Talk:History of Sesame Street

message: I've just emailed Sesame Workshop and requested permission to use their images in Sesame Street-related articles in WP.  This is following a recommendation made during this article's FAC.  To be honest, I hesitated making the request before because taking Sesame Workshop's protection of their images, I was doubtful that they'd grant it.  Then I figured, what the heck, it might be worth a try.  When I get their response, I'll report back.  Keep your fingers crossed, all! Christine (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for images 

message: I'll start a new section for some additional comments; the section above is getting a bit long.  I'll try to be detailed, but please tell me if I'm going at too low a level -- if you want a more cursory review (which would be quicker) I'm happy to do that, especially if you're not sure I'm really helping much.
:Brilliant idea!  No, you're fine--stop being such a girl! ;) (Referring to, or course, feminine patterns of discourse that works in collaborative projects like this one.) Christine (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I laughed when I saw your edit summary on this; just checking to make sure I'm being helpful. More this evening. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Well, I was trying to set up the context.  But I see your point. Christine (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, I was a little worried about that phrase.  So I changed it to: "As historian Robert Morrow stated, because of these trends in education, along with the great societal changes occurring in the United States during this era, the time was ripe for the creation of a show like Sesame Street." Christine (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much better, but can we just cut "As historian Robert Morrow stated,"?  It's cited; I think we can just narrate and let the reader check the footnotes. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little worried we're going to get tweaked for going to the other extreme.  I mean, I've been through FACs in which I've been told that I don't attribute enough; I suppose I've gone to the other extreme (as I'm apt to do, big surprise) and done it too much here.  However, attributing is necessary, I think, when you're making a sweeping point like the state of the culture, which is what is happening here.  It's the only instance of a clear attribution in the paragraph, anyway. Christine (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I can see where you could be concerned about that; in my experience that mostly comes up if you're not paraphrasing all that well.  I find when I add sourced material that it often goes in with the quotes and direct attribution in line, and then as I massage it some of the quotes disappear as the content gets merged into the narrative text in the article.  I'll strike this; I think it's a judgement call. Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think this a judgment call.  That's why I haven't said anything about the two comments regarding attribution above.  Now, while I've been "confronted" about close paraphrasing before, I've been adequately trained and I don't think it's an issue for this article.  You may think differently.  You may think that I've used too many quotes, and perhaps I have, but there's a middle ground and with your help, I think we've come closer to it.  Before I re-submit, I'll go through it again and see where I can massage the quotes into the prose more, though. Christine (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Cooney's bio is pathetic, as is Sesame Workshop.  Both need work, they really do.  I looked it up, and found that it was since 1962, so it's been changed. Christine (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaked for tense. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

text: To be honest, I don't see the problem, but your version is clearer, so I went with it.  I mean, Morrisett was a VP at Carnegie, so I'm sure he had that kind of authority.  No, there's nothing explicit about the intervening year.  I would assume that it was spent in some kind of pre-planning stage. Christine (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK; it doesn't matter since you switched, but just to be clear, the issue was the definition of "group" -- that led to most of my confusion, I think.  All better now. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Good point.  Since there's information about funding and why it needed so much of it later on, I cut the phrase here. Christine (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  This is going to seem awfully nitpicky, but can you tell me just what her report did justify?  I can think of a couple of different interpretations and I would try to clarify it, if I knew which was intended.  For example, was the report always intended to be part of a plan to get funding for a children's program so part of the report included an argument saying that X amount of funding would be necessary to achieve these goals?  Or was it the case that the report provided effective ammunition to an independent funding effort, in that it made the case that certain things needed to be done, but the report did not argue for funds?  Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't answer any of those questions, Mike.  I suppose we would have to actually get a hold of Cooney's proposal.  Davis goes into some detail about it.  I wonder, for our purposes, if we should remove this mention of funding, since we discuss it later on.  I'm going to go ahead and do that, and if you disagree, you can put it back. Christine (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional comments 

message: *The first para has three fairly big quotes; four if you count "CTW model".  Is there a way to reduce at least a couple of these to narrative?  I don't think any of these quotes are the sort of value judgement that needs to be directly cited in the text; even the first, which is a strong statement, is sourced to a reliable source and is the sort of thing that sort of source can be expected to say.  And come to that, is "child watching" clear to a reader?  I assume it means that the researchers watch the children who watch the show and determine how well the show is achieving its goals; is that the intent?
-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on "Use of research in production" 

