer on another website says "Cartoon characters may be fictional, but to my kids, they're quite real and have significant influence." [4]. On another site, a parent writes "I'm not too sure if this is a good cartoon for... any kids to be watching." [5]. An Associated Content article argues that "Caillou has its feet firmly planted in fantasy land" --REMOVED LINK: BLACKLISTED--. Robert J. Houeston, in Tactical Leadership [6] writes: "my daughter likes baths. But one day Caillou didn't want to take a bath. He cried and whined, but once he got in the tub, he loved it. Clearly the message was supposed to be, 'Don't cry at bath time because baths are a lot of fun.' But for a week after watching that show, my daughter would cry and whine at bath time. She had observed the poor behavior of Caillou on TV, saw that it was wrong, but still she modeled her own behavior on what she observed in others." - - Critics argue that since the character is often seen complaining or acting up, children under 5 will often copy the behavior without learning the lessons taught by the story arc.

The above section belongs in the article. It includes reliable sources and verifiable quotes. It is NOT 'vandalism'. Anyone who thinks it is vandalism is misrepresenting what is an honest effort to get a much-needed alternative viewpoint - a viewpoint that many parents share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeryUSA (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

- And we will GLADLY include the information, IF AND ONLY IF, WHEN AND ONLY WHEN, you can provide sources that meet the core Wikipedia policy statement WP:VER. ~~Adding poorly-sourced material IS "vandalism" by every conceivable reading of Wikipedia policy,~~ (refactored: REPEATEDLY adding ANYTHING against consensus is a violation of policy-what I meant, but not what I said.) and by administrative consensus and many, MANY precedents. We are not trying to remove your "alternative viewpoint"--we are attempting to meet a CORE WIKIPEDIA POLICY. When you can offer sources that meet that policy, this point of view will be included. Not until.Gladys J Cortez 22:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding poorly sourced material is not vandalism, by any conceivable reading of the policy. That said, I definitely agree with the removal of this section unless reliable sources can be provided for verification. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and refactored--typing fingers GREATLY outpaced brain on that one. Onorem, you are right.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think it is correct, since the spanish word for bald is "Calvo" i think it's similar to "Caillou" ( i believe that they have their latin origin). About "Pierre", english "Peter", spanish "Pedro" similar to "Piedra"(stone), so its true but its not Caillou's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.170.171.76 (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but probably unlikely. Pierrot is the diminuitive of Pierre. 71.205.85.200 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. [7] 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)

I agree with Gladys Cortez, i can see that in the "Reception" section the following has been added: "Some commentators have noted the main character is prone to excessive whining and may set poor examples for children" followed by three "references" which are nothing but local newspaper articles on which Caillou isn't even the subject, here are the only parts of those articles that mention Caillou: The first one is http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/25/he_dares_to_ask_is_there_life_without_barney/

"The show "Caillou" is by far the worst. Caillou is the whiniest kid on TV. All the kid does is whine. The parents sound like smarty-pants liberals, and the grandmother, too. They're always on the kid's case. Caillou should defect to the children's show "Dragon Tales" and go eat some dragon berries with that blue dragon Ord."

The second is http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/26/DDGCDAVLND1.DTL

"If Focus on the Family really wanted to safeguard children's programming it would tell "Dora the Explorer" to shut the hell up. That's one loud kid. And another thing -- there's way too much whining on "Caillou."

And the last one is http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2008/06/14/in_an_on_demand_world_can_parents_retain_control/ "My daughter, at the tender age of almost-4, has a totally different perspective on TV. If she's in the mood for "Caillou," the PBS cartoon about a whiny and bald little boy, that's what she sees before dinner, as I hold my nose and download it from cable-on-demand"

These seem to be nothing but personal opinions from the article's authors and to be honest i think they're rubbish. I actually watched Caillou when i was a kid and he, while sometimes did have tantrums, is not "whiny", i think all the people who think that it's only their opinion, i don't think that's going to teach poor examples for kids, so i'm gonna ask, it is correct to remove these "references" from the article?? Thanks --Lester Large (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah

Sarah isn't 8 years old. She's only 6. It is mentionned in an episode. Also, she just starts school. And it's written in official webpage : http://www.caillou.com/parentsteachers/prog_char.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.54.209 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Caillou airdate

{{Editsemiprotected}} In the infobox, it said that the show debuted in 1997. It debuted in 1998. Please change this. 24.183.52.110 (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done Algebraist 20:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Lazio11, 30 May 2010

Calliou's last name is Caillat Lazio11 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch ·comms 21:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Osaah, 9 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I wold like to add Gilbert, the family cat, to the Family section of this description.

Gilbert is Calliou's loyal but sometimes lazy and always lovable gray and black pet tabby cat.

