Talk:History of Sesame Street

Left-over FAC

I've placed the comments I wasn't able to get to before the FAC was closed here. I'll work on them here and then resubmit the article in two weeks. Note to self: never submit an FAC over the holidays. ;) Christine (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I'll add comments here as I go through the article.

• Per WP:LEAD, I think the content of your second sentence should be in the first sentence: it's a preschool educational television program, and the first sentence should say that.

I moved the phrase "preschool television program" to begin the first sentence, then to prevent redundancy, added "of its kind" in its place in the second sentence. Christine (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I changed an instance of "US$" to "$" before realizing that you had multiple instances of this; I think, per [WP:$]], that since this is almost entirely about a US topic there is no need for the "US".

Ok, done. Christine (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Struck. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• The total initial funding is given in the lead as $8M, but the "Development" section makes it sound as though the $8M is in addition to the original $1M from the Carnegie Corporation. Could you clarify?

Mike, I won't recreate what I've done here, so please take a look and see if I've done what you've asked. The sources make it very clear that the 8 mil made up the initial budget, and I think that the content in this article reflects this now. Christine (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's clear now. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• "several studies showed its educational impact": this is a bit vague. Would the sources support: "several studies showed that it was having a positive educational impact"?

Yes they do; made the change exactly as you suggested.

Struck. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• "CTW turned to other sources, such as the magazine division, book royalties, product licensing, and foreign income": since we haven't mentioned the magazine division before, I think this needs to be "its magazine division".

Man, that's picky! ;) Christine (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! If you don't mind me jumping in, I can copyedit when I see something like that, rather than post a note. Quicker for both of us, and you can always revert me if I screw something up. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Mike, really--have at it! I welcome anything that will make this article better. And I don't mind the copyedit; in my mind, it makes so much more sense to just change something. I've never understood why reviewers give the direction to change a few words when it would be faster and simpler to just change it themselves. IMO, copeyditing and reviewing go together. Christine (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• In a short span at the start of the last paragraph of the lead, you have "challenges", "changes", "changes" and "change"; could one or two of these be rephrased?

Again, I won't recreate the changes (har har) I've made, but I pulled out my thesaurus to vary the language used a bit. Christine (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• You repeatedly use a standard format for quoting an expert: "As author David Borgenrich stated"; "As historian Robert Morrow stated"; "As researcher Gerald Lesser ... reported". I think these need to be varied a bit. In a couple of instances you are probably OK to just use the material and cite it, without naming the source; in other cases perhaps "According to historian Robert Morrow", or "Historian Robert Morrow has commented/described/etc." could work.

I made another sweep of the article to correct for this, and took the opportunity to copyedit it again. I think that I was able to improve the prose overall. Christine (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I left this one till last since it's easier to address these as I read through.

• How about changing the Borgenrich one to avoid mentioning him at all: "Many children's television programs were produced by local stations, with little regard for educational goals; and the idea that children's programming could be used as an educational tool was revolutionary"?
• Changed. Christine (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  Any reason you didn't use the second half the way I wrote it? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  Just picky grammar stuff. You use a semi-colon to link two independent clauses with no connecting words, and I thought that the second part of the sentence didn't need to be separated that way. It's probably just a style thing, too. Did I do the indentations right? ;) Christine (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yep -- perfect! :o) Re the sentence: you have 'and the use of children's programming as an educational tool was "unproven" and "a revolutionary concept"'. I was trying to rephrase so we could drop the quotes. How about if we use my phrasing and make that semicolon a comma? I probably use semicolons too much anyway. Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• For the next paragraph, see what you think of this: "Children's television programs of the 1950s and 1960s tended to show simple shots of a camera's-eye view of a location filled with children, or they recreated storybooks with shots of book covers and motionless illustrated pages, instead of making use of the new possibilities of the television medium." Well, that last clause is clunky, but does it work? It drops 'duplicated "prior media forms"', but perhaps that's now implicit?

  I'd like to keep this sentence as is. The second sentence, which describes what kids' TV was like in the 50s and 60s, modifies "prior media forms". It explains what is meant by the phrase "prior media forms". Your version, however, doesn't explain "the new possibilities of the television medium." (That's done later, in the "Beginnings" section.) Christine (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  OK, I agree my version isn't great. Let me try to explain what bothers me about the current paragraph and we can see if there are other ways to improve. The thing I most want to change is the inline naming of the three sources; I think it really breaks up the flow for the reader. Without those names, the paragraph states a premise, gives example problems and names a counterexample TV show, and provides a summarizing statement. Can we do that with at most one name cited (probably O'Dell, if we have to keep one)? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  Now I see what you're getting at. This is what I did: I removed O'Dell, since it was a bit redundant, then I combined the two notes into one. Does that accomplish what you want? Christine (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  It's better, and I think I'm OK with keeping the mention of Palmer and Fisch, but can we rephrase to drop Michael Davis's name? Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• For note 3, can we go with "Reading a book on television was thought to be ineffective ..." and leave the name to the reference?

