Talk:The Smurfs

• /Archive 1 Archive with all discussions until the end of 2007

Massive reworking to bring this to GA or even FA

I would like to seriously rework this page, with the final intention to bring it up to Featured Article by the time of the 50th anniversary (i.e. October 23th 2008). My intent is to fork this page into three or four pages (plus keeping this main page of course). I believe we need separate pages for The Smurfs (comics), The Smurfs (Hanna-Barbera series), The Smurfs (music) and The Smurfs (merchandising) (names are only suggestions, something like The Smurfs (collectibles) may do as well).

This page would present an overview of the "history" of the Smurfs (the real world history, that is), with sections on the comics, the movies, the animated series, the spin-offs (music, advertising and other merchandising), and the status of the Smurfs as cultural icons. It would also contain a description of the Smurf "universe" (like it does now), describing the in-universe aspects (timeframe, briefly some characters, language, ...). The sections would have pointers to the forked articles of course.

Things I would remove from the current article are the list of albums (to the article on the comics), the list of voice actors, released DVD's and music used in the animations (to the HB article), the list of translations (these can be found through the interwiki links), and the trivia section (everything which can be sourced and is deemed significant enough would be integrated in the "cultural icons" sections, all the rest deleted). Severely reduced would be the sections on figurines, theme parks and video games (moved to the merchandising article). The rest would be kept but rewritten (where needed).

This would hopefully create a more concise, balanced, well-sourced article, with room for all details in the subarticles where needed (e.g. the Smurfs Hanna-Barbera series really deserves a separate article, as does the phenomenon of the Smurfs music from Father Abraham on).

I plan on forking these articles in the next few weeks, if there is a consensus (or lack of opposition). Better proposals, tweaks, ... are obviously more than welcome, as is any help (in writing, layouting, and sourcing). There is more than enough info available to turn this into one (or more) good and featured articles, but it will take some work! Fram (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems a good plan. And a massive bit of work. Are you suggesting that this The Smurfs namespace be a simple DAB page, or a main overview article that is to be separate from The Smurfs (comics), because I'd think these aren't split apart so easily. Otherwise, spreading the many different topics feels right. MURGH ^disc. 15:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be the main article, separate from the Smurfs (comics) page, but of course including a section on the comics. All the details of the comics go to the (comics) subpage, but some main points stay here as well. Fram (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

simple corrections needed

Under the subject "SMURFS", section 6, "Others", subsection 4 (6.4 to be exact) title heading "Others" two spelling errors were found. The errors are located together on the third sentence. The text contains the errors "How ever theire". See the copied text from that page below. Did not edit the page because of concerned responsabilty if errored in any application while editing. Just wanted to let someone know it was there. You have done an outstanding job of really keeping up with all this information.

Sincerely, Kayleen Welsbacher --Welsbacher (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've actually removed the entire paragraph for being nonsense, on closer inspection. Welcome to Wikipedia, and be bold! --McGeddon (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

References In Popular Culture

Shouldn't there be a section for this in the article? I know the smurfs are referenced in a number of different places and there would have to be enough information to form a solid section. Off the top of my head I know Robot Chicken did a sketch about them and the main character in Donnie Darko had an infamously long rant about them in one scene.Yoshi thomas (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and deleted it yesterday - with a couple of exceptions (which I moved into other sections), I couldn't see anything in there that was more than "in one scene of a film or TV show, someone mentions Smurfs". I don't believe that the Donnie Darko scene is particularly "infamous", but I'll stand corrected if there are secondary sources commenting on it.

Maybe there's potential for a general paragraph about Smurfette and the jokes made about her, as it seems to be the only recurring theme in cultural references. --McGeddon (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think that section should be part of the article even if it is only references or jokes. Thats what should be in a pop culture section and I've always liked those parts of articles. No offense but if you removed all the references in pop culture sections that only included one-time jokes or alternate appearances, there wouldn't be any left. I won't put the section back though unless other people agree with me. If everyone thinks the article is better the way it is now than that's great. Yoshi thomas (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The minimum that should be done before putting it back is referencing. All non referenced mentions should be left out as unverifiable and not really notable as well. Fram (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Urban Legends

Are the Smurf urban legends, especially among Jehovah's Witnesses, worthy of note?