Osaah (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Done seems reasonable to me, and is sourced by ref 1 CTJF83 pride 06:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Re; Hidden warning in the article text (Cancer edits)

Please be aware that once again, I have replaced this warning. It was added following discussion with other editors and showed definite effectiveness whilst in the article text. I can't rightly recall who removed it, but if you wish to do that, have the courtesy to discuss it here first, and let editors know instead of just whipping it out. It wasn't bitey, it wasn't angry, it was done after myself and a couple of other editors nearly went grey haired and had a breakdown through constantly reverting such edits. Please leave it in place, and discuss it here properly if you want rid of it. Barking Fish 21:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it's been removed twice by other editors. It's completely unnecessary, other than WP:BEANS, which is the exact opposite effect of what you're seeking. It's also rather bitey, despite what you think. No admin will block any user who vandalizes this page, because of this so-called "final warning". It doesn't work that way. There are other and better ways to prevent vandalism, which is not very frequent on this page, anyway. I'll wait a day or two, but it needs to be removed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly where you are wrong. Several users and a couple of IP's were blocked precisely based on that warning, and the eventual semi-prot put on the article also took it into account. It stays unless it's discussed. Barking Fish 14:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who restored it after Robofish removed it a few months ago, but I can see that it probably is unnecessary now that the article is semi-protected (as it was even then). But in late 2008 there was definitely a lot of 'cancer' vandalism on the page and the warning seemed to me to help. This is the diff that introduced the warning; Gladys j cortez doesnt seem to be very active lately so asking her to give her opinion might leave us waiting for a while. —Soap— 15:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Any admin who blocked an IP or a user solely on that "warning" was wrong. That doesn't constitute a warning, much less a final warning to lead to a block. As I mentioned earlier, all that really does is seem like WP:BEANS to me, anyway. This isn't a heavily vandalized article, especially with the indefinite semi-protection (which also seems excessive). Personally, I feel that both the warning and the semi-protection should be removed. If vandalism starts becoming excessive, then you can re-apply for semi-protection. I'd be more open to keeping the hidden message in there if you were to change the warning, but as it stands, it needs to go. If you think I'm so off base on this, why don't you try bringing this up to WP:AN? Right now, you're the only one who adamant about keeping it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, you say you'd be more open to keeping the warning if it was changed, why don't you pick more suitable wording and fix it? I'd be just as happy keeping it here if it were changed, and if that's more acceptable to you, so be it. Barking Fish 16:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, i'm the user who removed the warning the second time, citing "the angriness of whoever wrote it". Gladys J Cortez in a user somewhat notorious for her short temper when it comes to vandalism. The way the "warning" is written does show her short temper. I agree with the user/s who think the warning is unnecessary, just makes the article look bad. If you want to keep it, maybe just let's simplify it to something like "Do NOT add any mentions of Caillou having cancer or other hair-related diseases. Otherwise, you can be reported and/or blocked for vandalism." Thanks.--Lester Large (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lester. Gladys isn't the only one with a short temper when it comes to vandalism, I have one too :) However, the proposal you set for the wording is fine, it's less rottweiler-ish than the last one, and I'd be happy with the warning in the manner in which you phrased it. Incidentally, it wasn't just Gladys who wrote it, as I stated a couple of posts above - it was done in collaboration between Gladys, myself and other editors, who were going nuts trying to stop people messing with the article, hence the original strength of the warning, it was designed as an immediate "back off" to people considering doing something stupid. Barking Fish 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Per your wording above, I have amended the note to your suggested text. Further comments on it are still welcome :) Barking Fish

Okay, I removed the hidden warning altogether, but I added a edit notice instead (edit the article to see it). If you absolutely hate it, feel free to revert it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now the article looks better! Greetings. --Lester Large (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Lester. I apologise for my stubbornness during the conversation, but you must understand from what I've explained, why I was so adamant that some form of warning stayed there - hopefully, we can move onto the next step soon, and ask for the article to be taken off semi-protection. That way we'll see if everything has calmed down. Greetings to you both, and thanks again for speaking with me about it, I hope i've not been too much of a git to get on with :) Barking Fish 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want me to unprotect the article, I will. I didn't want to overstep anything, yet. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe that it is worth a shot. Obviously the option is there that if we start to get cancer edits again, or the like that it can be put back. What do you say to a 4 week trial drop of the semi, and let's see how it goes? Barking Fish 23:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't put a timestamp unprotection, so it will have to be indefinitely. However, indefinitely can mean one day or it can mean six months. If it gets bad again, I can always protect it or you can request it at WP:RFPP, if I'm not available. Anyway, in case you actually didn't notice, it's unprotected... for now.Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Needs a Controversy Section

