Talk:The Smurfs/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Comments from before August 2004

The money laundering meaning of "smurf" really exists, see e.g. this Google search! Lupo 15:14, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to insert something about the fact that in the final season of the Smurfs, the writers tried the gimmick of having the most popular characters get trapped in a time warp. Each episode, they appeared in a different place in history/geography - Ireland, the Roman Empire, Egypt, Hawaii, etc. It was a classic example of a cartoon adding an annoying gimmick in an attempt to revitalize the series (i.e. Scrappy-Doo). Anyways, I'd like to add this to the article, but I can't figure out how to insert it into the flow of information. If anyone else would like to do it, though, feel free. Strangely, the only information I can find online about this "time warp" final season is on www.jumptheshark.com. Apparently the time warp episodes don't get re-run very often. --AaronW 09:06, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Greatest voice actor bias

The article has:

The cast included some of the greatest voice actors ever:

Can anyone think of a NPOV way to re-write this? --John Lynch 09:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can :p just changed the sentence to ...included a number of renowned voice actors -- Ferkelparade 08:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Porno popups?

Can someone using IE or another browser that shows unrequested pop-ups check whether any of the external links pop up porno banners, or something? An anon claimed that she saw something like that happening, but I haven't been able to reproduce it.--Eloquence * —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 15 September 2004 (UTC).

Communism?

This article ought to include some treatment of the common allegation that the Smurfs were communists. See [1] for a good example with some evidence. Personally, I don't believe that the Smurfs were intentionally designed by Peyo to be communists, but I do think that he held left-wing values which ended up being expressed in the Smurf world. I read all the original Smurf comics when I was a kid, and I distinctly remember that they explicitly disparaged money and greed. Also, the Smurfs were constantly exhorted to work for the good of the community, and many clearly moralistic plotlines involved one of the Smurfs shirking his duties and disaster resulting. --Redquark 23:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good point perhaps you'd like to support my planned additions of "fascist propagada controversy" to the GI Joe article, I too have credible sources[2]--64.12.117.12 14:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

license of smurf logo

Are we allowed to use the Smurf logo? Surely it must be trademarked/copyrighted to someone? -- 202.154.105.13 00:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Story comments, for consideration and possible inclusion:

-An episode of the cartoon show revealed that Gargamel's hatred for the Smurfs began when he suffered an accident while still a student of magic, and believed a Smurf had caused it. In reality, it was caused by his own older self, who had traveled back in time.

This is not in line with the original comics where Gargamel learns to know about the Smurfs only after he needs one to make gold. His plan to catch a Smurf fails, and from then on he hates the Smurfs. This is in the story "The Smurf thief" in the first album "The dark Smurfs". --Xenan 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

-Smurfette was created by Gargamel, using a magic formula, as one of his traps for the Smurfs; originally, she was ugly and evil, but was later "purified" by Papa Smurf. Sassette was created by the "Kid Smurfs" using the same formula.

-The show created many original characters, including Laconia, a fairy who had lost her voice, and had to communicate by sign language. Obviously, she was introduced to create awareness of deafness among children. -Wilfredo Martinez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfredo Martinez (talk • contribs) 05:11, 23 October 2004 (UTC)

Smurf Blue

Smurfs are either blue because of skin pigmentation, blood color, or because they're little tiny Picts (though I can't exactly see them drinking from the skulls of butterflies). If their blood is blue, they can't be using red hemoglobin. Since silver tarnishes bluish, my guess is that their blood is silver-based. This could make them valuable ingredients for Gargamel's magic, or to sell. (This train of thought was inspired by the question "what color does a Smurf turn when you choke it?") --BlueNight —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 23 October 2004 (UTC).

Since silver tarnishes bluish, my guess is that their blood is silver-based.

No, silver and oxygen turn black, copper makes blue blood, see hemocyanin.

what color does a Smurf turn when you choke it

Depriving a Smurf (and its blood) from oxygen will turn it and its blood colorless (white). MH 16:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Smurf Emmys

The Smurfs cartoon series one a number of Emmy awards. Would anyone like to help me compile a list of nominations and wins? :) --b. Touch 01:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a common misperception (perhaps spun by NBC public relations) The Smurfs were nominated multiple times for Emmys, but they never won. - this correction is based on a search of the [Emmys' official online database]. Bwithh 16:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

what about the whole comics universe?

the smurfs universe extends way past just cartoons! there were dozens of bande desinees about smurfs! (see: Franco-Belgian_comics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.20.72 (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2004 (UTC)

Smurf war

About the comment that a war broke out on whether "smurf" should be used as a verb or a noun. As I recall it, from a swedish translation of the comics, the war broke out due to an argument if smurf should be a replacement for the first or second compound of a word, i.e. if a "sledgehammer" should be a "sledgesmurfer" or a "smurfhammer" etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.149.49 (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2004 (UTC)

The word Smurf

Is the word "Smurf" originally english, dutch or scandinavian? It's found in english, dutch and swedish, but it's unlike french Schtroumpf or german Schlumpf... When I look at old comics, I find that dutch used the word in 1969, and Sweden in 1975, so I begin to think it's a dutch word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.149.49 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the Dutch page, and it seems the word "Smurf" originally was Flemish.

As I've added to the page, 'Smurf' is originally the Dutch name for les Schtroumpfs. The first appearance of Smurf is exactly as old as the first appearance of Schtroumpf, as the French magazine Spirou and the Dutch translation Robbedoes appeared simultaneously (and still do, by the way). Flemish and Dutch are basically the same, certainly when written (I'm Flemish). Fram 11:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

anti-seminist and communist

There also have been allegations, correct or not, that the Smurfs were an allegory of capitalism and communism: the Smurfs, with their lack of any form of money, sharing of all goods and services, and their basic egalitarian ideals, are said to represent the ideal communist society, while their hated nemesis Gargamel, who plots to catch them and use them to turn base metals into gold, is said to represent capitalism at its worst.

Along the lines of allegations of the Smurfs being Communist were also claims about hidden anti-semitic propaganda in the show. According to believers of this notion, Gargamel was "dressed" to appear Jewish and his cat, Azrael, portrayed American Government as a puppet in the hands of the Jews. Azrael's name also sounds like "Israel", which adds a connotation.

I have removed these because I believe them to be original research. They can be restored if they are backed up. Saying "claims" and "allegations" doesnt cut it. Need specific names of people, publications and dates, or links to online citations. Stbalbach 01:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Section on Father Abraham ??

I think there should be a section on the popular "Father Abraham and the Smurfs" records that were released in late '79 early '80 ? --Sf 12:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"smurf" when he should have said "smurf" ???

I'm confused. Is this a typo? Stbalbach 21:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it's real. It happened in a Smurf comic book, but I forget which one. Gargamel said something with "smurf" in it, and the reply he got was something like "It's smurf, not smurf, you idiot!". It was supposed to show that only real Smurfs know which "smurf" means what. — JIP | Talk 19:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it was Gargamel, but I remember that when Johan and Peewit first met the Smurfs, Peewit tried to communicate, but ended up using the wrong "Smurf" all the time. The language must contain very subtle nuances... =P

"Schtroumpf" is an invented word.

Sorry, I don't quite understand this. The article says that "Schtroumpf" means "salt" and also that it is an invented word. So which is it?--Fito 19:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

You haven't understood the secion properly. " "Schtroumpf" is an invented word. According to an interview with Peyo, the word came to him as he asked a friend for salt during lunch and, struggling to find the word that eluded him finally managed to say "passe-moi le schtroumpf" (pass me the salt)". I.e. Peyo lost the word for salt, during a momentarily brain lapse, and just came up with a nonsense word while he was speaking. The real French translation for salt is "(le) sel", thus "passe-moi le sel", I don't know if the section needs rewriting.

Obviously, yes.

Actually you have the story incorrect, "Schtroumpf" means what-ch-ma-call-it, Peyo could not think of the word salt at the time for some reason and said pass him the whatchamacallit, he later used it for the characters he created - the Smurfs.

Please sign your contributions (four "~"). And it is you who are wrong, Schtroumpf does not mean whatchamacallit, it was an expression made up there and then, not a usual word to replcae a word you can't remember. Whatchamacallit is a dictionary word, Schtroumpf is a made up term. The article as it stands now is quite correct in the descritpion of the origin of the term. Fram 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Schtroumpf does mean whachmacallit - it is flemish slang for the word whachamacallit. Pvcblue 22:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pvcblue, sorry, but you haven't got the faintest clue what you are talking about. Please give me one serious source that states that schtroumpf was an existing word (official or slang) for whatchamacallit in whatever language you like before Peyo used it. The article as it stands gives a good reference for the fact that it was an invented word. Fram 14:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agian YOU are wrong Fram - this is a quote directly from a Hanna and Barbera press kit for the Smurfs that I own - "Peyo's great love for fairy tales inspired and molded the characters. He arrived at the name by accident. One night at dinner he asked his father to pass the salt and pepper, calling them "Schtroumpf", a french colloquialism meaning "watchamacallit". In dutch it was translated to "smurf". --Pvcblue 07:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing us with a source for your statements. You were wrong in claiming that it is a flemish colloquialism anyway (your source says it French, which makes at least more sense), and your source is contradicted by every other source I have read, including interviews with Peyo and the recent biography I referenced. It was not his father, but André Franquin, and it was an invented word, not a colloquialism. You can find the story here, here, here, ... The word Schtroumpf is not included in dictionaries [3], and is discussed in Language publications [4] as an invented word that parodies whatchamacallits like "truc" or "chose". Finally, the French Wikitionary [5] clearly says that it is invented by Peyo. Fram 08:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You said to give one source to back up my claim, I did, and you just ingnore the importance of it? The source is HANNA & BARBERA the company that brought the Smurfs to TV Cartoon world!! It is from thier presskit from info Peyo gave them to use for selling the show to different markets! Now if Peyo gave them the info and they are the Hanna and Barbera, this would give them more of a belief factor than anything you say, they did work directly with him, they did interview him and got info from him for the presskit. --Pvcblue 18:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't ignore the importance for it, I wondered what was your source, and I thanked you for providing one. Strangely, it contradicts every other source, even direct interviews with Peyo. As I don't have your source and don't know where it is available, I can't judge it any further, and I don't see in your quote that the info comes from Peyo, just that it comes from a Hanna-Barbera press kit. Want another source? "Les Schtroumpfs 1", textes d'introduction de Thierry Groensteen, edited by Rombaldi and Dupuis in 1986, ISBN 2-8001-1401-0, page 6, again gives the same origin (invented a word when asking Franquin for the salt) in different words. The most accessible and still definite source I can give you, apart from all the others, is the official André Franquin website [6], where he again relates the exact same story, but in his own words (i.e. not all sources are just repeating one another), and where he literally says that Peyo "forged" (i.e. invented) the word Smurf. So we have interviews with the two people involved declaring that it was an invented word, we have articles by linguists saying that it is not included in dictionaries, we have all kinds of sources agreeing that it is invented, and we have one Hanna-Barbera press kit that says something different. That was your source, and it is logical that you assumed it was correct, but it isn't. Fram 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fram - I emailed IMPS and sent them the story I have from the Hanna Barbera PressKit, asking them if this was how it happened and they told me everything was correct except for it was not his dad but his friend and that Schtroumpf is a colloquialism meaning "watchamacallit".- pvcblue

