Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
If it's not canon, Word of God, or Word of Paul, then it's speculation at best. Speculation doesn't belong on main or YMMV pages.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
I understand that, but that's exactly why I'm confused.
It's on the YMMV and Trivia pages (haven't double-checked the Main Page yet but I don't believe it's there) but it's always reciting the information based on Word of God, a statement that heavily looks to me to be a 'God Never Said That' situation. The posts are written based on responding to the perception it's Word of God. They don't really venture into outright speculation.
I just mean that I'm a new user (if a longtime lurker) so it feels a little... rude, so to say, to go removing other peoples' references based on a lack of a source, but it just feels like such a bold claim that it ought to not be filed without something backing up.
Edit: I misread your post immediately after writing it, so I'll take that as license to edit it out?
Edited by JVM Specializes in Western Animation... Ask me anything about "South Park" :)
Where is this theory mentioned on the wiki?
Edited by SeptimusHeap "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Doesn't Word of God require a citation?
Just to be clear, this is information that was posted to another wiki and is subsequently being cited as Word of God correct? And your concern seems to be that it's actually speculation masquerading as WOG rather than anything the creators of the show actually said right?
@Septimus Heap - on here, it's mentioned twice on YMMV, twice on Trivia, twice on the main page, and once on WMG. Some of these are more valid than others, and at least one of them is my edits. While she qualifies for some of the tropes, and WMG is fair, every single edit references the claimed story.
Examples on Tropes: Main Page: (A to I) - Chuck Cunningham Syndrome: Lana Vail, the brunette woman who lived in the boarding house, also disappears midway through the first season, but shows up in background shots on occasion; for example, at the restaurant with the cockroaches in "Dinner for Four". Word of God says that her original characterization was considered too inappropriate for Nickelodeonnote so they dropped her altogether. (J to P) - Put on a Bus: There was originally a tenant at the boarding house named Lana, but she disappeared after season 1. There was supposed to be a subplot with her falling in love with Arnold; unsurprisingly, Nick shot down that idea in a hurry, so Lana was removed as a result.
Trivia: - God Never Said That: The claim about background character and resident in Arnold's building, Lana Vail having a crush on the 10-year-old Arnold is often attributed to Bartlett, with a claim execs wisely turned it down due to Unfortunate Implications.... but it has never been sourced to an actual interview, to this troper's knowledge, although it was on the wiki for a very long while. (this is my edit) - What Could Have Been: In the first season, there was another tenant named Lana who was originally going to have a crush on Arnold, getting him to do favors for her and regularly making him uncomfortable by sexually harassing him. Nick execs of course found this too disturbing and axed the idea. Since Bartlett couldn't figure out a new direction for the character, Lana vanished after the first season (save for some later cameos in flashbacks or the animators mistakenly placing her into scenes at the boarding house).
YMMV - They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character: Many of the boarders who appeared only in season 1 such as Lana Vail, Mr. Purdy, and Mr. Smith could've been good characters had they lasted the show's run. Later seasons imply that they all moved out. The former was supposed to be more fleshed out, but considering what Bartlett supposedly had planned for her (an implied pedophile who would frequently flirt with Arnold), it's lucky that it never happened. - Squick: It understandably never made it into the show, but an early idea by Craig Bartlett was that there was supposed to be an adult female boarder named Lana (she can be seen in the background of early episodes) who was supposed to be constantly trying to seduce Arnold while Arnold is understandably uncomfortable with her advances.
WMG - Mr.Smith is a private investigator and FBI consultant that was investigating Lana Vail In the early run of the show, Lana Vail was supposed to be a pedophile with a crush on Arnold. With her being an attorney, she might have sucessfully got off without criminal charges for years, including the double standard of men always being perceived rapists and women always being perceived as victims.
When the heat was coming up on her, Lana moved into the Sunset Apartments and became enamored with Arnold. Mr.Smith followed her trail due to a case made by Vail's former victims and moved in for years watching and waiting for her to make her move. Eventually he found evidence to take her in and told Phil and Gertie the truth to shield Arnold from harm. Eventually her trial went underway and she was either arrested or free once again. Smith either left in success or quit in shame.