This shows has had its share of criticism, from reliable / verifiable sources.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least a 'criticism' section. Many parents think this show encourages bad behaviour in children. I've noticed that the show's supporters are quick to remove any hint that there's controversy. No wonder the page gets vandalized when nothing but praise is allowed on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.177.58 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As a member of the top-secret cabal that is sworn to protect the Cailou article from all threats -- foreign and domestic -- I must ask for independent reliable sources criticizing the show. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've submitted sources showing that Caillou has more than its share of critics. As with all Wikipedia content that has rabid fans, the sources were declared illegitimate by the fans of the show and the changes were not allowed. No criticism of Caillou is permitted here. This is not how an encyclopedia should work.Ianbrettcooper (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Troll alert

It looks like someones been screwing with the page. Someone should revert it.(Seriously, BET and truTV?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.102.18 (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

More References

Added a few more References. It still may need more additional References. (TheLoverofLove (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

article quality templates

added templates to list out items that need cleanup to bump it up the quality scale (currently "C"). The "Caillou (character)" article is written better, and much of the information listed on this page is better said on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.77.52 (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Caillou → Caillou (Canadian TV series) – Not only would this change conform with other similar articles, but I believe this article may be using the wrong template as I see the italics tags in the title when using Firefox on Windows (they don't show up in IE). The template used by most titles using the "(TV series)" title do not have this problem per a search on "canadian tv series". JoyceD (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment what similar articles? what template? 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. Definitely in all readers' interests. The only possible objections are legalistic and blinkered. Let's have more such qualifiers, so everyone can tell at a glance what the article is about. Noetica^Tea? 03:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, no reasonable case has been made yet as to why such disambiguation is required. The "(TV series)" qualifier is only needed to resolve conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous, or when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles. It is for this reason some articles like Dallas (TV series) have them and some like Cheers and Seinfeld don't. It is also not meant as a means "so everyone can tell at a glance what the article is about" – that is what the lead section of the body of the article is for. Furthermore, the nominator appears to be experiencing a repeated bug that has been occurring in IE, and has received advice about it on Wikipedia:Help desk#Italic tags in titles seen in Firefox on Windows; this is also not a sufficient reason for a page move. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Zzyzx. No-one has given a reason why disambiguation is necessary. Noetica seems to arguing that every article on television series should have "(TV series)" tacked on the end of its title, which is definitely against the current community consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Similar pages:
1. Cailloux (a DAB page usually pronounced the same as "caillou")

2–10. Pages listed at Cailloux

11. Caillou (character)

12. Caillou's Favorite Songs

13. Alan Caillou

14. Edmond de Caillou

15. Caillou's Holiday Movie

16. Château Caillou

17. Caillou: Ready for School

Jenks and Z, both of you please explain: Why would anyone want to risk inconveniencing anglophone readers all over the world by avoiding the simple qualifier "(Canadian TV series)"? The majority of them have never heard of a TV show called "Caillou", and care nothing about such things in the children's media of a far-off country. Their needs are unknown to you, and pretty well unpredictable for us all. Everything can be made rational and helpful by adding "(Canadian TV series)".

Supplementary question (to which I would also like an answer): Do you, Jenks and Z, think that Caillou: Ready for School should be moved to Ready for School? Please give reasons.

Noetica^Tea? 07:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose WP:PRECISION makes it clear that our style is avoid unnecessary disambiguation in titles. I hope we do not see any more of these tactics. Kauffner (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Tactics??? What tactics? What on earth do you think we are doing here? Do you want evidence to support opinions here, or what? Do you want discussion, or what? Will you answer questions? That's what makes a discussion work. Noetica^Tea? 20:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I express my earnest hope that you will someday accept the revealed truth contained in our titling guidelines, return to the One True Faith of shortest unambiguous title, and cease your attempts to befoul the titles in this manner. The monstrosities alluded to by LtPowers below may serve to inspire appropriate horror. Kauffner (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnecessary disambiguation is confusing and unwieldy. We don't name articles Barack Obama (United States president), Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (film), or spaghetti (food), so there's no reason to apply a disambiguator here, either, unless the topic can be shown not to be primary. Powers ^T 20:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The longstanding convention at WP has been to not add anything beyond the name of the topic in the title of an article, unless additional precision is necessary for disambiguation. It is not needed in this case.
The specific guideline that applies here, WP:NC-TV, is quite clear:
When additional precision for disambiguation is not required, do not disambiguate the name in the title of the article

I understand some people want to change that convention, and lean towards making titles more descriptive, not just name identifiers. I respect that effort, which includes trying to change policy/guidelines as well as ignore policy/guidelines in the mean time on an individual article basis, like this one. But I oppose it. I oppose that effort because I believe it makes titles less predictable, and because it makes titles more open to debate, discussion and conflict than they already are. If adding more precision than necessary becomes acceptable, then that raises the question of exactly what extra information should or should not be added to the title. In the majority of cases where that extra information is unnecessary, it's much simpler to leave it out altogether. And for readers who are not sure what the article is about from just looking at the title? Well, that's what the lede is for. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (snowball?) per WP:NC-TV and WP:D. Consensus is that preemptive disambiguation is not required. I see no reason to invoke WP:IAR in this case. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Music" Section