• http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=9555
• http://wikibin.org/articles/smurf-conspiracy-theories.html
• http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/experiences/123185/1/SCARY-actually-hilarious-JW-Urban-Legends-smurf-content
• http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:nRjewK0fCvwJ:answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3Fqid%3D20080729103848AApj0FU+jehovah%27s+witnesses+smurfs&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.36.191 (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Smurfs Movie , External Link Suggestion

Hello, I want to suggest adding my site about the upcoming movie - "The Smurfs" , since there is no official site for this movie I think that my site can do the work (temporary), site includes all updated information about the movie, and I will extend it in the near future. The address is: http://www.thesmurfs.info/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.109.215 (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, your site has far too much advertising and far too little original information to meet the requirements of WP:EL. --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Its a Smurf world

Smurfs are real you got to believe me they talk to me all the time especially in my sleep seriously this is not something to joke about they are REAL!!!! except when i see them they are normally green not blue the guy who made the show really messed up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.150.105 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Papa smurfs a pimp!

Papa smurf is awsome but isn't he kind of a pimp? Common if you have so many kids you have created a village thats just not normal. I mean he has so many kids what else does he have time for other than making more? Doesn't papa smurf show any remorse to momma smurf? =[

icu Bonkyo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.96.23 (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• He is not their father (his original is "Grand Schtroumpf", which means "Big Smurf", not "Father". Klow (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

North Carolina Department of Corrections

In the North Carolina Department of Corrections, Officers, who wear a light blue shirt (which will change in 2009), are called Smurfs by the prison inmates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.173.238 (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Smurf language

The obfuscation of language through the global search and replace of nouns with smurf seems to be more characteristic of European (FR, NL) smurf cartoons, and not the English version. This section should be clearer on the matter. --Belg4mit (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Marxism and Feminism vs. The Smurfs

Maybe it's worth paying some attention to some interpretations of The Smurfs?

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/1/28/karlMarxAndPapaSmurfSeparatedAtBirth http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=174624 http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Cinema/3117/sociosmurf2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.202.80 (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of the german wiki is suggesting just the opposite, the smurfs are hooded like the KKK and submissively follow their leader, they believe to be infallible… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.94.17 (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe both interpretations/theories are worth mentioning? Donald Duck for example was viewed as capitalist by cultural studies professor Ariel Dorfman.

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Parody on the taalstrijd...?

'In Schtroumpf vert et vert Schtroumpf, published in Belgium in 1972, it was revealed that the village was divided between North and South, and that the Smurfs on either side had different ideas as to whether the term "smurf" should be used as a verb or as a noun: for instance, the Northern Smurfs call a certain object a "bottle smurfer", while the Southern Smurfs call it a "smurf opener". Papa Smurf himself kept out of the argument, having more important things on his mind. But when the conflict led to all-out war, he had to use desperate measures to restore the natural smurf order. This story is considered a parody on the still ongoing taalstrijd (language war) between French- and Dutch-speaking communities in Belgium.[6]

Surely the whole concept is a parody. You can't tell me that "schtroumpf" is French-sounding. Surely it represents the incomprehensible (to Francophone ears) Flemish borrowings punctuating some Belgians' French. Prof Wrong (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What has the basis of the story "Schtroumpf vert..." to do with the origin of the word "schtroumpf"? There is no evidence that when Peyo and Franquin started "schtroumpfing", they thought about Flemish, German, or anything else. And even if that would be the case, it would not make "the whole concept" a parody, since there is nothing before the 1972 story (i.e. 14 years after the first appearance of the Smurfs) that could be seen as a link between the land of the Smurfs and Belgium: not their clothing, habits, adventures, social structure, ... I think it is more a case of hineininterpretierung than of any real concept. Fram (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Smurfs in other languages