Sure. Done. Christine (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can we change the Michael Davis quote to: "which was slower and more idealistic than most other children's shows"? Does "idealistic" convey what Davis intended?

  Yes, it does. It's a direct quote from Davis. Christine (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  OK -- can we make the change, or is there a reason you'd prefer to keep the quote? I think it's a mistake to use too many direct quotes; they are like jalapenos on a pizza -- they jolt the reader out of the narrative a little, usually in a good way, but too many can be disruptive. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  Does removing O'Dell as per above help? Christine (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, it helps; I'm going to strike this since the point above is now talking about this. Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• "As a vice-president at the Carnegie Corporation, Morrisett had awarded several million dollars in grants to organizations involved in the education of preschool children, especially from poor and minority backgrounds": to my ear the final clause isn't very precisely attached to "children"; the reader quickly understands it but it's a little loosely phrased. How about something like: "As a vice-president at the Carnegie Corporation, Morrisett had awarded several million dollars in grants to organizations involved in the education of preschool children, with a particular focus on grants to assist children from poor and minority backgrounds"?

See, to me, your version feels clunky. I think what you're asking for, though, is for it to be tightened and more precise. So this is what I did: "As a vice-president at the Carnegie Corporation, Morrisett had awarded several million dollars in grants to organizations that educated poor and minority preschool children." Christine (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better than my version. Thanks for understanding what I meant, rather than what I said! Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• "For this reason, the creators chose public television to broadcast the new show": I don't follow this; what is the reason given? That paragraph actually seems to be arguing that public television was an unlikely choice, unless I misunderstood something.
• The "Beginnings" section covers a lot of ground, and I think it might be beneficial to pull out the first two paragraphs to an initial section above the "Beginnings" title -- you could title it "Background", or just leave it untitled. Also, paragraph 4, 5, 7 and 8 in that section are essentially about Cooney's report, but paragraph 6 is about the plan to do something as a consequence of the report. Wouldn't that material be better at the end of that section, or in the following section?

The last two items are connected, I think, so I restructured this first section a bit. I created a new section, as you suggested--"Background," and restructured things a bit. I think it's clearer and tighter now.

I've looked through and this is much improved, so I will strike; I'll read again and see if there's anything else I can spot in this section. One question: the note about having to individually convince 180 stations is gone; is that OK? Was the point you were making there one that does need to be made? Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've glanced through the rest of the article but will stop reading there for now. -- Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll be waiting for more! ;) Christine (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for images

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)

Additional comments

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)

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)

• "In the late 1960s, children from low-income families had fewer resources than children from higher-income families to prepare them for school": there's nothing specific to the 1960s about this statement, is there? Do those first four words actually tell us anything?

Well, I was trying to set up the context. But I see your point. Christine (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand the reference to the "utopian undercurrent" -- can you tell me what the intent is here?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• "Cooney was producing talk shows and documentaries ...": since the only mention of Cooney is a quote from her in the first section, I think it would be good to add a touch more context -- just the date would help. I couldn't figure it out from her article, but how about "In the early 1960s, Cooney was a producer at educational television station WNET, where she had worked on talk shows and documentaries, winning an Emmy in 1966 for ..." Or "Since 1960, Cooney had been ..." (or whatever the year actually is).

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)

Tweaked for tense. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of Beginnings you have "The group ... hired Cooney", but Cooney is part of the group, isn't she? I don't quite follow how this financing worked -- did Morrisett have enough budget authority simply to hire Cooney without further approval? And I'm not entirely clear about the goal of the conversation; you quote Davis's "master the addictive qualities of television and do something good with them", which is a strong phrase, but figurative rather than concrete. Assuming it was Morrisett who hired Cooney, how about "A few days after the dinner party, Cooney, Freedman and Morrisett met at the Carnegie Corporation's offices to make plans; they wanted to harness the addictive power of television for their own purposes, but did not yet know how. The following summer, despite Cooney's lack of experience in the field of education, Morrisett hired her to conduct research on childhood development, education and media, and she visited experts in these fields across the United States and Canada. She researched their ideas about the viewing habits of young children ..." I don't suppose the sources tell us anything about that intervening year, do they?

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)

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)

• I don't follow "Her report also justified why the program should be funded": the next phrase talks about why the program needs a lot of funds, not why it needs funds.

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)

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)

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)

• At the end of the Beginnings section, "who tend to control the television" is the only section in present tense; I see why you have it this way but it sounds odd in that sequence of past tenses. I think "tended" would be OK, unless you can find a better paraphrase.

  Yes, one of those instances where correct grammar feels strange to us native speakers. Fixed. Christine (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Morrisett, who was responsible for fundraising, procured additional grants from the United States federal government, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Ford Foundation for their initial budget, which totaled $8 million. They procured their funding from a combination of government agencies and private foundations, which protected them from the economic pressures experienced by commercial networks." I think the funding sources listed in the first sentence are the same ones referred to in the second sentence; if that's correct this could be compressed, perhaps to: "Morrisett, who was responsible for fundraising, procured additional grants from the United States federal government, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Ford Foundation for their initial budget, which totaled $8 million; obtaining funding from this combination of government agencies and private foundations protected them from the economic pressures experienced by commercial networks."