Is this section really notable? It cites the YouTube video posted by the artist as its only source, and it really doesn't contribute to the article at all. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 05:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Live Action Segments

I section on the Live Action Segments of the show would be interesting. An listing of the puppet characters and some information of the various actors is the type of information to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.10.9 (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

New season

I was watching caillou with my child and it said that the episode was made in 2013. Can we update this to show the new season? Pure Awesomeness Commonly called Evoogd20 17:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

in the about the characters section someone has put comments in there that ate ridiculous and unacceptable. It's a children's show, my son ask who narrates the show and while reading I found inappropriate language and horrible comments. Please address this immediately. 137.118.161.101 (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done... at least to this article. The vandalism was on List of Caillou characters, which I've reverted (and was also not protected). Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

"Original run: October 2, 1997 – present"
"Caillou first aired on Canada's Teletoon channel in 1998"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.125.214 (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Original language(s)

Any and all statements regarding original language(s) should be properly sourced. Failing that, the status quo should remain, and repeatedly deviating from it is likely to lead to an edit warring report. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

AnnE Martin?

Are you sure her name isn't Anne with an E (Mr Phillips) :-p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:4100:1840:808:1848:808:0:7977 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A football player hates the show...

[8]...and I do to. Yes, one reliable source for this trivia exists. By this logic, every notable person who has ever mentioned their like or dislike of every politician, law, song, play, football team, day of the week, vegetable, color, number, etc. should mention that fact in the article about the politician, etc. This would lead to extensive lists in all of those articles, quickly overwhelming the encyclopedic content. In the long run, did this player's tweet have any impact? Did other sources discuss it? Did it affect the show? Granted, not many people are mentioning this show (for the record, my niece loved it and I learned to hate it with the intensity of a thousand suns), but that lack of comment does not lower the bar for who's comment we would include. As a matter of WP:WEIGHT, it would seem this football player's tweet is more meaningful to the show than the Caillou books, many of the minor characters, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You bring up some good points. I've gone ahead and self-reverted the re-addition. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Violence?

"When people tease his speech impediment, Rexy often reacts violently". Seriously? I mean, SERIOUSLY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieBrown25 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

Caillou was a self-centred little maggot 4-year-old back in the year of 1995.

When he was on GOANIMATE, they banned him in late 2014. SO DONT LET YOUR KIDS WATCH THE SHOW ANYMORE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.80.8 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

‹ The template below (Edit fully-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Original language...

is French and will always be, no matter what an overly aggressive anglophile might have put under semi-protection... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.242.141.140 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Source? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Caillou has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Caillou Tiny Pop UK 2014 2015 80.111.86.95 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatred?

I'm wondering what people think about adding a section about how many parents hate this show. I'm extremely biased here (Caillou is the devil) but it does seem to me that this show generates an abnormally high amount of loathing. Doing a Google search for things like "Caillou sucks" turns up quite a number of (usually pretty funny) articles, but I haven't found any definitive/non-biased source to justify adding those links. What kind of criteria are usually needed to warrant adding such things under a "Reception" section? --Khgtcv (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources discussing it in a neutral way. I haven't seen any such coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There are countless online reviews all expressing pretty much the same message: Caillou is whiny and annoying. The problem is that I don't think it's fair to cherry-pick those, and it's original research to even note that the negative reviews far outweigh the positive reviews and that the complaints are pretty much the same in all the negative reviews. Maybe some childhood education researcher has written an academic paper on this? I do think this show is so particularly noteworthy in how hated it is by parents that somebody, somewhere must have taken note of that fact. The best I can find so far to lead in to some of the negative reviews is to note that Common Sense Media lists the show as having a poor (2/5 stars) rating from parents, nearly all of whom complain about the whining. --Khgtcv (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I only just now noticed the archive of this talk page, and that the issue of parent criticism of the show has come up several times over the years. And also that the cabal is never going to allow such criticism to appear on this page. :) I'm not going to waste my time doing research on this since it seems too many editors have a chip on their shoulder over this issue. --Khgtcv (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As a member in good standing of the cabal, it is my responsibility to point out that we neither use site users' ratings (the 2/5 at CSM) nor summarize their comments, even in the service of pointing out that Caillou is annoying. Checking at Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, CSM and IMDb, the only professional review I find (albeit a narrowly focused one) is from CSM. They give the show a 4/5, noting the character "is a sweet, curious child who...sometimes exhibits realistic behavior typical of a 4-year-old." - SummerPhD (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Caillou is a bad show. That's clearly opinion. I'm pointing out the very clear, objective, neutral fact that the show is widely hated by parents, (notably) moreso than other children's shows. I fully understand the policies here though, and even though the notable level of hatred this show garners is plainly obvious to anybody who does a little research, here at WP we're not allowed to use our own powers of reasoning. So until some reliable source comments primarily on the fact that Caillou is widely hated by parents (though also adored by children, and by many critics and experts... all for precisely the same reason -- Caillou was modeled after the typical, whiny, annoying four-year-old) rather than merely criticizing the show itself, there's nothing to be done about it. I do think the CSM reviews are relevant, because the whole point I'm trying to make here is that despite being a highly regarded show by professional critics, the show is nonetheless hated by many (likely most) parents. The disparity between the professional rating (4/5 stars) and that of parents (2/5) is what I find to be notable. A show that was hated by critics (or educators) and parents alike probably wouldn't have stayed on the air for so long. It's the fact that kids and educators/critics like the show (because of its realistic depiction of preschool-age children) while parents hate it (because of its realistic depiction of preschool-age children) that I'd like to see some mention of this made in the article. That's why I'm talking about academic research or meta-reviews, rather than cherry-picking any of the myriad negative reviews of the show. --Khgtcv (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