There's currently a small IP edit war going on over the "The Smurfs in other languages" section (which lists the alternate titles used in other countries), with one (or two) users deleting it as "useless", "unimportant" and "not relevant". Do we think it's worth keeping, or not? --McGeddon (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it can go, people can see most of this in the interwikilinks anyway. Fram (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with and second what Fram just said. –Whitehorse1 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We feel that this category is of high cultural importance. It was something we were researching before we even discovered it on Wikipedia. The interesting thing is how different languages formulate the word for Smurf. eg The original French - Schtroumpfs was altered for the German market as it seemed too much like their word for sock/stocking. The Italian language reasoning is also fascinating.

A new development that we are particularly interested in is how new countries and autonomy-seeking regions are developing their own versions of the word. We were involved in symposium in Slovakia, where it was stated by several cultural figures that they were particularly keen to break away from the Czech cultural identity and this meant creating their own pop-cultural references. More recently, the Scots language dictionary based at Edinburgh University developed a word (Stoorums) in conjunction with an artistic group for an event celebrating Robert Burns' 250th anniversary. I believe they are also trying to re-instate this section.

We hope that this section will be kept on, as it is forming the basis for a lot of critical discussion in the Art department at London Metropolitan University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.121.38 (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You can see all the different language versions by checking the bottom of the left sidebar on the Smrufs page, giving all the interwiki links. Apart from that , the section was mainly unsourced and gave WP:UNDUE weight to a minor aspect of the Smurfs. But it is best if you take this up on the talk page of the article, where everyone interested can give their opinion. Fram (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the languages that are listed are not on the interwikilinks. The languages in the Smurfs list are valid according to Wikipedia, just not featured in this narrow interwikilinks list. Maybe instead of deleting the whole section, some effort could be made to source these links. Some of these we have found hard to source but just appear normal to the language speakers. (As discussed in the aforementioned Slovakian symposium.)

I think the titles in other languages are useful to keep. I can't see that undue weight applies as an argument, and I hardly think that the names are controversial or likely to be erroneous, so deletion for lack of sourcing is over-the-top. It should be possible to source the names, and perhaps even discussion of them. Fences and windows (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to the version that last had that section:[1]. Fences and windows (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a 6.5Kb section only to give a list of names. The names of the Smurfs in different languages have not been the subject of coverage in reliable independent sources, unlike e.g. Smurfs on Ice or Smurfs merchandising. If there is something to discuss about a specific language, add it (with a source). But a sprawling list of all translations or the word Smurfs is useless trivia. I'll try to add a general section on the translations. Fram (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This section is important and should be kept. We are The Little Artists (the artistic duo mentioned above) and have been instrumental in getting some of the obscure languages' versions of the 'Smurf' word. Cornish, Manx language and Scots were the ones that we had an active part in sourcing and putting on to Wikipedia. We worked with language departments at Universities to get these words and will try to locate source material for them. (However, not everything is stored online so could be difficult.)
To consider this "undue weight" is really disrespectful to these languages. The notion that it would be OK just to have the interwikilinks is precisely the "Cultural Imperialism" that these smaller (and very proud) languages are standing up against.

