Jump to content

Talk:Leave It to Beaver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MER-C (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 23 December 2022 (remove extra header). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Leave It To Iguana

I read that in the Philippines they call the show "Leave It To Iguana," because a beaver isn't common there. Any truth to that? 99.180.245.100 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Lauralei[reply]

The Toilet Rumor

I know Wikipedia's not supposed to be for original research and independent fact checking, but although the story that the first episode's airing was held up because of its showing a toilet or portion thereof is properly referenced, it is not credible, and it originates long after the alleged fact and at a time when it would've made sense for interested parties to get publicity that would help DVD sales. It doesn't really matter what the rumors said, just that they be enough to keep people talking about the show.

The production code numbers were out of order as the episodes aired, but so were many others, and it would be easy to make up stories about any of them to account for these apparent discrepancies. Given how easy it is to find examples on network TV of toilets for many years preceding that episode -- for example, the first TV commercial for Ajax from 1947 -- let alone other bathroom fixtures, it simply strains credulity that network standards and practices would've had a problem with a toilet or its tank per se.

I'd delete the whole passage, but I don't know whether Wikipedia readers are about truth or would be just as satisfied with factoid, i.e. the fact that an allegation was made by a certain person at a certain time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.229.110 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


To go in the "Episodes" section when completed

Opening credits

Season one: The characters aren't shown. A drawing of a street, viewed from above, displays the credits in wet concrete.

Season two: Ward and June, standing at the bottom of the stairs, see the boys off to school as they come down the stairs and exit the front door.

Season three: Ward and June enter the boys' bedroom to wake them up.

Season four: Ward and June open the front door and stand on the stoop. As Wally, followed by Beaver, leave the house, en route to school, June hands them their lunches and Ward their jackets.

Season five: The men are out in the front yard, and June brings out refreshments. This must have been introduced mid-season in one of the latter two seasons.

Season six: June, carrying a picnic basket, exits the front door and walks towards the car. Ward, carrying another item for the picnic, is next, followed in quick succession by Wally. Beaver, lagging behind, runs out, slamming the door behind him, and joins his family in the car. Ward, with June in the passenger seat and the boys in back, then reverses toward the camera. - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few corrections. The picnic open (also the only one not to use the Season 1 theme) was for the final season. Season 5's open was the one with the guys working in the yard.
As for the Pine Street house, that was probably used to display the production credits for both Seasons 5 and 6. WAVY 10 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses

The article is currently suffering from a serious bout of both past and present tenses, which makes for a poor read. Hopefully this can be corrected. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaargh

Is it just me or has this article become disastrously overgrown with trivia? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding of Actors' Names

Let's not bold actors' names in the "Characters and cast" sections. Bolding was done once before and removed. There are no examples in the TV shows Featured Articles (that I could find) for bolding actors' names nor is there any indication in the MOS for bolding actors' names. Discuss here! Thanks! MayfieldForever (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's done in WP:MOSFILM. If you don't want bolding, then it should be removed from the character names as well. It looks odd to do it for one and not the other. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree – it looks neater to my eyes. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I appear to be a minority of one in feeling that this is getting further and further away from a good article, I'll stop editing here. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity?

Is ethnicity really a show SIGNATURE element? Just wondering, and I'm probably wrong. Lazylaces (Talk to me 01:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to the following content:
Characters are nearly uniformly white and middle-class. Only one African-American had a speaking role; in 1963, Kim Hamilton played a maid in episode 212, "The Parking Attendants." Five years earlier, a show featured a Hispanic family, as Alan Roberts Costello played Roberto "Chuey" Varella, a friend and weekend house guest of the Beaver in 1959's "Beaver and Chuey." The friend spoke only Spanish, leading to a cruel Eddie Haskell prank. On occasion, when the plot line called for it, visitors would be from the lower working class, such as the visit of Andy the drunken handyman described above, and 1959's "The Grass is Always Greener," in which Beaver visits the garbage man's children who in turn visit the Cleavers. Wally visited the other side of the tracks once, to visit Eddie's apartment in "Eddie Quits School" (1962), and finds the low-rent district replete with tire-less cars at curbside, poorly maintained lawns and television's never-fail indicator of the lower classes, crooked shutters.

The episode in which Eddie moves to his own apartment is called Bachelor At Large, it is NOT the episode called Eddie Quits School!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.92.37 (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