  Much better version. Re: above: ah, another semi-colon, my fav punctuation. I probably use 'em too much, too. ;) Christine (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• '(called "volume production")': you never refer to this again, so is the parenthesis needed?

  Again, a style thing. But I removed them and added the phrase, "which was" to clarify. Christine (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, I wasn't clear; I meant to ask if we need to say "volume production". The article never mentions this term again, so could we just cut the comment? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  I see. I'd like to keep it, since it's a definition, and an important one considering the context. Christine (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the paragraph starting "Instead of focusing on ...", there are a couple of sentences about the decisions of the producers and their objectives and then a sentence starting "Additionally, the seminars set forth ..." Were the first two sentences derived from the seminar proceedings too? If so, I'll have a go at rephrasing to make that a bit clearer; as it stands the "Additionally" sounds like a jump back to the previous paragraph.

  I agree that this paragraph didn't make the fact that all those things were a result of the seminars. I tweaked it a bit, and I think it does that now. Christine (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  That's much better. Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think the naming paragraph is a rather bitty and has some unnecessary direct quotes. What do you think of this: "The new show was called the "Preschool Educational Television Show" in promotional materials; the producers were unable to agree on a name they liked and waited until the last minute to make a decision. In a short, irreverent promotional film shown to public television executives, the producers parodied their "naming dilemma". The producers were reportedly "frantic for a title"; they finally settled on the name that they least disliked: Sesame Street, inspired by Ali Baba's magical phrase, although there were concerns that it would be too difficult for young children to pronounce. Stone was one of the producers who disliked the name, but, he said, "I was outvoted, for which I'm deeply grateful"."?

  Yes, that's much better. I can't tell you how much I struggled with this paragraph. There is so much detail out there about the naming process to summarize. Previous versions of this article listed every single choice they came up with, including the ones in the parody, which is in Old School, Vol. 1 and very hilarious. It shows how crucial they thought the name was. Personally, I think they came up with the right one. My severely developmentally disabled daughter can say it just fine, when she asks for it: "I want to go to Sesame Street." To that, I answer, "Yes, don't we all." ;) Christine (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

-- That's it for tonight; I have a couple of other things I need to get to. I will try to spend at least a little time on this every night this week. More tomorrow, unless you're sick of me. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments on "Use of research in production"

• 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)

• I think I was able to improve this paragraph. I would like to keep the Cooney quote, please, because it states what she thought of the CTW model, and that's too important to paraphrase. Personally, I think that one statement, from any other I've found about it, including what Lesser says, is the most important and most succinct way anyone involved with the show has described it. It's my second-fav Cooney quote. My first? What she said about the co-productions: "Our producers are like old-fashioned missionaries". And with a straight face, no less!

  Wow, I'm caught up; how did that happen? Take your time with the rest; I have a busy weekend coming up, so no hurries. And thanks! Christine (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  I tweaked that para a bit more; see what you think. Busy weekend here too -- two hours shoveling snow yesterday, and then a dinner party in the evening; and today is my wife's birthday. I think I can get some more done, though. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Second para I think has the same problem, and I think there's no need to say "The producers used research" at all, because that's what the paragraph itself says. Here's a draft rewrite: "The key insight for Sesame Street was that if you can capture and sustain children's attention, you can educate them; this meant that the show needed a strong appeal. Edward Palmer, CTW's first Director of Research and the man Cooney credited with building CTW's foundation of research, was one of the few academics in the late 1960s researching children's television. He was recruited by CTW to test if the curricula developed in the Boston seminars were reaching their audience effectively. Palmer was also tasked with designing and executing CTW's in-house research and with working with the Educational Testing Service (ETS). His research was so crucial to Sesame Street that Gladwell asserted, "...without Ed Palmer, the show would have never lasted through the first season"."

  I like it, but I further tweaked the first sentence: "The producers of Sesame Street believed that education through television was possible if they captured and sustained children's attention; this meant that the show needed a strong appeal." Christine (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I notice you sometimes use "CTW" and sometimes "the CTW"; wouldn't it be better to be consistent? Are the sources consistent?

  Actually, no, they are not. These days, since the name change, though, they tend to say, "the Workshop". It follows logically, then, that it should be "the CTW"; I'll go and change that now. Christine (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Premiere and first season

• 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)

  I think you're right. I tried to find an unobtrusive way to put this information in, and couldn't. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think that para has too many quotes, too. Here's a draft rewrite of the first three sentences: "Sesame Street premiered on November 10, 1969. It was widely praised for its originality, and, unusually, was well-received by parents as well as children." This loses "imagination", which I think is similar in intent here to "originality", so I think that's OK. I'm less sure about the second part of the paraphrase; Davis seems to be saying generally that parents approved, not that that was apparent immediately after the premiere. What do you think?