(The above theory is really totally fine, just using it to illustrate the prevalence of the story.)
The character only seems to speak clearly in one episode of the show ("Heat") and I don't believe she's even identified by name or profession, only asking a passing Arnold if he could spare some water. There's no indication in any of the appearances I tried to find of anything of a darker nature. A page from five or so years ago on another website seems to suggest no explanation existed at the time for her. I could claim the name "Lana Vail" back some years, but I'm quite certain it's never in the show either. He claims she is a lawyer and the pedophile story seem to root from either Wikipedia or Hey Arnold wiki, and the story as seen above is usually related the same way it was phrased there: Craig Barlett relayed in an interview that Lana, an adult woman, she had some kind of feelings for Arnold, a child protagonist, making him uncomfortable and that the execs shot down the idea, so she was removed. As many tropers above indicate, this was a wise move, if we really believe Barlett thought pedophilia was so funny.
The closest thing to a source I found otherwise is a Tumblr post of a now deleted video from five years ago. The description doesn't seem to allude to anything inappropriate: http://lynyrdsquidward.tumblr.com/post/26122092521/criminy-story-telling-with-craig-bartlett-and
(I've messaged the user in question who reblogged it for info, but the OP is gone.)
I've seen the story show up in You Tube videos with no citation, and Cracked, a pretty high-profile one, but the only citation is the wiki, which had none to begin with. Upon looking through the episodes and what information is available, I've yet to find any evidence. All citations of the story are from around 2014 or so, long after the show's run. I consulted editors at the Hey Arnold! wiki, and most people had no idea where it came from, and one suggested he "thought" that Bartlett had said something different (that she had a crush on Arnold's father) so I felt it was wiser to remove it until a source came forward - this was a while ago, and so far nothing has come up.
In the event, evidence is proven, I'd be fine to drop this whole thing and remove my 'God Never Said That'. I'd even add the citation to HA wiki and here if need be.
Specializes in Western Animation... Ask me anything about "South Park" :)
Hmm. Seems like 3 different tropers - Rodolphus_Lestrange, Derpyhooves 1 and thecarolinabull01 were adding this stuff.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Not sure the identity of the particular tropers matters, since the idea seems to have originated offsite - the concern appears to be whether that was ever more than just a bogus made-up factoid.
It does matter because if it was just one troper, it might be someone pushing an agenda or hoaxing.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
If it originated on a another wiki and is a hoax, the hoaxer could have been pushing their agenda there, and we'll-meaning editors got caught up.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
So the etiquette would be that it was okay to remove if it's not verifiable as Word of God? I think that's fair?
Update —: It doesn't seem to be a hoax, but the primary source seems gone for good. A fan met Barlett and did an interview, but they deleted their account with all of the video content. The reader, a secondary source I approached, told me the story is largely true, but that they interpreted the "crush" statement as more bad word choice than an intent to make the character an outright sexual predator.
So, really, I need to remove my 'God Never Said That' and the other tropers' statements can mostly stick, although I might add a note to clarify.
Specializes in Western Animation... Ask me anything about "South Park" :)
Hmmm. I wonder if that would fall under the guideline of tropes being verifiable by the public?
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
I'm seeing a number of references to a specific claim that seems rooted in a wiki page and was never originally sourced - a claim that specifically involves the idea a Creator proposed a Cut Character who would have been a pedophile in an otherwise children's cartoon. Every reference to the controversy I find, which has sadly become widespread, usually carries the exact wording the wiki had. In context, it just doesn't seem likely the idea was really considered. (Hey Arnold! for the record, on Lana Vail)
I totally understand TV Tropes isn't about sources, and that's part of the fun sometimes, and that it's discouraged to remove other tropers' work, which I totally understand... but suggesting pedophilia feels REALLY heavy, and disparaging if not true - is it okay to remove some of these references? I moved and changed one.
Alternatively, if someone has a link to evidence, I'll listen, but even the wiki page seemed to have people reacting with confusion.