This section has to be reinstated.
The fact that Wikipedia has pages for these smaller language proves that this section is relevant. Also, the fact that the Smurf page has sections relating to Smurf merchandise and Smurfs on Ice means that relevance is given to areas outside of the Smurf Universe, again proving that the 'Smurfs in other Languages' section is relevant.
John Cake and Darren Neave - The Little Artists
86.132.47.233 (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No it proves nothing. You could add a section like this to just about any subject ever and clog up the site. Wikipedia is not here to facilitate your obsessions - create your own website. Mezigue (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey pal! We are not all wiki-savvy. We appreciate the way that Fram is handling this. He is giving fair consideration to this debate. Mezigue you are totally missing the point. It is not our obsession. It is something that we have been involved in and seems to be getting some credence within academic circles too.
We found this section and were keen to contribute to it.
Since when do you get to decide what is relevant? We were to understand that the 'democratic' Wikipedia was to hold information, which was then to be decided by the viewer as to its validity or relevance and if queried, do some extra research elsewhere.
We are not clogging it up with speculation or vandalism. Just because it doesn't fit your world-view. Why are these people so against this section? What makes them guardians of Smurf knowledge?
This all smacks of hypocrisy and censorship. We can't believe that people would feel so strongly about removing the section. Their stance is making us feel more strongly about keeping it up though.
The Little Artists 86.132.47.233 (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK this is a wind-up, right? Mezigue (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• • It certainly looks that way... Fram (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey! This most definitely not a wind-up!
We couldn't be anymore serious about this.
How could this be a wind-up? Its being discussed in academic circles. Which YOU may not think of as valid, but it is surely as valid as anything that you may put your minds to.
We don't get what your problem is.
The section was up there (and being added to by lots of people) for a long time before someone in their 'superior wisdom' deemed it irrelevant.
Just re-instate it and we will start to link 'valid' sources to it.
John Cake and Darren Neave - The Little Artists86.132.47.233 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC) You could of course start by giving some reliable sources which discuss the name of the Smurfs in different languages as a subject of interest, then we have something to base our decision to reinstate it or not on. Fram (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Right then, we will get you the sources.
It will take some time as we are busy people.
Seems a bit lame that something can be taken down in 2 seconds and yet we have to spend ages trying to justify our position to you people.
How much valid but 'unsourceable' material has been removed from Wikipedia just because the editing bias is towards the removal of information?
Mezigue: Your contributions to this page are bordering on personal attacks.
We (and Wikipedia guidelines) don't approve of this.
Now, we will go off and get these sources (inbetween everything else that we have to do).
God, it only started out for us as an interesting development in cultural theory discussions and now its a whole load more work for us, just to prove a point.
John Cake and Darren Neave - The Little Artists

Actually, it seems to me, like most people mistakenly consider Wikipedia as divided by country/sphere, when it's in fact divided by language. This is Wikipedia in the English language, yet most of the highest contributors consider it the Wikipedia of the Anglosphere. The English Wikipedia, as it is right now, is completely useless for anyone, except for anglosphere. For media, it'a always original and English adaptations only, for technical specification, only those for the anglosphere countries are provided - for example, there's little to no information about Satellite television in eg., Italy, on the English Wikipedia. And people are always told to use the other language Wikipedia's for other information.

What people don't realize is, that learning other languages costs time, and usually money as well. And not everyone is going to learn another language just to research how something is adapted in a non-English language, or how's the history of TV in some non-English speaking country.

And the "put it on a personal website" argument doesn't fly either. Creating a personal website about something won't help anyone, because it will take months or even years before said website is even known remotely well enough to become accessible to potential interested parties who might not necessarily have any kind of contact with the website's creators. Wikipedia should be not only an encyclopedia everyone is free to edit, but also an encyclopedia anyone is free to peruse, but as long, as all the various language Wikipedias keep behaving like they're divided per country/sphere, rather than per language (which I'm quite sure was the original intention), that's not going to be so. Because when I search for information on the English Wikipedia, and don't find information about the countries I'm researching, and I'm told to "learn their language and peruse their Wikipedia" in order to find said information, then I can't peruse it. Sorry, but that's how it is. - 94.140.73.150 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Nobody in this discussion owns this site. Nobody in this discussion can monopolize the interpretation of the contribution guidelines. Is there no formal conflict resolution mechanism for nonsense arguments like this? Jurgen Hissen (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Smurfs in other languages: Spanish "pitufos"

The creation of the name in Spanish may be bizarre, but not unexplainable. Acording to the Sapnish article, the name was based on the name of the once popular catalan magazine "Patufet" this being the traslation to catalan of the fairy tale charachter "Thumbling". The curios thing here is that the catalan version "barrufet", translated few years earlier, took the name from an actually existing fairy being from the ctalan popular culure. In fact there some people who have "Barrufet" as family name. --217.130.252.50 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallmark cards and Smurfs in late 70's or early 80's