  My inclination is to include a lot of quotes when discussing the reviews, although I think that your version makes the Lesser quote unnecessary, so I like its removal. I also removed the word "unusually" because it disrupts the flow of the sentence and because the point is that the show was approved by all. Christine (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  OK; though I think variations in flow can be good for readability. But you're right that it's better without it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Third para: I looked at the original context of Frost's "It's a hit everywhere it goes"; I think Frost is really talking about the success of the show spreading beyond the American market. I think that should be cut from this paragraph. Looking down the article, I don't immediately see a discussion of the international versions, but perhaps the quote could be used later in the article?

  Ah, but I love that Frost quote; it gives credence to the reviews. I looked at the original context, too, and I think I disagree. Yes, Frost was talking about the international versions, but in the context of the success and effectiveness of something created in the US. Perhaps if we added the phrase, "David Frost, speaking about the versions of Sesame Street that began to be produced in other countries, stated that was 'a hit wherever it goes'." Or something like that. Christine (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  OK, you convinced me. I tweaked it a bit more; is that OK? Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, good. It's fine. One or both of us forgot the italics around the title, so I fixed. Christine (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• "An executive at ABC, while recognizing that Sesame Street was not perfect, said that the show "opened children's TV to taste and wit and substance" and "made the climate right for improvement". Other reviewers predicted that commercial television would be forced to improve their children's programming, something that did not immediately materialize." These two sentences bother me; I can only see snippets of Lesser in Google but since it's only dated 1975 I guess we can't say commercial TV never improved. How about inverting it, like this: "Some reviewers predicted that commercial television would be forced to improve their children's programming; and an ABC executive, while recognizing that Sesame Street was not perfect, said that the show "made the climate right for improvement". In the event the commercial stations made no attempt over the next few years to match Sesame Street's achievements."

  Mike, I'm a little confused, especially this last sentence. Did you want start your sentence with a preposition? At any rate, in my version, it does say, "...something that did not immediately materialize" to account for the early 1975 date. Perhaps I should bulk up the source with something from Morrow, since one of the main points of his book is that The Show failed to substantially improve children's programming on the networks. Christine (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  Is it bad to start a sentence with a preposition? I just thought that last clause wasn't smooth enough, and I don't like the imprecision of "not immediately", which I read as a way of saying "my source was only a few years later so maybe it did happen after 1975 but I don't have a source that says so". My rephrase was partly trying to make it smoother, and partly trying to make it more precise. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree; Lesser saying that "it never happened" in 1974 is much different than Morrow saying it in 2006. Morrow does say that Blue's Clues used parts of the CTW model, but I didn't think that a discussion of that show was appropriate in this article. Hence, the phrase. It better belongs in Influence of Sesame Street, I think. At any rate, I added the Morrow source to bulk up the assertion. Personally, I don't think Morrow goes far enough, but we're just here to summarize others' opinions, not give our own. Christine (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  OK, now I'm the one that's confused. I think you're saying that at least until Blue's Clues, in 1996, there was no improvement in commercial children's TV. Is that right? I still think "not immediately" is vague. I think it's good to add the more recent reference, but can't we use that to make the statement more definite? We could even mention Blue's Clues, if necessary, if just to say nothing improved "until Blue's Clues appeared in 1996". Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, it's probably because I was being unclear--again. I went back to Morrow, and he said that although there were burst of improvement here and there, it really didn't happen until the 1990s, with federal law that was passed in 1990 and the advent of Nickelodeon, which used part of the CTW model to produce shows like Blue's Clues. Morrow called Sesame Street the "parent" of those shows. See, that's interesting, but I don't think it belongs in this article. I suppose, to make the statement more definite, we could say something like, "Other reviewers predicted that commercial television would be forced to improve their children's programming, something that did not substantially occur until the 1990s." What do you think about that? Christine (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  That's definitely better, so I made the change. Something about that sentence still bothers me, but I'm not sure what it is; if I figure it out I'll tweak it again. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "New York Times Magazine reported that Sesame Street has endured criticism of its frenetic pacing, which was thought to induce epilepsy in its preschool audience." First, I'm pretty sure this is "New York Magazine", not the NYT magazine. Second, I tried to find the source of this and only got as far as The American school board journal, Volume 161, 1974, which has on p. 27 a snippet that seems to be about this, and The Neuropsychology of everyday life: issues in development and rehabilitation, by Tupper and Cicerone, which only refers to a 1985 paper but does so in very dismissive terms. I would like to make this criticism seem a little less mainstream, but it's hard to be precise without knowing what sources the reporter was using. How about: "Sesame Street was even accused at one time of inducing epilepsy in small children because of its rapid pacing"?

