And yes, I’m also shocked and saddened that there is a Caillou fandom site.
reading that list, they just didnt like airing normal but negative young-chlid behavior. gotta keep it sterile, dontchaknow
no taking toys, no throwing tantrums. no pointing out when your parents are exhausted.
I agree with what you’re saying in principle, but I don’t think toddlers need realistic depictions of toddlers on TV to emulate.
i thought the point of the show was to depict real world solutions to those problematic behaviors, which the show seemed to do well. it wasnt just kids being jerks and ‘fini’
Yeah, but toddlers aren’t too bright. You show Caillou throwing sand in his friend’s eyes, they might copy that even if Caillou learned his lesson. Because they didn’t learn Caillou’s lesson.
Toddlers have a lot of difficulty putting themselves in someone else’s shoes, but very little trouble copying behavior they see on TV.
I mean I didn’t show my kid Caillou in the first place because he’s an annoying little shit and why would I have when there’s an internet full of classic Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers for her to watch? Between that and Blue’s Clues, we were pretty set with stuff to keep her entertained during TV time.
P.S. Caillou means pebble en français.
I’m not going to question this image…
I am. Wtf. 🤨
https://caillou.antifandom.com/wiki/Banned_episodes
You’re welcome, dear lemming.
I am confused.
Fandom engages in a lot of anti-user and anti-creator practices. There are mirrors to it that privacy and content respecting, particularly Antifandom and BreezeWiki. If you are interested in making the switch, there are plugins that will automatically redirect you away from Fandom towards one of these mirrors.
“Caillou” is what we would call out our kids for being whiny. We used him as an example of how not to act and would call our kids “Caillou” when they started getting out line. Surprisingly effective.
I mean, it says that he acted like prick but always learned his lesson in the end, what’s the issue?
Toddler brains are usually not developed enough to go, “oh! Okay! I get it now!” from a TV show.
Because a lot of kids wouldn’t watch the whole episode and think the first part is how they’re supposed to behave… Kids don’t have a very long attention span and caillous visuals were kinda odd. I remember feeling as a kid “These edges of the screen really take me out of the immersion”, or at least the kid-equivalent of that feeling.
Chosing not to air is not the same as a ban.
“Banned from being re-aired” is the same as “choosing not to air.”
If it’s an official decree, then it must be in writing somewhere. The fanwiki is very short on references. One could assume it’s all speculation. Probably just self-censureship rather than a ban.
I’m not sure what you think the difference is between self-censoring rebroadcasts and banning rebroadcasts is. The same person who would make the decision regardless of what you called it. PBS has the broadcast rights and PBS is who allows their affiliates to re-broadcast content.
In this case, you’re talking about synonyms, but you apparently don’t care for one of the two for some reason I’m not understanding.
Cailou is a little whiny brat and always has been. I hated that show when my son was younger.
We stuck with Blue’s Clues.
That said, my wife and I were convinced that Steve had severe brain damage and was living in his own inner world. When he “went off to college,” he was actually being institutionalized.
You have to entertain yourself somehow with this stuff when you have to sit through it every day.
At least she wasn’t into Barney or Teletubbies.
Blues Clues was good. We banned Barney from the git go. We loved Wow wow Wubsy, Wonderpets and The Backyardigans. I didn’t mind those at all.
Ours were Blues Clues, In the Night Garden (a British show from the people who made Teletubbies, but amazingly not annoying) and classic Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers on YouTube.
I did let her watch Dora despite how awful it was. Because that was some me time. I was a stay at home dad.
These days at least we have streaming services. If you can get them hooked on the good stuff (eg Bluey) or the tolerable stuff (eg Octonauts) you can (mostly) get away from the worst stuff (Cocomelon and it’s million somehow even more cheaply made derivatives).
Why are you saddened? (Other than the fact that it’s a fandom site)
I am saddened by the concept of fans of Caillou that aren’t toddlers.
Why? Is it so bad to care about something just because it’s made for kids? Something the editors very likely were at some point?
Or is it literally just the word “fan” in “fandom” that bothers you? Since the show is old and has been around for a long time, the wiki was probably created when the site was called wikia. Is that better?
If it’s so bad that someone made a collection of facts about a series, maybe don’t share their work.
Dude, lighten up.
I’m not actually saddened.
It was just a prank bro
I assume you know what that phrase means.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-just-a-prank
So which was I being, abusive, threatening or unethical?
I think doubling down signaled toxicity, rather than a light tone.
You really want to make this into some big awful thing I did when I was just joking around, something apparently everyone but you was aware of.
I’m not going to indulge you further, but I hope one day the concept of humor comes to your planet.
This list is just on a wiki with no sources, so unless the individual articles have that source, the source is as good as “I made it the fuck up”.
There are plenty of other articles talking about it. They just generally don’t list which episodes were banned or why.
For example:
Four early episodes of “Caillou” have been permanently banned from PBS Kids because the kid is such a demon seed: lying to his mother, tormenting the family cat, swatting his baby sister with a book. Even in later versions, where his bad behavior was toned down after criticism from parents, he’s thoughtless, selfish and impulsive.
https://www.freep.com/story/life/family/2015/08/21/kids-watch-tv/32143669/
The Detroit Free Press isn’t in the habit of making things up.
I hate to tell you this, but there’s a neologism for exactly this kind of problem called citogenesis, and the Kansas City Star’s (the Freep is just republishing this) lack of a source here makes me worried that their source is basically just user-generated content they found online and thought looked plausible (this Fandom article proceeds that Star article by about 7 years, so at least it’s confirmed it wasn’t this one). There are numerous times when this has happened because of Wikipedia alone. For instance, a couple months ago, Rachael Lillis, the voice actress for Misty, died. Want to know what happened? The first outlets to report her death – effectively glorified blogs like CBR etc. – said she died at 46. Their source? In all likelihood, her IMDb page. This escalated up to more and more credible sources, and eventually, USA Today, BBC News, etc. all started reporting 46.
Well the NYT actually bothered to reach out to her family, and they confirmed she died at 55. CBC News independently reached out and also verified that age. Some outlets corrected their articles, but if you look up Rachael Lillis’ obituaries, you’ll find a good chunk of them still report her as having died at age 46.
That aside, my actual concern is echoed by @Chozo@fedia.io’s comment, namely that a Fandom article without a source is almost as good as worthless.