Just wondering if it was a regional thing but I had never heard of smurfs before they were introduced in Hallmark card stores in the late (1979?) 70's or very early 80's. I remember there even was a spot one on the local news about them. Prior to that, I had never seen a smurf figurine or anything smurf in the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky U.S.A. area. Did Hallmark play a big role in introducing Smurfs to the U.S.A. and worth mention in the article or was it just a regional thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's around the time they were made into a TV series. The comics were not available in the US before... Mezigue (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Smurfs and Communism

Contrary to what the article claimed, Mark Q. Schmidt was not the first to propose or popularize the meme about the Smurfs as a metaphor of communism. E.g. this 1995 book [2] discusses exactly the same theme. The oldest I could find online was a 1985 letter[3]. Fram (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

He is not the starter of theory since his article dated 1998, you may tell others suggested a connection first, that is no reason to remove a published book which is a clear WP:RS. Also the later after 1990-2000 debates over internet gained popularity with his article and gained a world-wide popularity. It is a published book is not a self-published book, bother reading the links I provided or do not waste my time. Also even if it were a self-published book, since he is a comics artist himself, and an expert on the field, it would be enough to be called as WP:RS.

It is nice you found other sources, add them to improve the article. Do not subtract J. Marc Schmidt which is a WP:RS. As a summary improve not subtract. Kasaalan (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said do not remove WP:RS add more reference to improve the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Smurfs&action=historysubmit&diff=326166116&oldid=326165849 is a non-progressive edit.

[4] is a RS making news over non-RS. [5] is good, but it is not the source for worldwide internet debates, since it is not available even now as an online source. Kasaalan (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a self-published website, a personal website. The Korean book is not (as fas as I can tell) self-published. Adding two link for the same info is overkill, certainly when the book has received hardly any attention, and isn't anything new, but just repeating an old "theory" or meme. And being a comics artist does not make one an expert on the inspiration for completely unrelated comics. By the way, the analysis Schmidt writes is not about the comic, but about the cartoon series, so his "expertise" as a comics creator is even less relevant: "This is a discursive analysis of the television programme The Smurfs, created by Peyo, and first aired during the greater part of the eighties."[6]. Furthermore, the insights are of such a laughable level ("He has a beard, as did Marx, and thus could conceivably be a caricature as well.") that it is hard to take any of this serious. Not every source that is available for an article should be added. An article on this topic was deleted in 2007 just because this was such a minor topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smurfs and communism (third nomination). To give it much attention in the current article is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Fram (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And do you really believe that the two examples I gave were the only ones available, or that online discussion can only be about online sources, or that everything that was available online in e.g. 1995 is still available now? Fram (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

None of these are hardly any reply but "Schimdt's theory is nonsense" claim.

Internet did not exist for most of the world back in 1995 anyway. Again editors provide best sources they could find. I cannot provide a source I cannot read. 1995 book text isn't available, so I cannot provide it as a reference to the claims, I may only add it to further reading or as a side reference. Again bother finding better reference than http://jmarcschmidt.com/Smurfs/sociosmurf2.html and I replace it, if you cannot no point in removing a WP:RS. Kasaalan (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First a self published site by a professional comics writer is considered a WP:RS, do not just throw guidelines without reading or understanding them.

He published a 1998 article, that gained attention over internet and news media, one way or another. And the best WP:RS that gained public attention we can provide, unless you come with a better one. His article is published alongside with his other essays, by a 3rd party publisher. The newspaper is making news about it. So it is a 3 way WP:RS, written by a professional comics writer, published by a 3rd party publisher and covered in a newspaper, for the article. 1995 book [7] has no point other than being older, and since the text isn't available I cannot judge its contents, I couldn't find any reference to the writer for this case. You can admit [8] is worthless, since it is just a slur by racists, again other than being older has no point. Either provide a WP:RS link that gained better attention or drop it.

