Talk:Little House on the Prairie (TV series)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Little House on the Prairie (TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Westerns: Television High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television task force.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[List of Little House on the Prairie episodes#Season 9 (1982–1983)|Season 9]] The anchor (#Season 9 (1982–1983)) has been deleted by other users before.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Untitled

Three articles have been merged into Little House on the Prairie:

The subject matter is too closely related for it to be seperate articles, and is more comprehensible and valuable as a single article. Stbalbach 01:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Locations

This article states that "The show revolves around Charles Ingalls (Michael Landon), a homemaker and patriarch who has trouble making ends meet with his family in Plum Creek, Minnesota. He and his wife, Caroline (Karen Grassle), move to Walnut Grove, Minnesota, in search for a better and more prospering community." According to my map, Walnut Grove is right next to Plum Creek, so they move about 1 mile in all? Or down to Kansas (in the Pilot episode) and right back where they came from? Supermagle 09:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Episode

<quote>In Europe the Pilot Movie is added to Season 1.</quote>

I can't find any evidence of this. Could somebody clarify if this is actually true?

I've bought my Season 1 DVD Set in Germany and I can confirm that it has the full Pilot movie added. (83.20.138.9 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Mdcollins1984 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor edit to the material under the "plot" heading, but this page is an absoulte mess with much material non-neutral and non-encyclopedic in tone and miscatergorised. I will try to do some cleanup later,but hope to get some help.

Fair use rationale for Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season9.jpg

Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season9.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season8.jpg

Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season8.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season7.jpg

Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season7.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season6.jpg

Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season5.jpg

Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season4.jpg

Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season3.jpg

Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season2.jpg

Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season10.jpg

Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season10.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season1.jpg

Image:LittleHouse-DVD.US-season1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Foster as "herself"!

Have edited the note that this actress played "herself" on the show. Apart from being impossible - Ruth was not an actual historical 19th Century figure (if she was she looked very good for her age) - it is also simply untrue. Although she shares a surname with the character - not the only incidence of this in TV/Film history - the character's first name was Matilda.

Grace

Grace is mentioned both in main cast and recurring cast. Is this ok? Arthena^(talk) 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is either old/obsolete and should be archived/deleted as it refers to content no longer visible or it is not clear, to which Grace it refers. There are at least three of them: Grace Ingalls (seasons 5-8, youngest daughter of the Ingalls family), Grace Snider Edwards (seasons 1-3) and Grace Mears (episode 4x17: "Be My Friend" only). The last is at the moment not visible in the article. It is the baby found by Laura and returned to its mother (Anna Mears) at the end of the episode. --PhChAK (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was the show actually about?

There doesn't seem to be any description of what this TV show is actually about. Some kind of family drama, presumably. I think that should be in the introduction, surely? I'm not a fan of the show, so I don't feel qualified to write this. Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Setting?

It's not clear from this article where & when the series was set. Reading part-way through it mentions that the appearance of an aeroplane is an anachronism, but if this is a period setting it should be mentioned in the introduction. Likewise the location. Niki2006 (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

It was not the number one show during the 1974-75 season. 'All in the Family' was, according to the Nielsen ratings. Check any reference book about TV of that period. If someone has some evidence LHOTP was number one that season, cite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.202.206 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Loubatière

Patrick Loubatière is not Québécois, but French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.112.76 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Mosque?

Should there be a reference on this page to the Canadian TV series "Little Mosque on the Prairie"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.249.250 (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

criticism

The article makes no reference to any critical views of the show. These were not limited to TV critics -- in WKRP in Cincinatti, Herb Tarlek describes "Little House" as being about "blind people in the West". WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Year of location?

The Wikipedia article says the series is located during the 1870s and 1880s. Is there any proof of this? Fashions look 1900-1910, NOT 1880s. Please someone do the research about it; in the meanwhile, I'll delete those dates from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.92.37 (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than clear, watching the series, which temporalizes in the 1870s. There are many references in the chapters. We can see the first years of the town, but not their establishment--181.27.185.104 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cast of characters

It says: Melissa Gilbert has the most appearances of the series. She was absent for 13 episodes, for a total of 190 of the 205 episodes. That math does not add up. If some episodes are considered "double" (or what have you), this should be clarified. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Instead of changing the number, I just took out "She was absent for 13 episodes". Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that the character baby “Rose” was played by the Coleman twins (Jennifer and Sarah), and the young/toddler “Rose” was played by the Steffin twins (my daughters Jennifer and Michelle), but in only TWO of the three movies produced after season 9. Specifically “Bless All The Dear Children” and “The Last Farewell.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steffinwolf (talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies

Should there not be something about the consistencies found in the series? For example, there are several people who are supposed to become 'members' of the community who never appear again in the series. Two examples are Doctor Caleb Ledoux and his wife (Season 8, episode 4) and 'Little Lou' (Season 9, Episode 5). If they become members of the community, then why do we never see them again?

