Talk:Goldilocks and the Three Bears

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SeeSpot Run (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 31 March 2015 (→FA status). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:20, 31 March 2015 by SeeSpot Run (talk | contribs) (→FA status)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria.
Please feel free to leave comments.
After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Goldilocks and the Three Bears article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1

Goldilocks and the Three Bears has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 3, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Children's literature GA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature

This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Novels: Short story / 19th century GA‑class High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by 19th century task force (assessed as High-importance).

Reference Conflict

One of the photos has a caption claiming it to be from 1927, while there is this reference saying that the picture is from 1919 book. See: http://www.ongoing-tales.com/SERIALS/oldtime/FAIRYTALES/goldilocks.html

Merging Goldilocks and the Three Bears into The Three Bears

Since the original story did not involve Goldilocks for nearly 70 years, and both articles on WP are virtually identical, I say we eliminate the Goldilocks article and have it redirect to The Three Bears. --Kitch 03:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And possibly longer. Definite merge. But I'm not sure which way. "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" has the advantage of being more distinctive. Goldfritha 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with merge, and since it seems as though Goldilocks is a later addition to original Three Bears story, that the "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" entry should be merged into this "The Three Bears" entry as originally suggested. Papaverite 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge is underway. Goldfritha 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The article claims "there is no record of the story preceding Southey's publication in 1837", but one of the references at the bottom, namely http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/goldilocks/history.html, mentions a version from 1831 and backs that up with a reference to a book: ISBN 0195202198.

I'm not understanding the reason for the move. The story is known today as "Goldilocks and the Three Bears", not "The Story of the Three Bears." Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Grimm brothers reference

I'm missing a source for this statement, since I cannot seem to find either a German equivalent (and I think the Grimm brothers collected only/mainly German fairy tales), or any other source referencing "The Three Bears" as being part of the Grimm collection. Ub 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No statement that the Grimm brothers collected the story of the Three Bears is found in the article, which says "Often considered . . . it actually . . . ." Perhaps a better wording for this awkward sentence would be, "It is not, though it is sometimes presumed to be, a Grimm . . . ; it actually first saw print . . . ." This too sounds awkward. EdK 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Goldilocks economy

There is another reference to goldilocks at financial & investment literature. Some one could explain the mean of "Goldilocks economy of the late 1990"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.82.248 (talk • contribs)

The story has nothing to do with bears or as the person wrote in the plot... privacy. It is about the economy. A Goldilocks Economy is neither "Hot or Cold." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.81.194 (talk • contribs)

As explained in the article Goldilocks economy, the term is a modern reference to the story, which is not "about" the economy. It's just a humorous name for an economy that is neither too "hot" (unsustainable growth, usually linked with inflation) nor too "cold" (low economic growth, usually leading to high unemployment), but "just right", like the third bowl of porridge in the story. Snarkibartfast (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

NO ONE CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.68.68 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Goldilocks in Pop Culture

Goldilocks is one of fables Comic characters she is villain "With great good skills" how tray to kill snow white and she have affair with the young bear and blue beard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.22.20.191 (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Recent changes have tremendously improved this article, though I'm puzzled that the definitive reference - Ober, Warren. The Story of the Three Bears: The Evolution of an International Classic. - doesn't appear to have been consulted; indeed, the title was dropped from the earlier list of references. Despite this, many thanks for an improved article. EdK (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to get hold of that source. It's something of a specialty publication and not readily available. In spite of the fact that the article has been developed without Ober, I think it can pass GA without it. The essentials, the major aspects (and then some) are covered from some very potent experts in fairy & folk lore and children's lit like the Opies and Maria Tatar, a dean of humanities and Folklore Chair at Harvard. ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the improvements you've made to the article are outstanding! Continued best wishes! EdK (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've found the Ober book and will see what can be worked into the article. But nothing right away because it's a GAN. ItsLassieTime (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rule of three

I saw the rule of three discussed on the GA review, and I found a source discussing it in relation to this story.

Booker, Christopher (2005). "The Rule of Three". The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 229–232. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Not quite sure how to fit it into the present article, though. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a great source and the info could easily be incorporated. I'll let the main article editor take care of it, considering how much work they have already put into it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting this to WP:FA

I've been thinking about trying to get this article to Featured status, which should be relatively easy since it's already GA. However, two problems jump out at me that would likely need to be solved. First, the Origins section should be restructured further; specifically, the information about "Scrapefoot" should be integrated into the main section, perhaps near the top. I haven't yet figured out how to best do that. Secondly, Cultural resonance should look less like a trivia section. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that last point is now pretty well fixed. The first point is still looking tricky. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Neo-bullshit

Just read the section on interpretations, I am sorry to say that it's why most academia has no truck nowadays...

the story may not solve Oedipal issues or sibling rivalry as Bettelheim believes "Cinderella" does, it establishes the importance of respecting the property of others and the consequences of meddling with it. Bettelheim may have missed the anal aspect of the tale that would make it helpful to the child's personality development

hUh?? What a load of twaddle? Big words, no substance and little understanding.