Great. I don't believe a word of it though. Too bad! I have given references that can be verified (check out WP:V), as long as yours are only reported by you, they are not to be used in Wikipedia. Get IMPS to put the story of the origin of the word Schtroumpf on their website, and then you have a good source to be used here as an alternative story to what Peyo himself reported. If you can't get IMPS to put it on the website, get some French linguists over here that can confirm that the word Schtroumpf existed before Peyo used it. Note that the French wikipedia (where most of the contributors probably know French) does not refer to a whatchamacallit or another colloquialism, and actually refers to the Franquin website I have given above. Fram 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am French. For me the word "schtroumpf" doesn't mean anything - even in slang - but the little blue creatures. I am very interested about the origins of the name, because I've always thought it was derived from the german "strumpf" (= sock, and prononced just like "schtroumpf" in French), because of the strange little hats they have. So it looks like it is only a popular etymology !! But my question is : does "strumpf" means anything in Belgium (country in which, apart from French, Dutch and German are spoken)?

Strumpf (or Smurf or Schtroumpf) has absolutely no meaning in Dutch. I don't know enough German to give an answer for that. I don't think Peyo was consciously thinking about schtrumpf when he invented the word or the hat of the Smurfs, but it is impossible to be certain that he didn't unconsciously knew and used the German word of course, even though there is no real indication for it. Fram 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

All this smurfy smurfing and no mention of Gargamel's cat?

Poor, poor kitty. Left out of the Wikipedia. Azrael would be rather ticked off to know he/she has been left out! I added the link there to the Smurfs. OK, there's a line on List_of_fictional_cats, but that's it.

Yes, yes Azrael! Ooooh I hate smrufs! Azrael hates them too!

Satanic smurfs? How crazy is too crazy for the wiki?

I just happened to surf (or should I say smurf?) on this article while browsing through the wiki, and, well, I have to say that the part about "Satanic rumors" is just plain absurd. I know we're supposed to cover the weirdest viewpoints, but this is really pushing it. A bit like devoting a few paragraphs in the article about the Moon to the question of where it is made out of cheese... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It was a real rumor. My sister was told at CCD that Papa Smurf used pentagrams and played checkers with wizards, ergo he was New Age therefore Satanic. She thought this was nuts and it was never stated by any priest we had. It did exist though.--T. Anthony 16:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it was a real rumor makes it worthy of mention. It's part of the entire social impact that the Smurfs had. [[User:|Anthopos]] 20:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if I put my thought on this "Satanic Rumor", and just plain and simple as you read it; "It's Just A Rumor." People will just create anything for news, gossip and stupidity just like this one. How can a cartoon be so Satanic? Are people so gullable to beleive a story like that? I've been a smurf fan since 1981 and yes, I've heard the rumors about the smurfs being satanic here and there around the town where I live and not for one second have I ever believed that story. ~T. Anthony, you stated "My sister was told..." and I leave it at that. Of course she was told, It was just a rumor. ~Anthopos, you stated "It's part of the entire social impact that the Smurfs had." What social impact? The Impact that (and I quote wikipedia on this) "The Smurfs secured their place in North American pop culture in 1980, when the Saturday-morning cartoon, The Smurfs, produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions, finally debuted on NBC from 1981 to 1990. The show became a major success for NBC, spawning spin-off television specials on an almost yearly basis. The Smurfs was nominated multiple times for Daytime Emmy awards, and won Outstanding Children's Entertainment Series in 1982–1983." Whoa! How Satanic is that? And to end what I call and I quote myself; "Somebody had nothing better to say about the Smurfs and decided to start a rumor" get over it. The Smurfs are coming back out in 2008 to start the begining of a trilogy movie. Could that be the Anti-Christ of the Smurfs? Too funny! SmurfOne 07:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Satanic allegations against the Smurfs are well documented. It's part of the "Satanic Panic" phenomenon, which is part of the wider cultural wars in the US. See the "Further Reading" section in Allegations of Satanism in popular culture. -- Stbalbach 12:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As a puertorican that was a fan of the Smurfs run its initial Saturday Afternoon run, I hear the rumors. Having a cartoon series at the afternoon was big at the time, so I would imagine that the other stations that lost alot of ratings points started the rumor. The impact was big (considering that Puerto Rico is a very religious island) but it was more on the toy side of things as the TV series was there for years. d.m.an 04:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Caption

Regarding the caption for the illustration of Papa Smurf and Smurfette:

Papa Smurf Says, "They're All Pink Inside."