  I changed the sentence as you suggested, but there was another reference to the magazine that was incorrectly wikilinked. Thanks for the catch; it's now fixed. You know, I believe that I made a similar search for this epilepsy claim and came up with similar results, just because I was curious about its source. I wonder if it's one of the urban myths surrounding The Show, and this reporter recounted it as if it were fact. This is the only "reliable" source that mentions it. I wonder, then, if we should just cut it, or if it's an important enough criticism to keep. Christine (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I think we can include it, though I agree that in an ideal world you'd be able to trace the original. It's borderline, though; if you cut it I won't complain. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to explicitly attribute Lesser at the end of the criticism paragraph; plus that's a point that sets the timeframe for the previous comments, so it would do better at the top. How about making the first sentence: "Sesame Street was not without its detractors; there was little criticism of the show in the months following its premiere, but it increased at the end of its first season and beginning of the second season"?

  But I wanted to plug his book and the article I wrote! ;) You're right, of course, so I followed your suggestion. The plug's elsewhere, anyway, in Influence of Sesame Street. Christine (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  Striking my comment; not sure what you mean? Are you plugging this article or did you write another article that Lesser published? Confused again. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry again. That was an attempt at a joke, something I often fail. I was "plugging" both Lesser's book and the article I wrote about it, Children and Television. Christine (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments on 1970s

• 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)

• Also first para: can you cut "landmark" or find a synonym? What exactly is the intended meaning -- that the results were very important because they proved the benefits? If so, it's really just an intensifier because the second half of the sentence says that. If there are other connotations like "influential" or "much-cited" we can say that, but I'd like to avoid quoting a word here, since it doesn't seem to add much.

  Mike, I disagree. The word "landmark" is a common word to describe these kinds of studies, and I think that it needs to be quoted and sourced. I also think that what follows explains what it means and why they were so important. Christine (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  OK. I think you could cut the quotes, even if that's the word used in the source, but it's your call. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I take it that "gave Sesame Street its soul" is a quote from Davis; I think it looks a little odd detached from its author, especially with the other quotes all directly attributed. These all do need attribution; they're very personal opinions. I also don't like that very short sentence giving Frank Oz's opinion. How about: "Jon Stone, the producer [one of the producers?] was instrumental in guiding the show during these years. According to Davis, Stone "gave Sesame Street its soul"; without him "there would not have been Sesame Street as we know it". Frank Oz regarded Stone as "the father of Sesame Street", and Cooney considered him "the key creative talent" on the show, and "probably the most brilliant writer of children's material in America".

  Your version is much better, thanks for helping with the awkward phrasing. Christine (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• "As a result, his policies" -- I think you only need one or the other of these two phrases.

  Cut "as a result", a phrase I use way too much. Christine (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can you elaborate on the reason there was a conflict with the government? Why on earth wouldn't they deliver that cheque?

  Because they were big, bad, evil Republicans! At least that's the party line. It had more to do with philosophy about the role of government; you know, limited government vs not. A discussion that better fits on Fox News, not here. I think that the history of any entity on public television should at least have a mention about their conflict with federal funding, though. Again, the statement is sourced. Christine (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  I should have guessed. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• What's the value of the laudatory quote from Mike Dann, in the note? It's a pretty cool comment, but it seems a bit odd to attach it to the mention of his name. Do you think he is a significant enough figure that his praise of the CTW is important enough to mention? If so it might be more natural to place the note at the end of the sentence, by which time the reader knows he's joined the CTW, which gives context for his opinion.

  Ok, done. Christine (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think you can cut "Doreen Carvajal of The New York Times reported": Carvajal has no special status that makes her worth attributing.

  Got it. Christine (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  OK, but I actually think you can cut "The New York Times reported" too. I'll strike; up to you. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• You having "during this time" twice in a short span in the next paragraph.

  You're right! I changed the first instance to "in the 1970s" and cut the second one. Christine (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Matt Robinson created, as Davis called him, the "controversial" character Roosevelt Franklin" -- the parenthetical remark is a bit clumsy because it precedes what it comments on. How about 'Matt Robinson created the character "Roosevelt Franklin"', then a comma and a mention of the controversy?

  Is the clumsiness caused by the Davis attribution? If so, I cut it; it you think it's still clumsy, I can change it to follow your suggestion more closely. Christine (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  What I meant was that "as X says" usually follows the thing that X says, and when it doesn't it usually looks like this: "as X says, such and such is the case". Here the "as Davis says" applies only to the adjective in what follows, and the reader can only tell that's so because of the quotes. I think it's fine to attribute Davis here, but it was the sequence that was clumsy. How about "Matt Robinson created the "controversial" (as Davis calls him) character Roosevelt Franklin"? That's not great either, though, with the parenthesis between the adjective and the noun. Or how about "Matt Robinson created "Roosevelt Franklin", a controversial character, according to Davis"? I don't think you need the quotes around "controversial", but that would be fine too. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  I like the parenthesis version the best; tweaked for tense. Christine (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Opportunities opened up for "a new generation of performers and puppets" when Henson created The Muppet Show in 1975, which was filmed and produced in London, and brought many of his Muppet performers with him for the six years it was on the air." I think the embedded quote is distracting here, and in fact the following text says that it was existing performers who took the opportunity, not a new generation. How about "In 1975, Henson created The Muppet Show, which was filmed and produced in London; Henson brought many of the Muppet performers with him to London to work on the show"? Or does "new generation" mean that when all these people went to London, new opportunities opened up at Sesame Street?