Then, in Season 9, it is mentioned at the end of episode 17 that the Albert would later return to Walnut Grove as 'Doctor Ingalls', yet in the first post series movie ('Little House: Look Back to Yesterday') it is strongly indicated that Albert would end up dying from Leukemia. --Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Links in References

Reference 4 points to http://www.pioneerontheprairie.com/kent_mccray_story.htm, which is no longer a valid address. I thought the reference referring to the emotional reaction of the producers to the theatrical town being blown up would be an interesting read, but instead landed on - to my disbelief - a website advertising locals wanting casual sexual encounters, complete with pictures of naked ladies. Now, I remember Little House on the Prairie and you could never say it had naked ladies showing their wares in it. I clicked the link again in the hope that it was a one-off intercept, and found myself on another page requesting details from me. When I provided http://www.pioneerontheprairie.com in the browser address bar, it rendered one of those generic address-placeholder pages with loads of junk links. So, I recommend the link on the reference be remove in the interest of decency and non-confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qljsystems (talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. Rather than delete this reference, an archived version has been added. Hope you can now enjoy the read.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little Mosque on the Prairie

Not sure where in this article this would belong, but the Canadian sitcom Little Mosque on the Prairie spoofs this series a bit by way of not only its title, but also by using an adaptation of the series' logo. (The show itself is not a spoof, being set in the present day and not adapting any of Alcott's concepts or that of Little House the series.) 70.73.90.119 (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need for spoof site being connected to this page. Steffinwolf (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of themes by actors in connection with remake

@Butlerblog The objection of "undue weight" was in connection with the inclusion in the "subsequent adaptations" section, that's why I added it to the Themes section, where there are only a few sentences currently. These are comments by three man actors about the themes of the original show and why it is still popular that are arguably more about the original show than the new show so I don't see why they are undue weight. The reference to the Megyn Kelly comments does have to be there for some context for why they made those comments, but it is really comments by the original actors about the themes of the show that were widely covered and what they attribute a lot of the show's popularity to (not long after there were ratings reports about the original show's continued popularity). The text in question:

In response to 2023 social media comments from commentator Megyn Kelly about a planned remake, that "if you wokeify Little House on the Prairie I will make it my singular mission to absolutely ruin your project,"^[1] Dean Butler told Remind magazine the original show was "incredibly woke" and suggested that how it incorporated those themes was responsible for its ongoing success. "The show still runs in 140 countries every day, all over the world in over 40 languages. There's a reason for that. And the reason is because everybody feels welcome there, and [Michael Landon] made sure that everybody could feel welcome there."^[1] Arngrim also told the magazine that "the [original] show was about as woke as you could get for 1974. We dealt with … everything on Little House on the Prairie from drug addiction to racism, to sexism, to spousal abuse...Every possible cutting edge social issue was absolutely discussed … but it was done in such a 'Little House on the Prairie, what would the Ingalls do' kind of way, that I think people just didn't even think of it as being a big deal."^[1] Previously, lead actress Melissa Gilbert had also responded to the reaction on Instagram, writing that "TV doesn't get too much more 'woke' than we did. We tackled: racism, addiction, nativism, antisemitism, misogyny, rape, spousal abuse and ever other 'woke' topic you can think of" and had encouraged Kelly to rewatch the show on a streaming service.^[2] In comments to Entertainment Weekly, she added: "Did she see any of the episodes we did about drug addiction, about nativism, about Native Americans, chauvinists, anti-semitism, rape, child abuse, child neglect, industrialization? I mean, we covered everything that's going on in the world still. It's not my job to defend the word 'woke,' but to my mind, it just means compassion for all. I don't understand why that's a bad thing, and I don't think anyone can ever convince me of that."^[3]

^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Garner, Glenn (2025-01-31). "'Little House On The Prairie's Melissa Gilbert Reacts To Megyn Kelly's "Woke-ify" Gripe With Netflix Reboot: "Watch Any Episode"". Deadline. Retrieved 2025-02-04.
^ "Melissa Gilbert supports 'Little House' reboot: 'There's plenty of room' for new stories". EW.com. Retrieved 2025-02-23.

newsjunkie (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as themes go, it doesn't add anything new that isn't already covered. Just because something happened does not necessarily mean it should be included in the article (see WP:VNOT: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article...") The question is "does this improve the article?" I would argue that it does not. Here's the problem - what you're seeking to add as written has a word count of around 325 words. That's roughly the same size as the entire current lead and more than several other sections in the article. You're seeking to add it to the Themes section, which as currently written is around 500 words. If you add it as written, it would be roughly 60% of the content of the themes section, which is way too much, considering that's 40% of the content from all other sources about the show's themes. This is one week's worth of fanzine news eclipsing relevant content from the remaining 50 years. If you trim out the unnecessary back and forth social media element that is not all that relevant, you're left with the discussion of the actual themes - which are already mentioned in the themes section, thus making that part redundant.

I might support the inclusion of something significantly trimmed, and added to the Legacy section, but even then, I think it's mostly fancruft.

In response to 2023 social media comments from commentator Megyn Kelly about producing a planned remake as a "woke" version of the series, Melissa Gilbert responded on Instagram, writing that "TV doesn't get too much more 'woke' than we did. We tackled: racism, addiction, nativism, antisemitism, misogyny, rape, spousal abuse and ever other 'woke' topic you can think of" and had encouraged Kelly to rewatch the show on a streaming service.