Is that for real? It sounds kind of off-color to me. -- Coneslayer 21:55, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

It appeared to be vandalism. I've reverted it. Best, Meelar (talk) 21:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's back, reverting now. Good fodder for BJAODN, though. Karmafist 18:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Smurfette Runs Pub

Smurfette being the only female Smurf would be running a pub I know where mostly men show up, except the good looking female bartender manager.

Smurf Height

Here is written they are 15cm tall. If you see the smurfs walking through Gargamel's house, standing next to Gargamel's feet, being hunted by his cat, standing next to other animals, they look MUCH shorter to me than 15cm. 213.119.9.126 10:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Their height was very inconsistent, which is oddly consistent with the kind of fairy tale style they were going for. In tall tales and fairy tales characters become whatever heighth is needed for the story without any explanation. Hence they were described as three apples tall, and when needed they maybe were that tall, but much of the time they were as small as ten centimeters. Although they usually weren't smaller insects. Also a toon's world is not always the same in proportions.--T. Anthony 08:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The only apple that makes sense in measuring smurfs is the crab apple, which is at most (according to the page) 4cm (in the wild), ~1.57", tall, making smurfs ~12cm (~4.7", 3x1.57") tall. -Eep² 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Music at Mother Nature's home

From which classical piece is the melody, which is always heard, when the smurfs are at Mother Nature's house? 84.170.138.102 18:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Smurfs Music Video

Visit it at [[7]]. User:Kathywimmer 09:37, November 25 2005 (Pacific)

:That's just nonsense. I'm searching for the original theme at Mother Nature's home.

I found it by myself: The song is from Edvard Grieg - Morning mood 84.170.158.173

Do smurfs advocate safe sex?

It's always been a running joke that smurfs advocate safe sex. (yknow... their caps). Maybe we shld include a tongue-in-cheek section about that.

As long as we're along that line. Anyone has any idea how smurfs reproduce? I mean. There's only 1 female smurf...... baaaaaad cartoon.

They magically appear during blue moons 207.134.166.42 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Smurfs actually do advocate safe sex, a crwaing of a Smurf hat shaped condom has been used in a safesex campaign in Belgium. Apart from that, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and tnogue-in-cheek sections (and own research and so on) are not such a good idea, so I think it's better to leave it out of it. Fram 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Really, I read that in a BD once, but I thought that was just a silly joke. 85.226.122.205 23:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

antagonist names

an editor added that "all antagonist names were jewish (such as) gargamel and azrael". a few antagonist names are not jewish as far as i can tell -- nemesis, agatha, clorohydress -- so the insertion is false. i don't know whether gargamel or azrael are, but i've removed the line until there's some evidence of this. Justforasecond 16:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. The other antagonists you name (Nemesis, Agatha, Clorohydress) are more recent additions to the story, possibly not even introduced by Peyo. I do also have a (very) vague recollection of one of the Johan and Peewit comics, where someone talks to a dragon Fafnir in characters that I remember as being Hebrew. I don't have the comic here, maybe someone can confirm this? -- Peter 12:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oooohh I hate smurfs!!!

Klu Klux Klan

Regarding this recentlyt added entry:

Internet rumours have started recently, following Peyo's death, that linked the creator to the Ku Klux Klan and revealed several obvious white supremacist images in the Smurfs cartoons. The most obvious is the fact that all Smurfs wear white, semi-pointed caps reminiscent of Klan headwear, and that the leader, Papa Smurf, wears a red cap, just like the Ku Klux Klan leader, the "Grand Wizard". All Smurfs have strictly defined jobs, and they all look the same, which is also reminiscent of Nazi ideologies. All antagonists have Jewish names, most notably Gargamel and his cat Azrael. One episode that is mentioned frequently as having racist undertones features a beetle that bites the Smurfs, thereby turning them black. All black Smurfs are automatically evil and are portrayed as inarticulate (they can only utter one word) and violently insane. The cartoons also often showed the Smurfs dancing around a fire just like certain ritualistic Klan dances, and speeches by Papa Smurf are greeted by extreme euphoria from the other Smurfs, reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's Nazi propaganda speeches.

I'm not sure "Internet rumours" counts for Wikipedia:Verifiability purposes in looking at Original Research abd POV issues. If this is to be included a reliable source is recommended. --Stbalbach 16:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Good you removed it. Bare in mind that I only know the cartoon not the comics. However the article on Azrael indicates it is the Angel of death in the Qur'an. I believe one of the bad wizards is named Balthazar which is not Jewish as far as I know. Gargamel seems to be a Medieval French name. The KKK cap is a cone, it does not look like a Phrygian cap. In the cartoon in least the bug turns the Smurfs purple.(but apparently in the comic it did turn them black--T. Anthony 11:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)) Singing or dancing around a fire is a communal activity in much of historical Europe and also linked to various boy scout type groups. And so forth.--T. Anthony 11:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Smurf Communism article for deletion :/

The Smurf Communism article has been nominated for deletion, again. [8] The last one, 4 months ago, failed. Please vote to keep this article. --Larsinio 16:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it failed, because for some reason the 19 sockpuppets who voted in the last one, had their votes count--64.12.117.12 14:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

--64.12.117.12 14:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Communism

From the Communism section:

It is now argued by some that Peyo meant to spread communist ideas through smurf cartoons. S.M.U.R.F. is translated by supporters of this theory as "Socialist Men Under Red Father" or "Soviet Men Under Red Father".