We do not have a reliable source saying all/most/many/some parents hate the show. Until we do, there is nothing to add. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

I'm sorry but I'm re adding the controversy section. You can't plug your ears and say there is no, well, I can't say there is a CONTROVERSY per se, but say a very common notion about Caillou and his baldness. It's gotten to the point where the show's producers have even added a section in the show's website's FAQ.

If there's an issue with calling it a controversy, then let's just call a spade a spade. This section could be just called "Issues around Caillou's bald head".

Here are the sections on the show's website that refer to it.

http://www.caillou.com/parentsteachers/faq.shtml

I also found this web page talking about the issue and have emailed the author to verify some of her claims. We'll see what she comes back with.

http://anitasnotebook.com/2014/06/does-caillou-have-cancer-true-story-and-urban-legend-behind-caillou.html

LIke I said, we can't plug our ears and say this question doesn't come up a lot because it really does. >:(

Monkeytheboy (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The first link briefly answers why the character has little/no hair. A primary source mentioning something does not mean there is a "controversy". That website mentions lots of material that has no place here.

The second link is to a blog. Millions of people have blogs, sharing millions of opinions. It is not a reliable source for a "controversy". - SummerPhD (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Caillou has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

74.104.151.246 (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Caillou has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I represent Chouette Publishing, the Caillou books publisher since 1989 based in Montreal, and I recently noticed a change in the presentation of the character regarding the creators. It has been edited by Elsan and I suppose it’s an honest mistake. Indeed, Caillou has two co-creators: author Christine L’Heureux and illustrator Hélène Desputeaux. The article only stipulates Hélène Desputeaux and I would like to add Christine L’heureux as it was before Elsan’s edit.

"The series is based on the books by author Christine L'Heureux and illustrator Hélène Desputeaux.”https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caillou&direction=prev&oldid=688790688

instead of “The series is based on the books by Hélène Desputeaux.[1][2]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caillou If needed, here is the Supreme Court statement: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2048/index.do?r=AAAAAQATZGVzcHV0ZWF1eCBjaG91ZXR0ZQE Thank you! Charlotte Bagnara Editionschouette (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: In reviewing Elsan's sources, which are from October 2015, and are more recent, it appears that an agreement reached during the 2005 court case did indeed acknowledge that Helene Desputeaux is the sole creator. There's a great deal of information in this source that runs counter to your edit request, including noting in regard to Article 3 of the court case that agreements between Desputeaux and Chouette Publishing that L'Heureux was a co-author have been nullified. I also want to note there's a severe COI here in this edit request being from the plaintiff of the court case. -- ferret (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see clear evidence to support that. The initial arbitration case resulted in the decision by the arbitrators that, in the arbitrator's view, Caillou was a work of joint authorship. This was rejected by the Superior Court but reaffirmed after an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. And this is a decision based on Canadian Law, so has to be qualified as such. The various stages of the legal dispute needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article, which, regardless of the final legal outcome, obviously requires wording that Christine L'Heureux asserted that she was joint creator of the character. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Caillou has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to/would like someone to reference how this show has been widely criticized for teaching children to "be terrible persons," whine, etc.