Second smurfs cartoon and comics series are not different in roots, they depict same thing. A cartoon series after a comics series are hardly different in general anyways. You are just trying to WP:POV push by claiming nonsense. Also claiming a comics expert or professional's opinion is not revelant is just your personal opinion.

WP:UNDUE at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smurfs and communism (third nomination) was for a separete article so you already know it is completely irrevelant to the case. Criteria for standalone article and subsection in an article are quite different, so do not waste my time over nonsense.

Fourth, if you argue Schmidt's theory is worthless we may discuss that, since all of your other arguments are pointless and irrelevant. Though even if we do, you cannot argue adding any WP:RS to improve an unreferenced claim is better, if you do you would ignore the guidelines miserably. Try not wasting my time which I can spend improving articles. Kasaalan (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll let other people chime in, since your position and mine are largely incompatible. Reliable sources have nothing to do with being available online or not. A self-published website is not a reliable source when it is about a concept unrelated to the author. The political leanings of the Smurfs cartoon series is not related to Schmidt being a comics author, the idea that becuase he is a cartoonist, he is an expert in the political leanings of other comics (or cartoons, he seems to be unaware of the comics) is laughable. James Patterson or Dean Koontz are no experts on the politic in "King Lear" or "Pantagruel" either. As discussed in the above mentioned AfD discussion and as evidenced by sources like Forbes ("Though some argue the Smurfs are the only cartoon characters to uphold communist ideals, [...])[9], the idea of Smurfs as communistss exists, and has existed since the eighties at least. To add two sources for one non-expert who has produced a book which has received some attention in its country of publication and none abroad is serious overkill, and there is little evidence that his work has been a major aspect of the Smurf-communism meme. I have added the Korean article (with courtesy to you) to the section as an example, this seems to be more than sufficient. Fram (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course the rumors appeared from 1980s with cartoons especially, since the similarity is obvious. I like courtesy, but courtesy to me is unimportant, courtesy to the article improvement is important.

However I cannot agree on wording. You claimed "labeled" so either you ignored [10] and http://jmarcschmidt.com/Smurfs/sociosmurf2.html, or picked the word on your personal opinion. They did not "label" cartoon as communist, they suggest there are obvious similarities with Commune (socialism) life. It is not labelling, labelling is by term something negative. But the book you provided and Schmidt is actually praising it. Kasaalan (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I improved and neutralized the section by adding all WP:RS links we have, including links provided by you for a neutral point of view. Thanks for link additions. On the other hand, if you claim Schmidt argues Smurfs are associated with communism or commune, just because beard of Karl Marx you didn't fully read http://jmarcschmidt.com/Smurfs/sociosmurf2.html or just trying to nitpicking over article. As a comics artist, he just says there is a similarity in a comics-cartoon sense for 2 smurfs, which might or might not be true (and not related to the core of the article). On the other hand if you read the article fully, you can tell his reasons to associate smurf community with a socialist commune are plenty. And as you admit it is not only claimed by him, so it is not required to be an expert to see the similarities in an economical perspective, even racists can see them from their distorted view anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

I'm no Smurf expert, but I think changes made today by 174.50.219.157 may be vandalism. That IP tampered with the Butterfinger page today too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Butterfinger#Christmas_Vandalism Seán Hayes (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Two very different types of Smurfs on Ice

I see there's ongoing talk about this page, so I don't want to come in green and make any major changes. But the "Smurfs on Ice" section has two paragraphs about absolutely different things. If anything, the second para about ice hockey would belong in a "In Popular Culture"-type section, or not on this page at all. The section is obviously meant to be about Smurf characters being represented in ice-based theatre. Elguaponz (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's been a week. I'm nuking it. Elguaponz (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it really important what some guy with a blog thinks?

The antisemitic claim is only backed up by a link to some unknown blog.

Is this really an expert opinion?