Given that they were originally called "Schtroumpfs," not "Smurfs," why is this in the article? tregoweth 02:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I had included your argument in the article, but it has been removed last month (during my holiday) as being POV. I don't see how pointing out the clear logical fallacy in an argument is POV, so if you and most others agree that this is not POV, we can reintroduce it. See comparison for the moment it got removed and the argument used. Fram 08:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Are the supporters claiming that Peyo intended SMURF as an acronym, or is that just their name for the Smurf communism theory? The article is a bit unclear on that. tregoweth 16:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some indication in the article that the whole Smurf Communism thing is (rather obviously) intended as a joke? Nobody actually believes that "smurf" stands for "Socialist Men Under Red Father", and it's silly for the article to pretend otherwise. --Moss 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cian Farel

This section is ridiculous and unfounded, I'm removing it from the main article and moving it here. Google gives no hits on this name, excepted for the Wikipedia article --Vanieter 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cian

There is a character that is not widely known, Cian Farrel . He is Irish and he does not have blue skin. There is a song written about him by the poet Colin J. Brady:

                  I knew a man - who wasn't very tall;
                  His name is Cian - and he was awful small.
                  People used to laugh at him because he was bald;
                  I knew a man - who wasn't very tall!

Unfortunatly, this Smurf was never released as he was deemed politically incorrect.

The link to pvcblue site

I had added this first to pvcblue's talk page, but he deleted it without comment, so I put it here for everyones consideration

Pvcblue, this is not about a personal vendetta, you violate Wikipedia: external links (see "links normally to be avoided") by adding a site that is not "a unique resource" (violates point 1: the things you bring are already covered quite thoroughly by the other links in the article), and it is a website you own and maintain (violates point 3): furthermore, your forum had at the last count (i.e. last week) 18 members, which is not really an impressive reason to include it. Furthermore, your collection of PVC Smurfs is incomplete (not even showing an example of every Schleich number), and is thus less complete than e.g. BlueImps or non-listed sites like Sgt. Papas. Unless you can point out what info your site gives that other sites don't give in a better (more complete, more detailed) way, it adds nothing, and thus has no place there, as there are tens of other sites which are equally intersting and informative. We can and should have only the best, and yours isn't (yet) one of them. Fram 05:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For your information Fram my site has been around since 1997, as for a comment about you remarks, they are not worth it, you are doing this out of spite, if ColbaltTony himself is working on my link to make it better and thinks it can stay where do you get off removing it? You are just a spiteful person - I don't care anymore, I have removed any info I added to the page, do not re-ad it as it comes from my site, and you can have your little page all to yourself, thank you for all the hatefulness you have shown. --Pvcblue 07:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not remark on the longevity of your site, and it is irrelevant. Discussing motives is irrelevant as well. Accusing me of personal attacks (as you did in your last edit summary) is quite serious, and should be substantiated. A criticism of a website and its contents is not a personal attack. Saying that someone does something out of spite is a personal attack though, albeit a minor one. I am not the only one that have removed your link, and I had not removed any of the other info you added, as I don't mind good info to be added. I don't own the page any more or less than you do. I don't think I have shown any hatefullness. I hope you stick around to make good contributions, but that does not mean that you or any of your edits are above criticism, just like mine aren't. Oh, and any info you added can be readded easily, as you have licensed it by adding it here. But anyway, it can be found on other sites as well. Fram 08:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: this was added while I wrote my response above): + So I see, I remove this unnecessary discourse and you put it back, are you trying to start something? You say you are not but all your actions are aggresive and rude, with undertones of wanting to start something. Leave it be I was till you had to go and repost something that was NEVER posted. You are the aggressor here in every instance, just lay off and go back to your life! --Pvcblue 08:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You removed mypost as well, which is simply not done, so I reverted to the previous version. Apart from that, I don't understand what you mean by "repost something that was NEVER posted", I don't think I am capable of the impossible. Fram 08:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have every right to remove a post on MY talk page that is intended for me - it is not a matter for everyone - you are harrassing me plain and simple - grow up. Also my response above is to your comment above it - how can it be done while you are writing it? More lies and half truths - leave me be and leave it alone! --Pvcblue 08:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have the right to remove a post from your talk page, and I have every right to put it then on this article discussion page, where you no longer have the right to remove it. This is not harassment, this is a discussion of what should or shouldn't be in an article. This is exactly what the talk page is intended for. I posted it at your talk page first to try to resolve this between us, instead of here, bt since you clearly did not want to discuss it there, I had no choice but to bring it here. Oh, and you cansee in the history [28] of this page what I mean by edit conflict and what part you reacted to. You reacted to the post with time 07:28, not the one from 08:36. Don't accuse people of "more lies and half truths" for no reason, please. Fram 08:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