Add to the "Reception" Section the following paragraph (or alternitively, the following paragraph added in a new section entitled "Critisisms" or "Claims of negative influence on children"):

The show has been widely criticized for teaching poor life lessons and bad behaviors. Criticisms include concerns that "he whines, kvetches, barks orders at people, hurts himself, throws tantrums, causes trouble and generally shares his self-centered, pathetic, purposeless outlook on life to thousands of kids all over the world." ^[1] The show currently has an IMDB rating of 4.4/10 ^[2] and a Common Sense Media review of 2/10 ^[3], both citing concerns that children love the show but parents find it particularly abhorrent. NFL star Arian Foster has also been a vocal opponent of the show. ^[4]

I doubt it belongs in the article, but as general background on the show, these comments and blogs are interesting. ^[5] ^[6]

Jamie7keller (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - This is a fairly large and major section to add to an article, so I would like to see consensus reached before making an edit like this. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Caillou has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Alow me to request a change in the creators' names of the Caillou character. The Caillou character was created in 1989 as a nine-month-old baby without a hair on his head. He owes his popularity to the combined talents of author and publisher Christine L’Heureux and illustrator Hélène Desputeaux. Only illustrator Hélène Desputeaux is mentionned whereas it is public record that there are two creators for Caillou. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed it here https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2048/index.do?r=AAAAAQATZGVzcHV0ZWF1eCBjaG91ZXR0ZQE There is a page about Christine l'Heureux here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_L%27Heureux Thank you. Charlotte Bagnara, Chouette Publishing. 69.70.75.202 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Question: A legal document is considered a primary source on Wikipedia and citing it can be considered original research. Can you provide any reliable, secondary sources like newspapers, media outlets, etc. that mention that Christine L’Heureux is also recognized as the creator? (Please note, sources should ideally be independent of Christine L’Heureux). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: if you can supply such a source please reactivate this request by changing "answered=y" to "answered=no" in the top line of this section - Arjayay (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Editionschouette Marked this as open again but did not provide any additional information. Please do not change this to "no" unless you provide the requested info. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:Dear EvergreenFir,thank you very much for your reply. Here are some additional elements. We would like you to consider the following : Please review directly the translation of the official agreement between Chouette and Mme Desputeaux :http://www.raav.org/sites/default/files/docs/Cause/1372_transaction_et_quittance_2005.pdf o In section 3, it doesn’t state that the Supreme Court judgment is nullified. It only states that all previous contracts are nullified. Please refer to the agreement (and not to the RAAV interpretation). o This agreement doesn’t say anything about Mme Desputeaux being the sole creator. This agreement is only to put an end to the dispute between Chouette and Mme Desputeaux following the Supreme Court judgment. Chouette has a similar agreement with Mme L’Heureux since Chouette needs the consent of both creators to use the Caillou character. o In fact (it is crossed from the English translation but when you look at the original document in French in section 7http://www.raav.org/sites/default/files/docs/Cause/1364_transaction_et_quittance_2005.pdf) you can see that Mme Desputeaux and Mme L’Heureux are each receiving 25% of the payments from Cinar (while Chouette is receiving the remaining 50%) . This constitutes an agreement and acknowledgement from Mme Desputeaux that as co-creator she is receiving the same royalties as Mme L’Heureux, the other co-creator. o Finally, Chouette won before the Supreme Court of Canada and this judgment clearly states that Mme L’Heureux is a co-creator. Simply put, Mme L’Heureux created the name and the text and reached out to illustrators and, following a couple refusals from illustrators who were first approached by Mme L’Heureux, Mme Desputeaux accepted to collaborate with Mme L’Heureux and to draw the illustrations. Hence, the Arbitration award, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, grants the status of co-creators to both Mme Desputeaux and Mme L’Heureux. When one reads the Wikipedia page for Caillou, one is presently misled to believe that Mme Desputeaux is the sole creator of the Caillou books. This is entirely erroneous. The tv series are not based on books by Hélène Desputeaux. The tv series are based on books published by les Éditions Chouette. The original co-creators of the Caillou character are Christine L’heureux and Hélène Desputeaux. Furthermore, the link under Caillou (book series) only refers to the Desputeaux+Aubin website. As previously mentioned, les Éditions Chouette is the sole owner of the Caillou trade mark and has published the vast majority of the Caillou books. All the tv series are based on the books published by les Éditions Chouette and not those published by Desputeaux-Aubin. Thank you for reconsidering your point of view with an open-mind.Editionschouette (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC) @EvergreenFir:Dear EvergreenFir, I am sorry I think I did a mistake and it didn't send you my reply properly. Here are some additional elements. We would like you to consider the following : Please review directly the translation of the official agreement between Chouette and Mme Desputeaux :http://www.raav.org/sites/default/files/docs/Cause/1372_transaction_et_quittance_2005.pdf o In section 3, it doesn’t state that the Supreme Court judgment is nullified. It only states that all previous contracts are nullified. Please refer to the agreement (and not to the RAAV interpretation). o This agreement doesn’t say anything about Mme Desputeaux being the sole creator. This agreement is only to put an end to the dispute between Chouette and Mme Desputeaux following the Supreme Court judgment. Chouette has a similar agreement with Mme L’Heureux since Chouette needs the consent of both creators to use the Caillou character. o In fact (it is crossed from the English translation but when you look at the original document in French in section 7http://www.raav.org/sites/default/files/docs/Cause/1364_transaction_et_quittance_2005.pdf) you can see that Mme Desputeaux and Mme L’Heureux are each receiving 25% of the payments from Cinar (while Chouette is receiving the remaining 50%) . This constitutes an agreement and acknowledgement from Mme Desputeaux that as co-creator she is receiving the same royalties as Mme L’Heureux, the other co-creator. o Finally, Chouette won before the Supreme Court of Canada and this judgment clearly states that Mme L’Heureux is a co-creator. Simply put, Mme L’Heureux created the name and the text and reached out to illustrators and, following a couple refusals from illustrators who were first approached by Mme L’Heureux, Mme Desputeaux accepted to collaborate with Mme L’Heureux and to draw the illustrations. Hence, the Arbitration award, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, grants the status of co-creators to both Mme Desputeaux and Mme L’Heureux. When one reads the Wikipedia page for Caillou, one is presently misled to believe that Mme Desputeaux is the sole creator of the Caillou books. This is entirely erroneous. The tv series are not based on books by Hélène Desputeaux. The tv series are based on books published by les Éditions Chouette. The original co-creators of the Caillou character are Christine L’heureux and Hélène Desputeaux. Furthermore, the link under Caillou (book series) only refers to the Desputeaux+Aubin website. As previously mentioned, les Éditions Chouette is the sole owner of the Caillou trade mark and has published the vast majority of the Caillou books. All the tv series are based on the books published by les Éditions Chouette and not those published by Desputeaux-Aubin. Thank you for reconsidering your point of view with an open-mind.Editionschouette