message: *Second para: I have a question about ETS's results.  Were the two sets of children testing equally prior to watching Sesame Street?  In other words did the research show that watching Sesame Street caused the better test results?
*:Yes, it did.  I didn't think that this was the place to go into the CTW's research methodologies, since it's focused on in Sesame Street research.  That makes me think that there should be a "Main article" tag in the "Use of research in production" section here; I'll do that.  For this sentence, though, I don't think that this is the place to go into a lot of detail about research results.  I think that the reference is enough. Christine (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Premiere and first season 

message: *This is not a big deal, but note 16, about the change to ETS's experimental design, is a pretty impressive factoid -- I think it would be fine to put this in the main text.
*:I included it as a note because I didn't see how it fit into the prose.  Then, because I'm open-minded and see your point, I tried it and I think I was able to make it work. Christine (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on 1970s 

message: *I just tweaked the first para of the "1980s" section, but I noticed that the second sentence is cited to O'Dell, and the third to Hellman -- the second sentence had "According to Hellman" before I cut it.  Can you check these are cited correctly?
*:Cites are correct. Christine (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't possibly start exchanging Sesame Street stories, or we'll never get anything done, but I will just mention my personal favourite sketch: Ernie singing "Sometimes I have trouble falling asleep" while Bert is trying to sleep.  When Ernie brings in the boogie-woogie sheep, the look on Bert's face cracks me up, every single time.  And I didn't even grow up with it -- I started watching it when my daughter was born. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but that's the most fun part about collaborating with others on these articles!  It's worth the time, and part of what makes this process worth it, I think.  Everyone has a SS/Muppet story; I have dozens, mostly because my developmentally disabled kids who are stuck at toddlerhood have "made" me watch for ten years.  The marvelous thing about our internet age is that you can literally watch any sketch you want, at any time.  I feel a little down, I watch the medley from Jim Henson's funeral.  I want a laugh; I watch the Elmo and Robert DeNiro sketch. So share away! "The look on Bert's face"--how precious is that!  He's a puppet! But I know exactly what you mean. It demonstrates how brilliant these puppeteers are. ;) Christine (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on 1980s 

message: *The third paragraph in the 1990s section has no references.
*:At first, I went, "Huh?  How did that happen?"  Then I realized that the paragraph breaks in this section got all messed up, probably during the image changes.  I think it's better now. Christine (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on 1990s 

message: *You don't specifically mention the name change to "Sesame Workshop"; shouldn't this at least be mentioned parenthetically when you first use the new name?
*:Yes, you're right.  It wasn't there because I literally didn't find anything about it until relatively recently!  Another editor helped me find a good source, though, and I've been meaning to add the information here.  I promise to do so before I resubmit it to FAC. Christine (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on 2000s 

message: Per my studying of things people on the Internet are saying, the show was a show people of all ages loved. But by the time the show was 30 years old, it became a primarily toddler show. This statement is supported by the fact that the early versions of the show were centered on Big Bird, but that later versions were centered on Elmo, and included Elmo's World. We need some discussion about how accurate the word "preschool", a term for an age bracket that never changed its meaning over the years, is for this show. Georgia guy (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always been an early childhood education show. That's it's express purpose, as plainly stated in the article. Just because it been written knowing that parents would watch with their children and so had some appeal to those adults, or that they understand that changing viewing habits make that less common now, does not change the plain fact that it's explicitly an early childhood educational show in purpose and design. oknazevad (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But to a greater extent by 2000 than at the beginning. (The extent I'm talking about refers to the extent of being early in childhood. Early childhood generally means under 6. In its early days it was popular primarily with 5-year-olds, but by 2000 it was popular primarily with 2-year-olds.) Georgia guy (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Undeniably there has definitely been some shift to a younger age than the earlier days, largely because those five-year-olds are now more likely to actually be in pre-K than before, but it's still a preschool age, in that it's aimed at kids who haven't started school yet. oknazevad (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Georgia guy, you say it's on the Internet, but where?  That's why I reverted your change before.  You are right, though, The Show has, in its past, skewed more younger, which was something the producers tried to address.  All that is well-documented in another FA, Format of Sesame Street and summarized in this article, under the "1990s" section.  I'm in the middle of updating all the SS articles, so there is information about kids' changing viewing habits and how the producers have responded; one way was moving to HBO.  I guess what I'm saying is all your objections have already been addressed in the content of this and other SS articles, so what's the concern? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preschool 

message: Courtesy of Smithsonian Magazine:
*  - Available at GetPocket
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sources