PVC Blue site

I looked at the site and didn't see it as link spam site. It seems like a hobbiest site. Can someone provide evidence that it is a spam site? Thanks. -- Stbalbach 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is link spam in the sense that the linker is the owner. WP:SPAM has as the main articles for external link spamming Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines and Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, and the latter of those specifies that linking to your own site should be avoided (point 3). Furthermore, the site is indeed a decent hobbyist site, but adds no obvious unique content beyond what the other links already do (as mentioned, the site e.g. doesn't have a complete list of pictures of all PVC Smurfs, something quite a few other Smurf collectors websites do have, e.g. the already linked blueimps). The original text of the link was way more spammy, but that was toned down luckily. Finally, it is very suspicious that after pvcblue himself stopped adding the link, three different newbies (well, two first timers and one second timer) added the link again. No evidence for it, but it looks very much like he (pvcblue) asked his forummembers or so to add the link in his place. Fram 12:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see here, there are lots of Smurf collector websites on the internet (hooray!), and we can't possibly add all of them, or even all the English language ones. We should only have the best or those that have a very specific and interesting scope, and that is why we have the current collection of links (iwithout pvcblue), with the homepage of the Smurf license holder, one of the largest infosites on PVC Smurfs (blueimps), one of the largest Smurf fora in English (bluecavern, not only for the PVC but also for the cartoons and so on), two specific rather complete sites about the cartoons, the IMDb site (for additional info, e.g. on the movies), and the not so informative but funny name generator. The only link I can see that would be useful is if there was a very good site about the Smurf comics history: otherwise I would prefer not to have more links than the current 7, and replace one of the current if a truly better one comes along. E.g. purely for the PVC Smurfs, Sgt Papas is a worthy candidate, if someone would feel that blueimps is inadequate (I don't), or the huge Osi site, to name just those two. I don't have a Smurf website, but I am a Smurf collector, and pvcblue is yet another good website, not "the excellent site that just has to be added" (TM). Just my two cents... Fram 13:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok agreed there needs to be vetting of sites. I don't know anything about Smurfs, this somehow got on my watchlist. PVCBlue, perhaps they can make a case for their site, instead of edit warring which gets nowhere. --Stbalbach 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Stbalback - I didn't start any edit war, Fram did, I innocently put my link on the site as I was interested in the page and adding info to the page. Fram then moved it, I had put it at the top of the list and he moved it to the bottom, Fram then removed it altogtether. I put it back, ColbaltTony who is a admin here helped me work on in it and found the link just fine. Then Fram went looking for any excuse to remove it - he goes on and on about how my site is inadequate in "his" opinion, yet it is because of my site that the owner of blueimps started making her site look so much better - as I have helped nearly all the smurfers out there who did have sites in the past to make them more graphically appealing. Finally someone else besides me saw this happening and started putting the link back when Fram would remove it. Fram tho would just not leave it alone, it was like they wanted to start something, then Fram posted a comment to my Talk page, which I did not want to get into a huge heated debate like this here with them so I ignored it and deleted it, and they posted it here, so now here you are, even after I tried to avoid ALL this crap. It seems to me Fram lives to stir up drama. If this person Fram has nothing better to do than remove links to sites with valid info, (I have a part of my site that has been down for a bit as I am working on it, that part has major information and media info on it but the updates are taking a while), and stalk the person whose link it is they need to grow up and get a life. I asked them to leave me be, but no they continue to harrass me into this, this is a insane situtation. --Pvcblue 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The start of this reply by pvcblue is correct. After that, well, ... First of all, I posted once to your talk page, you deleted it, and then I left it alone. This has to be the shortest example of "stalking" ever. What we have here is a disagreement, and as we both have the right to our opinion and to a discussion, this is not stalking. But lets look at the edit history, and see how far your story deviates from reality. First, you added your link to the top of the list and with some non-neutral language, so I put it at the bottom and made it more neutral. So far, this is what pvcblue describes. What next? "Fram then removed it altogether"? No, pvcblue put it back with his text at the top, with the remark "change your own not others". This was the start of the edit war. "ColbaltTony ... found the link just fine"? No, Cobaltbluetony (his actual user name) made the next edit [29], agreeing with my change and reverting yours. You then let it at the bottom of the list, but had to reset your original text again [30], which CobaltBlueTony again had to undo [31]. Then, after you twice reverted it, you finally seemed to agree [32]. But no, in the next edit, you just had to make your link much much longer [33]. After that, I came in again, not to remove it, but just to make it shorter [34]. You simply reverted it again without comment [35], and then shortened it very minimally [36]. Then, the next day, I did indeed remove it, with reasons, as I then had had the time to see if your link was good enough [37]. You just put it back without comment [38], after which user 195.92.168.167 was the second one to delete it [39]. You just put it back, without comments [40]. Cobaltbluetony then agreed that at least it was too long [41], but you for some reason removed his wikilink [42], which was reverted again by CobaltblueTony [43]. Then it was deleted again by 195.92.67.74 [44].