Criticisms of the show - Consensus needed

Hello!

As a new parent, I heard about this show. Literally every mention of it (over a dosen individual conversations) were exceedingly negative, to the point where most, if not all, do not permit the show to be viewed in their home. I came here to see what Wiki had to say on it, and I found no reference to what seems to be the consensus (at least locally) among parents.

Problems include that he teacvhes children to whine, throw tantrums, treat people badly, boss people around, "be a terrible person", "become a worthless human being", and other similar issues. I was further told thsat he is rewarded for these actions. At least twice I have hear parents who cut the show off after their children, not in jest but in actual conversation, stating imitating his words and attitudes. One person's child had a whiney angry "I don't wanna" as her first sentence...apparently a key phrase on the show.

Looming online I found source after source after source raking the show over the coals. Some citisisms seem unworthy of mention (for example, some people are very upset that this preschooler is bald). However, being a bad influence, a bad role model, and a bad person was a recuring theme.

I wanted to add the follwoing section, as was asked to get consensus first. Please comment here and let me knwo what you think.

"Add to the "Reception" Section the following paragraph (or alternitively, the following paragraph added in a new section entitled "Critisisms" or "Claims of negative influence on children"):

The show has been widely criticized for teaching poor life lessons and bad behaviors. Criticisms include concerns that "he whines, kvetches, barks orders at people, hurts himself, throws tantrums, causes trouble and generally shares his self-centered, pathetic, purposeless outlook on life to thousands of kids all over the world." ^[1] The show currently has an IMDB rating of 4.4/10 ^[2] and a Common Sense Media review of 2/10 ^[3], both citing concerns that children love the show but parents find it particularly abhorrent. NFL star Arian Foster has also been a vocal opponent of the show. ^[4]"

I doubt it belongs in the article, but as general background on the show, these comments and blogs are interesting. ^[5] ^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie7keller (talk • contribs) 09:36, 11 January 2016‎ (EST)

I'm not familiar with the show, but when every mention I hear is unwaveringly negative, I feel this is an important aspect to mention in its Wikipedia page. RunasSudo (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

We need independent reliable sources. "According to a few people on the Internet/Wikipedia's talk page, everybody hate this show" is not encyclopedic. For comparison, Battlefield_Earth_(film)#Critical_reception cites roughly 40 sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Off-topic chat

Cancer?

We all remember Caillou from when we were little kids, right? Yeah, that was one of my favorite shows. One thing that had always bothered me, though, is that he was bald. Not that I had anything against bald people, my 9-year-old mind was just always curious. It had actually been something that I had been wondering about even today.

For a time, I believed the commonly told story. The original books had Caillou as a baby and they aged him for the show, but didn't want to change his appearance too much, so they left him bald. The problem with this, however, is that in the books, he ages. The artist left him bald even as he aged. When I realized this fact, I was slightly confused.

I began re-watching the series and discovered the truth.

Caillou has cancer. It's impossible for a child to become bald naturally without first going through puberty. It doesn't make sense for his parents to shave his hair - kids are brutal and a bald child would easily be picked on. Caillou is bald because his parents put him through several different treatments to treat his terminal disease.

Notice that his little sister Rosie has red hair. Now look at her parents - both brunette. That's because Rosie is adopted. His parents feared that they would pass on the disease and couldn't bear the thought of possibly losing another child, so they sought out adoption. They treat Rosie like one of their own - they're just happy to have a healthy little girl.