I can open up a blog too, and write there that the queen of england is in reality a robot. It must be true, I've written it on a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.43.176 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Les Schtroumpfs

"Schtroumpf" is nothing but German "Strumpf" (socks, )spelled to be readable to a french reader. The Schtroumpfs wear "Strumpfhosen", "tights" (or pantyhose in AE) I think the German "Gartenzwerg" inspired those Schtroumpfs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.242.27 (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Dimorphism

Is it worth mentioning the differences between how the smurfs are portrayed in different cultures? I had a number of Smurf books when I moved from Europe, and one of the things that always bugged me in the U.S. was that the smurfs were so individual. In all of my European material, you couldn't really tell one smurf from another except by behavior (with the exceptions of Papa, Brainy, and Smurfette). In the Hanna-Barbera version, there were like 7 smurfs that showed up in every episode and everyone else was just background (kind of like red-shirts). I thinks it speaks to the cultural differences in commercial appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.209.96.212 (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.81.94.69, 9 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

In Language

In modern corporate lingo, the continued repetition of corporate buzz words in place of more descriptive and accurate terminology may lead to an irritating effect known colloquially as "Smurfing". Smurfing occurs when audience members listening to the same word being tortured to death a thousand times over begin hearing the word "Smurf" or some contextually appropriate variation of "Smurf" such as "Smurfing" or "Smurfed" in place of the term being "Smurfed" by the speaker. The effect that this phenomenon has on members of mandatory corporate audiences can range from simple tittering to boughts of incontinence inducing laughter at the speaker's expense. Professional speakers can avoid being victims of this counterproductive phenomenon by simply proofreding their materials to look for needlessly repetitive terminology and then utilizing a thesaurus to edit their work. 216.81.94.69 (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This terminology has been in place for quite some time and is now relatively well known in corporate and government business circles along the East Coast for certain. This has been independently verified by interacting with employees of the same agency who work thousands of miles apart and have little regular interaction with each other yet have somehow independently heard of and used this term to describe this exact phenomenon. It's almost a cross between a highly specific cultural phenomenon in certain business circles and a meme.

Any reliable independent sources so that we can verify this and conclude that it is important enough to warrant inclusion here? Fram (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Grandma Smurf

The article makes reference to a Grandma Smurf. I don't recall ever seeing a Grandma Smurf, and no Grandma Smurf is listed on the Smurf character page. Is this a mistake? Gronteam —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC).

There is a Grandma Smurf also call Nanny [11] [12].--Crazy runner (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The character is listed on the Smurf character page.--Crazy runner (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Smurfs as racist, sexist, marxist, anti-semitic

There have been a number of attempts over the years to discuss these elements in the Smurfs, see previous talk page discussions. The problem has been lack of reliable source. No more. A French sociologist (Academic Professor at a Paris University) has published a new book about it, as discussed in The Wall Street Journal. I would recommend this source be used in restoring some of this material to the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've added a section on it. Feel free to contribute. -- Mecanismo | Talk 00:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• It looks good, but without sources (2nd and 3rd paragraph) it won't survive, a Smurf fan will remove it eventually. Needs staying power. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. Nonetheless, the 2nd and 3rd paragraph are taken from the two references I've quoted in that section, which anyone can check if they click on the links. I haven't repeated the refs on the other paragraphs because it would end up clogging the reference section with the same link pasted 4 or 5 times. If someone has a problem with that section, doesn't read the sources and complains that the accusations are baseless (which can only be said by those who don't follow the quotes) then we can copy/paste the references. Yet, if a pair of independent quotes isn't enough to avoid criticism then I suspect that pasting dozens of links won't do it either -- Mecanismo | Talk 20:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed I have now removed all this. Not because I am a "Smurf fan" but because it is poorly written drivel. Mezigue (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• The content of that section is directly and explicitly based from the work of those researchers quoted in the articles which were provided as reference. There is no original research and it wasn't invented by me. If someone has a problem with the sources then refute the sources, but don't go on censoring information just because you don't like it. -- Mecanismo | Talk 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• It appears that some people are invested in eliminating the article section on Totalitarian controversy, and they are trying to do so surreptitiously. Wikipedia shouldn't be subjected to this sort of petty censorship -- Mecanismo | Talk 21:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Good lord, conspiracy theorists take on the Smurfs. My edits are intended to make this a good article, not to "censor" anything. Every major franchise will attract criticism of a more or less serious nature. Wikipedia does not have to give them give an undue soapbox. Mezigue (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Mezigue, stop censoring the article. Whether you realize it or not, your actions inadvertently amount to vandalism. Whether you like it or not, you don't have the right to blank an article just because you don't like it. Whether you believe it's conspiracy theory or not, it is an indissociable and important aspect of this series and had a well registered impact on popular culture. So, stop blanking it and sop these surreptitious edits -- Mecanismo | Talk 17:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the "controversy" is already discussed in the "legacy" section, I have removed the "controversy" section per WP:UNDUE. No need to duplicate the same info, and no need to overwhelm the article with what is in the end a minor aspect of the Smurfs (what "well registered impact on popular culture" had the controversy actually?) The opinion of a few people and the reaction to it from the Peyo family is noted, and that should be sufficient. Fram (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