We are at this point a week after the first entry and my first comment, and I have deleted the link once. Quite an edit war I have had... Anyway, while the other editors take the time to explain why they make edits to your link or just delete it, you only put it back without a comment [45]. So yet another user (81.78.154.155) steps in and deletes your link, again explaining why [46], at which time first and only time contributor 58.170.1.153 steps in and puts it back without comment [47]. This is when I come in again and remove it, calling it finally linkspam (how to call it otherwise?). [48]. This is my second removal, after you constantly ignored all other users and all reasons given for the deletion. You then put it back, finally with a comment, but sadly it is a rather incivil and personal one [49]. Then 195.92.168.167 deletes it again [50], and two times contributor 60.229.173.157 adds it again without commentg [51]. 195.92.168.167 deletes again, 60.229.173.157 adds again, then pvcblue adds it yet again so it is now listed twice [52], one of them is then removed by stbalbach. 195.92.168.170 deletes it again, one time contributor Tigereyes1 adds it again [53], 195.92.168.170 deletes it again, another one time contributor Smurfy22 adds it yet again [54], after which I did my third deletion [55]. Three time contributor 71.125.241.83 adds it again [56], and 195.92.168.167 tries to find a compromise [57]. The End.

So, I have deleted the article three times after earlier tries to get some collaboration of pvcblue on making it a decent link failed, and after I researched the site and found it not good enough to warrant inclusion, and furthermore a violation of WP:SPAM. Pvcblue never responded to any of the edit summaries except by making a personal attack, he refused to discuss it on his talk page, and now portrays the case in quite a false light, again making personal attacks (which he has done on other places on this talk page as well), and not responding to the comments given (it is irrelevant if you helped other people setting up their site or not, that has no bearing on the value of your site). I have tried to keep this discussion impersonal and to the point, but you are making it hard to do so. Fram 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Since there seems to be consensus from everyone that the PVCBlue site should not be listed, yet multiple different anon IP's keep adding it back (either from the PVCBlue user or members of his site), I have put in a request to semi-protect the article. -- Stbalbach 21:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict Of Interest And Without Impartiality / Fram

To start, I am a member of 5 Smurf forums (excluding one of them that had nothing to do with this) - 1) Mushroom Village, 2) Blue Buddies 3) Blue Cavern/Blue Imps, & 4) PVC Blue and it seems that Fram (An editor at Wikipedia) does not edit the External Links accordingly to spam rules, and should not be editing since for him it is a conflict of interest and he hasn’t any impartiality. I have been following this discussion maybe a week after where this discussion took place and it seems to me this is all about competition, while one is allowed to have their website added , even tho it is with the intention to sell by the owner, which is against Wiki rules, - the other one most likely would like the same privileges as well, but fairly speaking here, Fram uses the word spam to edit any other website off the External Links while the websites he’s an Administrator/Member of (Blue Cavern/Kittys Cavern/Blue Imps) falls into the same category of “Spam” as the others who would like their website there as well. While all these websites DO have great information about “The Smurfs” and none are different from one another, all have the same intention that leads to other websites by the owner with intention to sell. Why is this being allowed? Has anyone checked out these websites to validate what is spam or not? I also have noticed that after an anonymous user by the name of Alex9891 has removed all 3 sites Fram continues to place the ones he is an Administrator/Member of as noted here: “04:54, August 31, 2006 Fram (Talk | contribs) (It's not because someone from the pvcblue camp vandalizes some links that those should be removed as well: readded the external links section like it was before the last actions)” This is also considered vandalism and conflict of interest and without use of impartiality. DevilSmurf 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I am no member or admin of Kitty's Cavern or Blue Imps, I am a moderator at BlueCavern only. I use the same username there, so that is hardly a surprise. I have explained above how I do edit the EL section following spam rules, and why pvcblue did not follow those (see WP:EL and the discussion above). Blue Imps does not sell Smurfs, nor does pvcblue (and the selling of Smurfs is one argument i did not use against his site). Mushroomvillage does, that is why it has been excluded before, but the subsection included in the links is an informative one and so it is included. I don't like mushroomvillage, but I don't remove the link. Bluecavern does not sell Smurfs, but one of the owners of the site also has an online Smurf shop, Kitty's Cavern, which again is not included in the EL. But the intention of the site (and of Blue Imps) is not to sell Smurfs or to lead people to the Smurf shop, the intention is to give the best info there is. Everyone can have a link to his or her site or shop on the sites, which would be stupid if your only aim was to get people to your shop.

The most important aspect though is that I have discussed why the sites that are now included give more or better info than the ones not included (especially pvcblue). BlueImps is a much more complete and informative site concerning Smurf collectibles (pvcblue has pictures of most, not all PVC figurines, and nothing more of info on them: Blueimps gives extra info on all of them). BlueCavern is a much larger forum (ten times the members), and hence can serve an interested collector better.

The discussion should be about what kind of links we need. Do we need a forum? If not, remove it from the list (after discussion!). If ww do need one, take the largest one (in English). Similarly, do we want or need a PVC collector site? If we do, take the most complete and informative one in English, which would probably be BlueImps or Sgt Papa's. Either way, pvcblue is redundant and adds no extra information beyond these sites, and thus violates WP:EL.