Caillou just tries to live a normal life in spite of his illness. "You're growing up to be a big boy!" Mommy says hopefully, thankful that he's lived another day.

But the story doesn't end as a bittersweet children's show about a little boy fighting cancer and hanging in there, with supportive friends and just living a normal life. No. If only that were the case.

One day, little Rosie was about eleven years old, staying over with Grandma as her parents went out for a date night. She sat down in her grandmother's lap, and asked her who that boy was in the picture on her dresser. She had vague memories of this boy, but she was only two at the time, and didn't quite remember.

"I think you're old enough," grandma says, just barely fighting back the tears.

The entire show is a flashback, narrated by grandma telling the stories of her now deceased grandson. She's telling Rosie about her long dead brother, who died shortly after the series was cancelled. His parents didn't want to plague Rosie with the thoughts of her dead brother, and decided to wait until she was much older to tell her about him, if even at all. In truth, it helped them cope. It was easier to think he never existed than to remember the painful memories of their firstborn.

Notice each episode is surrounded by the cloud typically used for flashbacks in other shows. Notice the melancholy voice used by the narrator throughout the show, even in joyful circumstances. Notice Caillou is almost never disciplined. His parents just can't stand saying "no" to their child with who knows how long left in his life.

Still don't believe me?

The original artist of Caillou, who was also the character designer, had a child who also died of cancer and designed the family as a tribute to him. I wonder if the author or creators of the show even realize this?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmodo23 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic or unsourced, expansive fairly tales. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2016

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Caillou has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

69.158.134.115 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Caillou has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

100.40.12.227 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Caillou has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

100.40.12.227 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: Blank request Topher385 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Caillou has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

27.33.13.34 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Caillou has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Michael Hirsh was the executive producer during the Cookie Jar era. 73.235.237.179 (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to support the claim? DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done--Please provde a WP:RS in support of your claim and reopen the request.Winged Blades^Godric 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Pat Fry linked article

The voice actor for Boris (Caillou's father) leads to an F1 racing Engineering consultant. I suspect this is incorrect. The actor listed by IMDB has several other acting credits which are not alluded to in the linked article. As a new user with limited knowledge of the subject, I am uncomfortable making edits to the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billdoor147 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

protected

How can i edit this page? How do i edit this page even though this is protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoogleFanatic2017 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

I see from the archives that this page is pretty much constantly being vandalized, which is not a surprise at all, since that is true for pretty much every article about a kids' TV show. I know his parents aren't named Doris and Boris, so I've changed that back, but I wouldn't know where to begin with the rest... Adam Bishop (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Episodes

I changed the fake episode season dates to the real ones. Can you make an entire episode list for the Caillou article called "List of Caillou episodes"? This is Sam Spielberg, signing off. SamSpielberg1 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

TV Tropes

It says that it is not confused with Kaeloo. (2:05 PM, 22 October 2017) 172.58.4.179 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Caillou has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

well cailou is still running on youtube so change it to 1997- present 2605:A000:4845:900:DD96:71CB:1F05:1634 (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Where do you request this change be made? Note that in the infobox it alread says Treehouse TV (2009–present) Cannolis (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is there no list of episodes???

somebody should create a list of caillou episodes page. if anyone wants to create one, i have a red link below. List of Caillou episodes--Inanimateinsanityfan27 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC) update: there's a draft but no official article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inanimateinsanityfan27 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Family Guy reference or episode

The article should have a section or mention the episode of family guy where Caillou is made fun of. 100.14.40.216 (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

"Scratchy monster" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Scratchy monster and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Scratchy monster until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Scratchy monster" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Scratchy monster and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Scratchy monster until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Caillou in popular culture

There should be a section about Caillou being referenced and mocked in popular culture in order to prove how popular Caillou was back in the 2000s and to analyse if Caillou is still popular in the USA 84.66.150.88 (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.mommyish.com/2013/07/31/parents-hate-caillou/

[2] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0262153/reviews

[3] ttps://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/caillou/user-reviews/adult

[4] ttp://www.sbnation.com/2014/3/26/5549908/arian-foster-caillou-is-awful

[5] ttps://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2mzfyj/why_does_everyone_hate_caillou/

[6] ttp://www.renegademothering.com/2013/03/12/caillous-plan-to-ruin-america/

[7] ttp://www.mommyish.com/2013/07/31/parents-hate-caillou/

[8] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0262153/reviews

[9] ttps://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/caillou/user-reviews/adult

[10] ttp://www.sbnation.com/2014/3/26/5549908/arian-foster-caillou-is-awful

[11] ttps://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2mzfyj/why_does_everyone_hate_caillou/

[12] ttp://www.renegademothering.com/2013/03/12/caillous-plan-to-ruin-america/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]