which has been added and deleted a couple of times since June. How do others feel about retaining this material? My own feeling is that it adds valuable perspective, but that it needs to be sourced; also, I tend to agree with User:Lazylaces above that it probably doesn't belong in the "signature show elements" section. --Tkynerd (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like original research; it looks like original research; and until someone can source it, it is original research. --Yano (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I wish I lived in that simple a world. Lack of sources does not equal original research. On WP:OR, we can read this: Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. This does not mean that every unsourced statement on Wikipedia is original research. If what you're saying is "keep it out of the article until it can be sourced," that's perfectly reasonable, but your invoking WP:OR with only a subjective basis for doing so makes it hard to take your argument seriously. --Tkynerd (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to qualify that last clause to say "effectively" original research -- meaning in how we should treat it. Just the same, the text in question reads like an essay, and even were it sourced, it does not appear encyclopedic in its current form. Were it included, I would attribute it and place it under its own heading, "Criticism." --Yano (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I don't see it as unencyclopedic at all; my main complaint about it is that it appears to present characteristics that were pretty typical of sitcoms during that period as if they were unique to Leave It to Beaver. I don't know whether the details of the characterization are correct or not (and I'm particularly inclined to want sources for statements like the one that only one African-American ever had a speaking role in the show), but if it's true and can be sourced, I think it belongs in the article, as long as it's made clear that this kind of presentation of minorities and poor people was very typical then. --Tkynerd (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the passage should stay--it is of great interest to people who study the series as an indicator of social attitudes. It's not some untested theory that the OR rules warn against--it's basid description documented with the series episodes, so that anyone can check it out. Rjensen (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The show itself is the source for the ethnicity of the actors. Anyone can refute the statements if they find somebody "of color", not mentioned. Only statements that can't be checked by watching, like "the writers were all racists", would qualify as OR. FlailingEnglish (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver's name

Beaver's given name is Theodore; "Beaver" is an obvious rhyming nickname. However, one doesn't have to have a particularly dirty mind to know what "beaver cleaver" actually means. Could the creators been that naive? I've never seen this seriously addressed.

I also remember them stating (though I have no reference) that one of the program's points was to show how adults and children misunderstand each other. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Theodore was called 'Beaver' was revealed in the very last show. When Theodore was brought home from the hospital as an infant, Wally was a young boy. He had problems pronouncing "Theodore." It came out sounding like "Beaver", so over time, the nickname stuck.

Yes, according to Ward, when Wally said "Theodore" it came out "Tweedor"...and they thought "Beaver was better." 71.162.113.226 (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leave It to Beaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Leave It to Beaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

first finale

article reads: The series finale, "Family Scrapbook" ... is regarded as being one of the first sitcom episodes written expressly as a series finale.[2]

I don't understand why you use such weaselly qualifications as "regarded as being" and "one of the first." What you should say is: "...is the first..." period.

"Regarded" means most, but not all, people think so. So why do some people think it's not one of the first?

And "one of the first"? Well, considering there were only 3 prime time finales in the entire decade of the 1960s (The Fugitive and The Prisoner being the others), yeah, Beaver is one of those, but it is also the first of those...do you know of one earlier? Howdy Doody was the first TV show of any kind with a finale, September 1960. Why do you always have to be so unsure of things? 71.162.113.226 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know a lot, except that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. - Seasider53 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there wasn't a prime time finale prior to Beaver, I can't know that there was, no matter how much I know.

And yes, I do know that wiki can be edited by people who don't know what they're talking about. Or at least who sound like they don't.

Although upon further reflection, you're suggesting I change it? Well, my experience with wiki is mixed. Some obscure things I've corrected and they've stayed corrected. But other, more prominent things let's say, have been changed back rather quickly by the gatekeepers. My best experiences have been when I point out a mistake, somebody looked into it and found it to be true, changed it, and told me: Good catch, thanks. 

71.162.113.226 (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright was added and the page is gone, but no talk page here on the issue. I am sure the whole page is not a copyright problem. Please tell us what the problem is? What part? "Large amounts of content written by ILT socks". What part? All? Where was the text taken from ?Telecine Guy (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the page was gone. I undid this because there is no basis for the removal of the page. You are correct the whole page is not copyright problem. If that is the case then the majority of pages on Wikipedia are in violation. Liam74656 (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor should have cited the specific example(s) of copyright violation. Blanking out the entire article instead of the relevant part(s) also seems to be excessive. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just left a message on the talk page of the editor who blanked the article, asking them to please come to this talk page and point out the specific copyright violations(s). SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Telecineguy, Liam74656, and SquirrelHill1971: The majority of the entire article's content was written in 2008 by MayfieldForever, a sockpuppet of ItsLassieTime, the subject of a currently open CCI. WP:PDEL states the following: If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed that all of their major contributions are likely to be copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately. This is especially the case for contributors who have active copyright investigation cases. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 19:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. This presents quite a conumdrum about what we can do to fix the article. Do we look at the history edit by edit to see what's good and what's not? Or do we rewrite the entire article from scratch? Or some other possibility? For future reference, please always leave such a message on the talk page whenever you blank out such a large amount of content. Thank you. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose at the very least we roll the page back to how it was before the first ItsLassieTime edit. The first one I can find was by sockpuppet TimmyTruck on 7 December 2007‎. The article would obviously lose a TON of content, but I think anything would be better than this copyright template. Thoughts? BuckeyeSmithie (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dudhhr, you can’t just blank out an entire page without trying to fix the claimed problem. Either restore the page or Fix it. Dave Dial (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't see any responses to my proposal 2 days ago, so I'm going to be bold and roll back the article to its last state before any MayfieldForever or TimmyTruck edits, which would be 20 October 2007. It pains me to obliterate 15 years of article improvements, but it's got to better than this big old copyright template. BuckeyeSmithie (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started work on improving the article from the 2007 version. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MER-C 18:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leave_It_to_Beaver&oldid=1129127153"