  Yes, that is exactly what happened. I had so much trouble with this content, so thanks. I tweaked yours a bit more: "In 1975, Henson created The Muppet Show, which was filmed and produced in London; Henson brought many of the Muppet performers with him, so opportunities opened for new performers and puppets to appear on Sesame Street." Then I put the attribution at the end of the sentence. Is that okay? Christine (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Your change is just right. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• "songwriters ... were able to retain the rights": shouldn't this be "were allowed to"? "So" implies the causality runs in the other direction.

  Really? Ok, changed it. Christine (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence about "Sing" and "Somebody Come and Play" isn't cited at the end; I copyedited it a bit but wasn't sure what to do about that. I think one cite probably references the Carpenters factoid and the other is the authorship. Probably easiest to bundle them both at the end of the sentence.

  That's right. I put the factoid ref at the end, and then added one citing the authorship, both at the end of the sentence. Christine (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here's a redraft of the paragraph starting "In 1978, Stone and Singer produced and wrote ..."; see what you think. "In 1978, Stone and Singer produced and wrote the show's first special, the "triumphant" Christmas Eve on Sesame Street, including an O. Henry-inspired storyline in which Bert and Ernie gave up their prized possessions—Ernie his rubber ducky and Bert his paper clip collection—to purchase each other Christmas gifts. Bert and Ernie were played by Jim Henson and Frank Oz, who in real life were, like the puppets they played, colleagues and friends. To Davis this demonstrated the two puppeteers' remarkable ability to play "puppetry's Odd Couple". In Singer's opinion the special, which Stone also wrote and directed, demonstrated Stone's "soul", and Sonia Manzano called it a good example of what Sesame Street was all about. The special won an Emmy in 1971."

  That's much better. Beautiful job. Christine (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks! Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit misleading to state that "in May 1970, a state commission in Mississippi voted to not air the show" without mentioning that later the same month, the commission reversed itself. ref [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.34.255 (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments on 1980s

• 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)

• "By 1987, the show had earned $42 million" -- checking the source, this looks like an annual figure, not a total.

  That's right. Fixed.

• "They also decided to honor Lee's memory, who, as the episode's writer Norman Stiles stated, was "a man we respected and loved"." Now I'm going to be completely inconsistent and suggest you use more, rather than less, of this quote; I think this rephrase -- from "owed something to him" to "honor his memory" -- doesn't quite work. How about: "For the 1983 season, the show's producers and research staff decided that they would explain Mr. Hooper's death to their preschool audience, instead of recasting the role: the writer of that episode, Norman Stiles, said "we felt we owed something to a man we respected and loved".

  You are too funny. At least you're not inflexible, though. ;) I like your version better. Christine (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Non-aficionados aren't going to know that Mr. Snuffleupagus was never seen by cast members other than Big Bird prior to the episode in which he is "revealed"; I think a quick explanatory comment would be helpful here.

  What, you mean not everyone knows about this? That's unbelievable! ;) No, seriously, you're right, of course. BTW, one of my favorite stills from The Show, which is in Gikow, is of the "reveal". The facial expressions of the adults looking at Snuffy is priceless. Then this season, there's a hilarious episode in which Bird is allergic to Snuffy and Snuffy sneezes all over the place. I love Snuffy, but I digress. ;) Christine (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Comments on 1990s

• 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)

• Does the Davis quote to lead off this section add anything? Could we cut it and change the second sentence to say "during the 1990s" instead of "during this period"?

  I'd like to keep it, if we could. I think the statement is accurate about the 90s, and it's a good summary of all the events that occurred. Christine (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  OK; I see your point. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the note material on Zoe seems worth bringing into the main article. How about: "The character Zoe was created to include another female Muppet on the show: her personality—spunky and fearless—was intended to be a break from female stereotypes"?

  Ok. I did that, but tweaked your version a bit: "The character Zoe was created to include another female Muppet on the show: her spunky and fearless personality was intended break female stereotypes." Christine (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• "the creation of Abby Cadabby, who was created": can you avoid "creation" so close to "created"?

  Yes, I can! Changed to "developed". Christine (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  Looks like you didn't actually make this edit; but in fact the previous sentence has both "developed" and "development" so I think a different paraphrase would be better. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the mention of the dismantling of the "Around the Corner" set be next to the previous material about it, instead of having the sentences about Zoe and Abby Cadabby in between?

  This is an instance where I knew what I meant but didn't state it clearly. "Around the Corner" was dismantled, but Zoe survived, which is why the line about it being dismantled went after Zoe and Abby. After putting the note as you requested into the main content, it needed some major changes. Go look and tell me what you think, please. Christine (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  Much improved; I think that's fine. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Could you give the season date for the "Elmo's World" segment debut? It's clearly after 1999 but since you're not being strictly chronological in this section I think it would help to specify it.