Finally, reverting an incorrect removal while giving a reason is not vandalism, and you shouldn't use that term so lightly. Fram 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

hi! I'm new at this but I have to agree with Fram's reponses, since he is following logic and Wikipedia rules properly. maybe pvcblue doesn't like the rules, but they seem very clear to me and this is all very immature. I also have a personal smurf website. the only website dedicated to Fake smurfs, I own almost 5,000 plus fakes that I have collected tirelessly over the past few years, yet I do not feel that hobby sites should be listed here as like Fram said, there are very few hobby sites that have definite information and serious value, to the history of the smurfs. it appears more like ego to me. and its wasting alot of people's times. Sites that I agree with is Blue Imps and Sgt Papa's and Blue Cavern and also some European sites that have great information and a large Kataloged value that documents smurfs in detail that are used as a resource tool for collectors.Mennoblue 22:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Mennoblue - you are anything but impartial nor new to this, you may be new to Wiki, but you have been on the forums for smurfs for a few years now. You are also a long standing member and moderator at BlueCavern forums with Fram, and as such you also do not have any impartiality in this matter Pvcblue 07:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ebolaworld!

They had a lawsuit against Ebolaworld didnt they? --Johnston49er 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I find some references to IMPS (the Smurf merchandising company) forcing some removal of material at Ebolaworld, but this seems to have been minor (probably not turned into a lawsuit, just some threatening letters by lawyers or some such), and is very common with such companies (many websites with "Smurf" in the name have been forced to take another name). So there's something to it, but its too minor to mention in the article. Fram 05:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Smurfs popular in the USSR?

And if so, was it because of the rumoured link between smurfs and communism???

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful, the link seems to have been a "Western" rumor. 惑乱分からん 13:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

SMURF MAMMAL OR NOT?

Papa Smurf has a beard which lead you to beleive that he is a mammal. But there is only 1 female meaning that Smurfs are reptiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.100.111 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessarily the case that the smurfs would be reptiles. From Wikipedia: "Naked mole rats have a complex social structure in which only one female (the queen) and one to three males reproduce, while the rest of the members of the colony function as workers." --Xenan 13:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

just something to say

I think that all people how think that smurfs are communist, kkk or some other organisation are weird and negative thinking. It's just a comic!!!. There's nothing wrong with the comic, some people just like to find negative things behind everything. Just be more positive and cheerful.

TYK1986 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.13.82 (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC) yes a comic!it is simple to understand,all the smurfs are identical to siple the desing, they are stereotipal not racist. by the way,in the italian dub, the antagonist are called "gargamella e birba" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.68.197 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

They don't actually mean that, they're just insulting the smurfs with names calling them evil, or annoying to the point of hatred. And quite frankly, I don't blame them. I smiled all day when the smurfs were bombed in that cartoon. Mattbash 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Smurfs on Nick?

This article is part of WikiProject Nickelodeon, according to the top of this discussion page, but I do not recall the television program ever being part of Nickelodeon's lineup. When were they on? B7T 04:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Papasmurf.jpg

Image:Papasmurf.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 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Smurfs at BP in New Zealand

They weren't given away in New Zealand. You had to buy them, but they were only available from BP (which is one of the few petrol brands in NZ).

Archive?

Anyone else think it's about time to archive this talk page? Useight 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera series - Use of classical music - Scheherezade

The Hanna-Barbera series - Use of classical music section (4.1.1.2) should be updated to include a reference to Scheherazade (Rimsky-Korsakov), the beginning of which is often used as Gargamel's introduction theme (such as when the scene cuts to Gargamel's home), albeit with an increased tempo. Don Dueck 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bottle opsmurf" / "smurf opener"?

Was a "bottle opener" really translated as "bottle opsmurf" in an official translation? I just think it sounds much worse than "bottle smurfener", and doesn't follow normal smurf word-making rules... 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The smurfs control science?

"The smurfs control science." ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.106.212 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Smurfs are little blue creatures from another galaxy that are mostly found in Idaho, Utah, and North Dakota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.82.75 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2013 (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?

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:[58]. 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 [59] discusses exactly the same theme. The oldest I could find online was a 1985 letter[60]. 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.

[61] is a RS making news over non-RS. [62] 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."[63]. 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 [64] 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 [65] 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, [...])[66], 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 [67] 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)

I'd just like to point out that the resemblance of the structure of the Smurf community to communism is a natural feature of its smallness: Any closed, self-sufficient group of about 100 individuals living closely together will naturally develop a structure like this, for example a religious group. See Primitive communism (that's a better description), Band society and Dunbar's number. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2013 (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

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 [68] [69].--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)

Observation...

Writers also are artists, OK?

201.79.201.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No pictures?

Oh common, where are the pictures in this article about those funny beings wearing Phrygian caps? --178.197.224.190 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally would rather have no pictures than the fan-made ones we have now. They don't do justice to the quality of the drawings of the comics, and can give a strange impression to people who don't know the Smurfs well enough. Opinions? Fram (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Smurf voice audio warble? (English)

Is there some specific reason why the smurfs have a sort of high-speed warble to all their voices? They don't have steady-tone voices but rather it wobbles around. Papa smurf especially does this. The humans do not do this. -- DMahalko (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)