Talk:The Rainbow Fish

This article needs to be split.

This is two separate articles, IMHO--one is Rainbow Fish (story) and one is Rainbow Fish (TV series). There's too much info here about two different things. Thoughts on a split? Gladys J Cortez 20:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Here's my concept of a page for the series: [1]. Gladys J Cortez 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• And one for the book--[2]. This one is nowhere NEAR as good as the one for the series, because I can't do the citations. (I tried--I googled "Rainbow Fish and socialism"--but the results I found just made me want to put my head on my desk and whimper. The internet is an ugly, hateful place.) Someone with a stronger stomach and thicker skin will have to do the cites for that--I simply can't.

What do you all think of splitting this? Gladys J Cortez 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article should be split. --RucasHost (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should NOT be split. This article refers in all respects to the same thing. All it needs to a copyedit to make sure that the 2 parts of the article are clearly distinguished from each other. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Broken Link.

Whats up with the "freshwater fish" link. I clicked it expecting to go to a site telling me about a real fish classifation and I came right back to the rainbow fish story. Infuriating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.66.240.75 (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The moral?

I had reverted an anonymous (and, to my eye, politically biased) edit. This was undone, again without explanation or further reference. See my comments in the edit history for details. I haven't ever made an RfC before, so please steer me in the right direction if necessary for any reason. /Ninly (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a transcription of the Boortz show mentioned in my edit comments, which aired on the same day as the original edit, just a few hours prior, and seems to me to have inspired the changes. /Ninly (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and re-reverted this edit, after review of reversion policy and procedure. If you think there's a good reason to change "sharing" to "Communism", please discuss it before making the change again. If the change continues to be made anonymously and without discussion, I will continue to revert it unless a more experienced wikipedian introduces a better way to address this. Please note that a critique of socialism is discussed later on in the article, and that the book does not explicitly deal with (capital-C) Communism. /Ninly (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling it what it is. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck. Go ahead and change it, I'll change it back to the way it should be. By the way, who is Neil Boortz! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.154.178 (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the leap to Communism from the story is a bit of a stretch. Certainly, the book can be read as a saccharine story about the value of sharing and making friends.

It would seem best (to me) to leave the sharing bit in the Moral - because that's what it is - and put something about how it might be an analogy to Communism in the Criticism section. Saying the Moral of the story is "Communism is good" is interpreting a bit too much and that sort of interpretation belongs in Criticism, not Moral.Steve3742 (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. I don't have a problem with the view per se—Communism deserves plenty of criticism. But simple sentences that seem to conflate socialist-sympathetic literature, socialism, Communism, and "sharing", without more explication, isn't an improvement on this article, especially since it already already better expresses some of the same ideas. /Ninly (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• What the anonymous IP editor is not understanding is that all changes, especially if they may be controversial, must be supported by reliable sources. The argument that it "looks like" communism is original research. We can't base encyclopedia content on our own personal observations. Threatening an edit war is not such a hot idea either, and may lead to the article being protected from changes and/or blocking of those who violate WP:3RR. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Communism unnecessarily politicizes the book, but to be sure the "moral" in the story differs dramatically from the earlier mention in the article that the book values individualism. The book, in fact, strongly suggests that acceptance to a group is only possible when one sacrifices his or her own unique identity. That conflict between sections at least should be addressed. (68.33.207.18 (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

This discussion is frankly absurd (albeit hilarious). The bizarre view of paranoia-ridden American right-wingers does not deserve this amount of attention. 107.179.142.68 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the 1997 direct-to-video VHS and DVD

Nowhere in the WikiPedia entry is this mentioned, but before the 2000 TV show on HBO there was a 1997 direct-to-video release of "The Rainbow Fish and Dazzle the Dinosaur", which Amazon.com shows came out on VHS March 25, 1997 and on DVD September 24, 1997. Since it is kind-of a "pilot" to the 2000 HBO series, TVShowsOnDVD.com lists it as the third ever TV-DVD related release ever made. (#'s 1 and 4 were two Beavis and Butt-head titles, and #2 was an Aeon Flux title; all four of those DVDs were released by SonyWonder, a branch of the Sony Music division that was shut down as a separate entity in 2007.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.4.176 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Tactile Nature of the Scales in the Book

An important feature of this children's book is that all of the different fish scale seen in the book feature a different tactile sensation and are meant to be touched and enjoyed by the children reading the book. This should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.188.243 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy"

I am not very well acquainted with the norms of English Wikipedia, that's why I write here instead of taking action. Is really every opinion that someone publishes on their blog considered relevant to be cited in articles? Does really every such opinion make the book "controversial"? In the German version, we would delete the section "controversies".--Oudeístalk 16:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Twitter account

Would it be appropriate to mention the Rainbow Fish Twitter account? 80.47.138.233 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No thanks, per WP:NOSOCIAL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)