  Ok, added "Beginning in 1999," to the beginning of the sentence. I'm glad you're ok with the discussion about Elmo. I resisted putting so much about him there; I secretly resent the little guy because I suspect my kids love him more than me. ;) But it had to go in, especially the information about his development, and since the 90s was when he really took off, it needed to go in this section. How Kevin Clash, someone I'd really like to meet, got to play him is such a cool story. Christine (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  Not having grown up watching Sesame Street, I don't have really strong opinions about the character, but I was highly amused to discover a few years ago that there are partisans out there who feel Elmo is a Johnny-come-lately, and that Grover is far superior in every way. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  That's true! I just find Elmo so annoying; as I always say, "A little of Elmo goes a long way." But then I see my kids' reaction to him and forgive him. My take on it is that the reason Grover's not as much of a hit with kids is that Grover isn't their age. Elmo is a three-year old, and they relate to him more. Plus, there's that high voice of his, which is also much like their voice. Clash understood that, which is why he could perform the character more effectively than the three puppeteers before him, including Richard Hunt, who was a genius and hated Elmo. Christine (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on 2000s

• 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)

• "winning the outstanding children's series award twelve times, each year of its presentation": does this mean that

the award was only presented in that category twelve times, and Sesame Street won every time? If so, how about this paraphrase: "By 2006, Sesame Street had won more Emmys than any other children's show, including winning the outstanding children's series award for twelve consecutive years—every year the Emmys included the category."

• Yes, that's exactly what that means. Your version is so much better, thanks. Christine (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Last para: how about "The 2008–2009 recession, which led to budget cuts for many nonprofit arts organizations, severely affected Sesame Street ..."?

  Yours is better, of course. Christine (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on remaining sections

• Footnote 5: 'As one of the first female executives in American television, Cooney's appointment was called "one of the most important television developments of the decade"': this needs a rephrase: Cooney's appointment wasn't one of the first female executives; Cooney was.

  You're right! Changed to: "Cooney was one of the first female executives in American television; her appointment was called "one of the most important television developments of the decade". Christine (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Footnote 11 is just a reference; shouldn't it be in notes?

  No, it shouldn't, it's not just a note. To clarify, I added: "For a detailed discussion about Sesame Street's first cast, see Davis..." Christine (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• There's a space after the em dash in the title of Gikow's book; is that a mistake or are you reproducing the style of her title?

  It's an error; thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, does this mean we're done? Can I resubmit now, or at least after I add the one piece of content I need to add? Whew! Thanks so much for your help, Mike! As Abby Cadabby would say, "Ya-hoo! Wing-whack!" ;) But I need to know: what is your opinion about the images here? After they were decimated at FAC, I suggested that this article have no images, because I'm inclined to think that the few that are here now (and I suspect more will be gone during its second nom) aren't enough. I'd rather have no images than just a couple sub-standard ones. Do you think that an article with no images would pass at FAC? Or is that something for the reviewers to collaborate about? Christine (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're very close; there's one unstruck issue, I think, plus the Sesame Workshop sourcing you say you have in hand. I just read through again and did some minor copyediting; please undo anything I screwed up. I'd say renominate whenever you're ready. As for images, well, three of the pics are OK, aren't they? I can see why you'd like to have more screenshots, but the ones that are CC 2.0 or public domain at least give you something. I wouldn't worry about it too much; if you really think that an image adds important information for a reader, then put it in, and see what happens at FAC. You have enough images to drop all the fair use ones and be fine, though, so don't worry about it. I should add I'm not an image expert though I do know FAC fairly well.

You've done a fabulous job on this article, and it's been a pleasure working on it with you. Thanks for your patience with my picky comments. I look forward to seeing the finished version at FAC. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, it's been a pleasure as well. It has been fun, even though the editing got tedious at times. So much of WP editing can be tedious, though. I appreciate that you had enough patience to give this article a thorough review, which is needed. I also realize that this is a long and complicated article, but I think the end result is a high-quality, well-written, and well-researched article that has come closer to what the subject matter deserves. I think that I'll leave the images as is and see what happens at FAC. It would be great if the SW comes through and gives us permission to use their images, but I'm not holding my breath. And I'll add the content about their name change in the next couple of days and then re=submit it! Christine (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Who's Cannell? The name is mentioned once, not wikified, in the July 1969 section as if the person had already been introduced, but it is the only appearance of the name in the article. The ref is to a non-web-accessible book. Is it Stephen J. Cannell? 2600:6C52:7B00:3FC8:3CF4:F6C7:356C:8628 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it's David Connell, who has been wikified in this article. It was either a typo or due to the vandalism that has plagued this article for years. At any rate, I have fixed it. Thanks for the catch. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Elmo saved Sesame Street

That Elmo saved Sesame Street is oddly missing. Michael Davis (Street Gang: The Complete History of Sesame Street) at the Commonwealth Club talked about how Zoe was a marketing group character creation to raise MONEY that utterly failed; and after Jim Henson's death the entire production was at jeopardy because Henson owned the rights to all his creations. It was the need to buy the licenses for all the characters that drove the efforts to raise funds. Luckily, Elmo, who was not intended as a revenue generator, through the television pushing by talk show host Rosie O'Donnell during the Christmas toy season, became the hot ticket with Tickle Me Elmo saving Sesame Street. Sales of his merchandise taught Sesame Street folk to shoot for quality first and sales would follow well crafted characters; the revenue also gave them the funds to buy up all the licenses.

