Talk:Sid the Science Kid

The beginning of this article is incorrect. Sesame Street was not PRODUCED by the Jim Henson Company. It was produced by the Children's Television Workshop (now known as Sesame Workshop). Jim Henson created the muppets, but the Jim Henson Company was not the producer. This is a common, but incorrect perception. --Itsshashi (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)^[1]

I can't seem to be able to add the following image to this article. File:SidtheScienceKid Logo.jpg Could someone please explain why? Thank you. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What I had posted was directly about the article, the missing "episode". We won't be improving wikipedia's reputation if we keep doing these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 03:04, August 20, 2017 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Improvements to the article require reliable sources. "Swaggy Thunder" on YouTube is not a reliable source. That he is "tripped out, yo" by the basics of the show and was sucked in by some other YouTube user's now deleted fake episode has not attracted the attention of anyone. The link includes images that are copyright violations (either because they are taken from a copyrighted show or (far more likely) they are taken from a faked episode which is itself a copyright violation).

There is nothing to discuss here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

If by "Random youtuber's faked episode" you mean an official channel by the people who made Sid the Science Kid, (Jim Henson TV) you would be correct. http://web.archive.org/web/20170127075424/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSX7C6jUq8c Do more research next time, wiki admin. Also, nice job just immediately discrediting content because "he said some dummy words, lol". That just isn't professional. I guess you didn't pay attention to the part that has the studio that worked on the show in frame? http://i.imgur.com/L5kBnIb.png They are obviously staring at someone low on the ground, and the model used for sid is the exact one from the show. I don't know how some "random youtuber" would have somehow got ahold of the same model of the actual show creators.

Your original comment referred to "Swaggy Thunder"'s YouTube at . It refers to the "original episode" at which has no account associated with it and has now been taken down. That leaves your original comment exactly where I found it: "Swaggy Thunder" vamping about something he saw on a now removed page.

Your new comment gives an archive link to the page "Swaggy Thunder" links to (). The video in question is not available. The page, prior to being removed, claimed to be from "Jim Henson TV", though their description page is in a mixture of English and Japanese. Their legitimate channel seems to be "The Jim Henson Company". Content on YouTube about "Sid the Science Kid" with the mix of English and Japanese now appears under "Ouchi-Eigo Channel" whose "about" page is blank. Yes, I see various photos shown by "Swaggy Thunder" and his explanation as to what accompanied them. Swaggy is not a reliable source. (A quick check of Facebook this morning shows a photo of yesterday's solar eclipse "from NASA" showing the eclipse on the horizon, over the ocean, with a reflection of a pink sunset in the water and clouds behind the eclipse. How that photo is possible is a mystery, but there is no way anyone could fake such a thing and attribute it incorrectly to NASA.)

This leaves us with an archive link to a removed YouTube account claiming to be "Jim Henson Family TV" for a video (that we cannot see) title "Sid the Science Kid: Where Did I Come From " described as "A behind the scenes look at the creation of Sid the Science Kid." Searching the wider web for the supposed episode, I find a number of sites offering a ... um ... "flavorful" mix of material, much of it of dubious quality and/or in apparent violation of copyright. All of them have missing videos, as if they had been served take down notices.

Your only source here is "Swaggy Thunder". There is nothing to discuss. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If you did any further research, you would realise that those websites are nothing more than sites that rip videos straight off of youtube and host them on their website, and if you looked slightly further, you'd realise that the videos are also completely gone because they were also hosted on the official Jim Henson website. The fact you are willing to do no more research than look at something at face value really makes me question your motives here. And are you really going to say that a video archived on archive.org is not source enough that the video existed, and on a very plausible channel, seeing it is the same name as the creator of the show, (Jim Henson TV) and it was posted May 2nd 2013, far before any of the "memes" of the show sprung into popularity, and it coincides with the last year of the show's running (2013) and only 2 months after the last episode, a perfect time for the creators to lift the veil on the show. As well as this, there are several other BTS videos on the Jim Henson Youtube channel, such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6Qdvvb1UTs which would also imply that they would create something like this. And I am not sure why you are implying that the name of the person who had made the reaction to the video is discredited immediately because their name is "Swaggy Thunder". And you continue to avoid the prospect that the models are the exact same as the show, and the set shown in the screenshots on his video is the same exact one as the show, and the models are all the same. How would someone have made everything down to the last detail, as well as faked the set where they made all the episodes? You didn't even acknowledge the image that shows the team that created the video. The Youtube channel that uploaded the video that Thunder reacted to also had paid content: http://web.archive.org/web/20140428172947/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdDk0wzlLnGqd191zJlh7gg and multiple other very official-looking uploads. Paid content in 2014 on Youtube would have been pretty hard to get if you are not a proven corporation. Youtube Red did not begin until relatively recently.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 21:48, August 22, 2017 (UTC)

Let's try a shortcut here: Without reliable sources, there is nothing to discuss. What reliable source(s) are you proposing to use to add ... um ... whatever it is you want to add? We'll start with just that: Identify the reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

An archived official webpage is not enough, and fully rendered screengrabs aren't either. I don't care about what wikipedia's admins have arbitrarily described as "reliable". When you have evidence right in your face, and you ignore it, that is a bad decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The archived page doesn't seem to be official. The screengrabs are apparent copyright violations from an unreliable source ("Swaggy Thunder"). Do you have even one reliable source that says anything? If you don't care about our policies on reliable sources, you have nothing to discuss here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Copyright violations" Apparently, if these are faked, you think that it means they are "copyright violations", even though they would directly fall under parody. Strike one. "Not reliable source" an archive.is page that had paid content in 2014 is apparently not reliable, with tons of uploads of episodes from Jim Henson TV shows and the like. Strike two. "You have nothing to discuss here" after you just keep avoiding most of the things I have mentioned here. Strike three. It's pretty obvious you won't listen to anything I say unless it's from NBC or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Back to the shortcut: We cannot use the unreliable source. We cannot verify that the site the archive is from is reliable. It does not say anything useful in any case.

If you have other sources that you feel are reliable, please present them. If you feel any of the others are reliable, you will need to take them to the reliable sources noticeboard. Other than that, we seem to be done here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

http://adage.com/article/digital/youtube-set-introduce-paid-subscriptions-spring/239437/ I'd say this is verification enough. You had to submit applications to YT for paid content, and they had to screen your channel. That's no fake Jim Henson TV. Also, "we cannot verify the site the archive is on is reliable" It's archive.org. They've been around since the 90's and all it does it save pages on websites that don't block it with robots.txt. It's a bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not mean archive.org is not reliable.

Back to the shortcut: To have anything to add, you need a reliable source that says something useful. Very simply say, "I would like to add 'Roses are red'. My reliable source is www.flowercolors.com/roses." If the site doesn't say it, it doesn't matter if it's reliable or not. If the site isn't reliable, it doesn't matter what it says. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, concerned editor here. This article, to be perfectly honest, sucks. There has got to be a higher standard of writing. Reading through this was awful. It describes on character as an "Asian" with "really bad far vision." I know this is just a crappy PBS Kids show but really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Trip Fix (talk • contribs) 01:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)