section: Advertising

it is stated in the article that BP used the Smurfs for advertising. My memory has it that the Smurfs were used by National Petroleum although I have yet to find a reference. Alanthehat (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this claim cites no sources, so that is why I added a {{Citation needed}} tag to it and both the Smurfs cerial and Smurfs pasta claims. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I can remember the Smurfs being used by a retail oil company in Australia. BP is active here, but I've never heard of National Petroleum, so I'm pretty sure it was BP. Something deep in the those dark recesses tells me it was. As for a cite, well.... It was a long time ago. 1960s maybe. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely used by "National" here in the UK. I can't talk for other countries. No idea where to find evidence, although I'm sure there are still stickers with the petrol brand on them at my (elderly) parents.. 18:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.40.175 (talk)

little or nothing is written about how the smurfs were created within the fictional context

Only one section speaks about smurfette being "created" by the wizard but doesn't specify how or why. And As for the rest of the smurfs, there is no information about how they came into their fictional existence. They are humanoid but do not procreate like humans, so an explination is needed. There is no explination offered as to why all the original smurfs are "male". More needs to be offered about their method of creation within their fictional universe. The movie says they were brought into existence simply by storks dropping them off. But Is there any detailed information about how papa smurf and the original smurfs supposedly came into their fictional existence? If so it needs to be included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Where baby Smurfs come from might be one of the major oddities about the Smurf universe, in my opinion. Sure, maybe a stork does drop off baby Smurfs. But how are the baby Smurfs created? Smurfette (who has her own Wikipedia article which details her creation; see also the article on the comic book The Smurfette) and Sassette were created by sorcery, and Nanny's origin is unclear. I would like to think that naturally-occuring female Smurfs have something to do with the baby Smurfs, :-) but I suppose that the only way to know for sure would be to get official information from Studio Peyo, or even Peyo himself if he happened to write about this stuff at one time. In the meantime, though, I suppose that we can just keep speculating. :-) Regards, {|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 19:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Is the infobox for the television series necessary for this article? The television series' own article has an infobox.

Should this article even have either of its two infoboxes? This article seems to be about the characters and franchise overall, etc. The comic series and television series have their own articles with infoboxes. Are there any proper infoboxes for such a franchise as a whole that would fit this article?

Also, does anyone know what the template was that may have been used for the comic infobox on this article? It was apparently originally added by Dwanyewest on 22 May 2010 with this edit (and edited in subsequent edits by the same user), and later added to The Smurfs (comics) by the same user on 14 November 2010 with this edit. The infobox code on this article and that article is raw infobox code, not a transclusion like you would expect, so that user may have substituted the infobox template (or taken the time to write the raw code). Template:Infobox comic book title and Template:Infobox graphic novel come close, but do not seem to match.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

—{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 20:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)