Davis also talked about the remarkable ability to change and to meet the audience needs, his example of the first major lesson to the producers was the introduction of Jason Kingsley. His mom was a writer on the show and as a young mother had been told to give up on him as he had Down syndrome. She didn't and the company ended up having him on for dozens of appearances.

Sesame Street's three part series explaining war changing families "Coming Home: Military Families Cope with Change" uses Elmo and Rosita, along with celebrities Queen Latifah and John Mayer, to explore issues of parental injuries with children. The film also aims to help parents more effectively communicate with their children. One is deployment - uprooting a mom or a dad for an extremely long period of time for them; then multiple deployments and then dealing with when mom or dad comes back different or not at all. One of the Workshop films depicts five families with a parent returning from war with either a visible (arm or leg amputation) or an invisible (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury) wound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusadercrusher (talk • contribs) 06:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Crusader. I addressed some of these concerns back when you first brought them up in Ocober, especially in regards to Davis' speech.[2] Davis never says that Elmo saved The Show in his book. Give me sources for the other things, and I'll include them, including the information about Zoe, which as I've said before, really should go in her article.

You might notice that much has changed since October; this article is FA and Sesame Street is GA, and Human characters in Sesame Street is FL, where Jason is mentioned. I think that you may be correct that more information needs to be included about him, perhaps in the "Writing" subsection of the parent article. Let me think about that. You're right, the SW's outreach to military families should be addressed more in an SS article. The best place is Sesame Workshop, which definitely needs work. Remember, I'm the only one who seriously works on these articles (and there are lots of them), but right now, I'm a little burnt out on 'em. I'm sure I'll return in the near future. Christine (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the reply. I'll look more to see if his comments about Elmo in particular are stated or if the Commonwealth speech is on video somewhere (they must record them if they air them?!) With Jason he probably should have his own article.([3], [4], [5], [6]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusadercrusher (talk • contribs) 00:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, you're welcome. Second, please sign your posts! ;) If you could find the Commonwealth speech, that would be great. It would probably be very helpful to include the information. Understand, though, that as Davis himself has said, you could move everything that's been written about the show (well, he said it about the studies that have been conducted) away in a forklift. Encyclopedias are a summary of the most important sources, not a remuneration of it all. Also, thanks for the information about Jason; didn't know that he had written a book, which is very cool. You're right, he should have his own article. Hey, why don't you go ahead and write it? I will assist. As Grover would say, I challenge you, sir! ;) Christine (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Pre-production

I put the pre-production in a new article, Production of Sesame Street, but it was reverted and put back in here. This article is big; we need a discussion on what to do. Georgia guy (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The above links back to this article, so when did you create the new article? I agree that this is a big article, but its length was never brought up in its FAC. Some subjects, like this one, lend themselves to large articles. IOW, if the topic of an article is huge, like Sesame Street, some of its articles will be large. If we were to fork some of its sections to create new articles, though, I'd prefer that it be called "Beginnings of Sesame Street" because your title implies a discussion about the process of current production. We would also need to summarize the new article here; it's not enough to remove a portion of an article and create a new article out of it. Christine (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I created it yesterday. Clicking on it will re-direct here because someone merged it back in. Please click on the title in the "Re-directed from title" phrase and then click on history. Georgia guy (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything has to be done with this article to shorten it. Give readers some credit. --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How long do you think this article will be by this time next year if no sections are split?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably not too much longer than it already is unless a trove of published sources expands fivefold on the topics covered in this article. --Moni3 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is 76KB right now. Can you find any arguments that support that it will always be less than 100KB?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's 41kb in prose. You're also counting the footnotes and citations. This is a Featured Article, which means it has gone through rigorous peer reviews linked at the top of this page, to assure that it is comprehensive and well-written (see WP:WIAFA). Featured Articles are often lengthy compared to other articles of lesser quality with obvious deficiencies. For perspective, check out the list of Featured Articles by size.

Let's not make problems of events that have yet to transpire. --Moni3 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Moni. As the main editor of this article, and the one who successfully brought it through the FAC process, I can attest to its comprehensiveness. Troves have been written about The Show and its history, and as this article currently stands, takes all of them into consideration. I can see this article becoming longer at The Show's 50th anniversary, but let's cross that bridge as it approaches, if we'll all alive at that point. Christine (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Preschool

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Possible sources

Courtesy of Smithsonian Magazine:

• Greene, Bryan (2019-11-07). "The Unmistakable Black Roots of 'Sesame Street'". Smithsonian Magazine. - Available at GetPocket

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)