ButlerBlog (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why word count or percentage should be so much of a determining factor and it seems kind of arbritrary if it's first-hand information that's coming from three main actors attributing why think the show is still so popular, the specific paragraph at the end about themes is actually very small right now and just because it hasn't been added until now doesn't make it irrelevant . I don't really see why it would fanzine or fancruft -- this was widely reported and is their understanding of why the show has wide appeal with universal themes not just when it aired but decades after its release despite societal changes (as demonstrated by ratings), the opposite of only being relevant to fans of the show. And the comments are absolutely more relevant to understanding of the original show than the as-yet unreleased show. newsjunkie (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also all reliably sourced from respected publications and speaks to how the show is perceived in wider society or reflected wider society (beyond just fans.(And how the actors themselves perceived it, a perspective which is not included in that section so far). newsjunkie (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section at the end about contemporary themes is currently only attributed to one single source, so having these additional first-hand sources/quotes supporting that would be valuable. newsjunkie (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also just happened to come across this analysis in Politico from this week, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/22/little-house-in-the-culture-wars-00205487, further illustrating that how this show is perceived today is a substantive issue with a wider audience beyond just "fans." newsjunkie (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also this from Melissa Gilbert from People (sorry for multiple comments, but came across these separately): ""It opened our eyes to a lot of things that were going on in our world then and now. There's a reason why it had such a huge resurgence in 2020, and it wasn't just a pandemic. It was the summer of racial unrest. People were leaning into stories like the Wisdom of Solomon and all of the stories we did about racism and nativism. And I think the show lives on because a lot of the stories we told are still problems." https://people.com/melissa-gilbert-on-why-she-reacted-to-megyn-kelly-little-house-reboot-criticism-exclusive-8787396 newsjunkie (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all arbitrary - that's why I pointed out exactly how much it overwhelms the section. Just because information exists and is reliably sourced does not make it worthwhile for inclusion (see WP:VNOT). If the point is to show that the popularity of the show endures, summarize it in a couple of sentences. For example, everything you've stated could be distilled down to something like this:

Responding to comments in 2025 from Megyn Kelly about producing a planned remake as a "woke" version of the series, members of the original cast pointed out that original series covered topics many consider to be "woke" such as racism, addiction, nativism, antisemitism, misogyny, rape, and spousal abuse. Melissa Gilbert stated that "the show lives on because a lot of the stories we told are still problems" suggesting that the show has wide appeal with universal themes not just when it aired but decades after its release despite societal changes.

ButlerBlog (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems arbitrary in the sense that there's no strict percentage or word count limit for articles anywhere and whether something "overwhelms" a section will be debatable. There are obviously some other articles for other shows where all the sections might be short because nobody has added that much information for anything, and if then somebody does add information to one section, that would be an imbalance, but only because little information has been added overall. Some of the listing information can be summarized, but I also think some of the other quotes are valuable for better context, like the quote mentioning Michael Landon, Arngrim's quote about "it was done in such a Little House way" and also Gilbert tying it 2020 particularly. (plus something from the Politico article). newsjunkie (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

whether something "overwhelms" a section will be debatable - I disagree. It's pretty obvious that one thing accounting for more than 60% of the themes section is overwhelming that content, especially when the information provided ultimately ends with something already covered (see my original comment above). Although there is not a "hard and fast" rule, that's because each has to be viewed within the scope of the entire article and its current state of assessment. What I would recommend is that you review how we approach article assessment (especially the section on GA criteria, as this article has been very intentionally edited to move it towards GA assessment, while your original addition moves it in the opposite direction). Note that what comparing to other articles isn't a valid argument - it's a logical fallacy of relative privation, so comparisons with a Start or C class article are not valid comparisons (please see WP:OTHERCONTENT). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it's not already covered, the particular paragraph section about contemporary topics did not yet include comments from the actors (or anyone involved in the show) and also didn't really address how the themes were viewed in the present day or in comparison. And only includes one source. newsjunkie (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of simply saying "no", I offered a reasonable compromise. Your ultimate response was to simply dump all of it back in there - and more? Unreal. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the introductory part listing the different things is shorter and more summarized now and less repetitive based on your version and I also tried to paraphrase one of the comments more while adding one full quote. If it mentions multiple actors in the intro then I think it should mention the actors in question.(they weren't in the reference that was linked) And the Politico article is secondary analysis and (certainly not some kind of fandom thing) newsjunkie (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[:0-1] Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Garner, Glenn (2025-01-31). "'Little House On The Prairie's Melissa Gilbert Reacts To Megyn Kelly's "Woke-ify" Gripe With Netflix Reboot: "Watch Any Episode"". Deadline. Retrieved 2025-02-04.

[3] "Melissa Gilbert supports 'Little House' reboot: 'There's plenty of room' for new stories". EW.com. Retrieved 2025-02-23.

[1]

[2]

[3]