     In the academic world, too little bullshit is just as
     inappropriate as too much bullshit.  The proper amount of 
     bullshit is juuuuuust riiiiiight. 172.190.201.211 (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

When was Goldilocks introduced?

The article says: The tale experienced two significant changes during its early publication history. Southey's elderly antagonist morphed into a pretty little girl called Goldilocks, and his three male bears became Father, Mother, and Baby Bear. Morphed? Can't you write less fuzzily? It isn't at all clear from this whether Southey's version contained Goldilocks (and that happens to be precisely the information I'm looking for). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JO 24 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"antagonist"

How is Goldilocks, or the old woman for that matter, an "antagonist"? This is needlessly artificial. Goldilocks is clearly the protagonist. --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, she's the antagonist because she's guilty of home invasion. The Bears didn't invite her or know her. She entered the home of strangers, ate their food and slept in their beds and upon their return, fled the scene. In fact, I remember more recent re-tellings (in Timon & Pumbaa, for example), where the story ends with Goldilocks being arrested for breaking and entering. User:coq87rouge —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC).

Major Plot Inconsistencies

The bears take a walk because their porridge is too hot, right? Goldilocks walks in and starts enjoying the buffet. The Papa Bear's porridge is in a big bowl and is still to hot - fine. The Mama Bear's porridge is in a medium bowl and is too cold - plausible. The Baby Bear's porridge is in a wee little bowl and is just right. Huh? How could his porridge be warmer that Mama Bear's if they were poured at the same time? This premise (which is key to the story) defies immutable laws of physics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.164.32 (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

YOU know, you are absolutely on the ball. From my memory, I had thought that it was Muma Bear's porridge (and chair and bed) which was "just right". But looking the story in internet sites, they all have Baby Bear's as the "Goldilock's option". The writers felt a need to make the optimal choice for Goldilocks the one which was prepared for Baby Bear, another child. It would be entirely logical that Mama Bear's porridge, chair and bed would be "in-between" in temperature, size, and softness respectively, and so right for Goldilocks. It's just irrational to have it the way it is now, and I don't see how childrend can benefit being taught absolute crap like this! Would we teach them that 1 + 1 = 3? No, we would not. So, let us stop rotting their minds with this guff!! I'm seething with indignation. Myles325a (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The fallacy in interpretation is that "Baby Bear" is tiny, a baby. Rather, Baby Bear is a healthy, growing late adolescent bear, already larger than his mother, but not the size of his huge father. From this understanding comes the appreciation that the chair, porridge, and bed are the correct size or temperature for Goldilocks. She represents the golden haired Nordic ideal which hirsuit, successful middle class types wish for their sons. She, distressed and hungry, imposes upon the Ursus family, but they forgive her, recognizing what her reproductive potential could bring to their lineage. The conclusion is vague, reflecting the difficulties inherent in bi- speciism. The tale falls in a spectrum between little Red Ridinghood, a fashionable brunette, who interrogates the shifty Wolf character until rescued by a muscular redneck type woodsman, and Cinderella, a delivery story, populated with evil family, princes, fairies, and designer shoes. Only Goldilocks pulls herself out of the jam based on her force of personality and, of course, beauty. Screenplay to follow. Boomerdudeok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomerdudeok (talk • contribs) 01:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

published in

Hi, not sure why but under the "published in" section it just says the doctor, shouldn't this be a date? and if so could someone add in the correct date? Thanks. --58.178.159.204 (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor _ was the title of the short story & essay collection in which "The Three Bears" was published in 1837; publish date is listed four lines below the 'published in' line of the info-box. EdK (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FA status

To editor SeeSpot Run: please enlighten me – in your quest to make this article a FA, what good does it do to delete images and text, some of it with ref. citations? I can understanding finding and removing a dead link, removing unsourced text if it is damaging the article, and so forth; however, you've made several edits with which I do not agree:

#1 – #2 – #3 – #4 – #5 – #6

...so I will revert them unless you can explain them here, thank you. – Paine Ellsworth 20:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The material was removed because it focused on spoofs and parodies, not true dramatic adaptations of the original tale. One was a song. WP wants dramatic adaptations like plays, operas, musicals, etc. The article is about the original tale, not about spoofs and parodies or songs. If we accept these parodies it will be necessary to accept parodies of every novel or story written, which isn't feasible. The article was overwhelmed with images and removing one superfluous image does no damage to the article. I don't think these deletions should be returned. It's impossible to know if some (like the Disney and Warner Bros. cartoons) are faithful dramatic adaptaitons or parodies. Best that they be removed for that reason. SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Please show a policy or guideline that supports your edits, that supports what you say above that WP wants only dramatic adaptations but no parodies or songs. Also, please show why it is okay to remove content that is reliably sourced. Articles on novels and stories, even people, include parodies and songs all over WP, so why not in this article? The article was not by any means "overwhelmed" with images - heck, you only rm'd two images. I don't think any of your edits I cited above are good ones, nor do I think the removal of the Disney and WB content is a good idea, either. – Paine Ellsworth 14:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Any editor is free to remove uncited material. I've removed much. An article about a fictional work needs only to focus on the original work. Editors are not required to develop sections on adaptations, allusions, etc. Please the Mos especially Writing about Fiction. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories: