Jump to content

Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Redirect

Note to editors: Talk Page redirect error has been fixed.

These two articles again have their own talk page:

Some previous discussions related to the Disney franchise may be moved there.
(Glad somebody caught that. Thank you!) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing reference to Alan Bennett as narrator of Winnie-The-Pooh books on tape/audiobook

having possessed the books 'on tape' for most of my life, and seeing them on iTunes (all narrated by Alan Bennett) i was surprised to see that there was no mention of these on the wiki page. the significance of the characterization that Bennett gives to the Milne Characters is not to be underestimated, and should be mentioned (if not for its excellence, then its continuation of proliferation through all media; from tapes, CDs and now audiobooks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.225.143 (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect reference to location of Toys

The article is locked so it prevents me from editing what is an incorrect reference. It says that the Pooh toys owned my Christopher Milne are located in the Main Branch" of the NY public library. They are in fact located in the Public Library on 20 W 53rd St, New York, NY located across the street from the MOMA building. Can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.118.170 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ABCDEFGHIFKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ♣♠♥♦

Characteristics

I'm trying to figure out why some information under 'Characteristics' on the right-hand side shows up while editing the page but fails to render when the final product is viewed. Namely, I was looking for the 'Friends' field, but everything below 'Notable aliases' is missing. I'm sort of new to this, so does anyone have any ideas? Jsjoberg 03:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Only fields defined in the template will work - 'Friends' has been removed. See [1] -- Ian Dalziel 09:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Disney

Is there any point in the characters and the Disney films having separate pages? They are all stubs. Unless someone can convince me that they have a non-stubbish future, I'll merge them all into a "list of characters" on this page. -- Tarquin 09:48 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

This one seems quite unstubby. I would leave it by itself.

I know I'm joining this discussion a few months late, but Winnie the Pooh is not primarily a Disney character! He deserves a page of his own as an important character in childrens' literature.Olivia Curtis

Milne's Winnie the Pooh and Disney's tasteless rendition of it should be kept completely separate. Disney has walked all over Winnie the Pooh with muddy feet, and a special place in hell has been reserved for the perpetrators. There should be articles about Milne's classic works and the characters in them. There should be no Disney images in these, and a single link in each article to the main Disney-Pooh page. Links to articles on the individual characters in Disney should appear only in articles on the Disney abortion, not in the corresponding Milne/Shepherd ones. Copey 2 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this article is mainly about disney and that is wrong. Winnie the Pooh is not a disney character, disney just made an attempt on ecranization, one of many.84.167.239.146 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do people think the short stories listed on this page should be limited to the Milne ones, or should also the Disney short stories be included as well (for example "Pancakes can be dangerous things") ---Imran 20:49, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're All Wrong, Disney Takes good care of winnie the pooh, and they're not tasteless. How could you say that? I bet if winnie the pooh was warner Brother's you'd want them to be together. Right. Or even the soviet one you want it to stay on this page. Even Though It's Bad. Disney Rocks, And you Guys Suck.

Sorry, I have to agree with those guys, Disney seriously buggered up Winnie-the-Pooh. I think the Disney one is different enough to warrant a separate set of articles. They're too different. Liam Markham 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NO THEY AREN'T, some of you i've read have claimed on the wizard of oz page that it should be merged with The MgM Film page. saying the book wasn't good enough, and that that should be the true oz, even though it's very very different. Many of you don't even like Winnie The Pooh, you just hate disney more, i know this. Why aren't you guys saying the same thing about the soviet Winnie The Pooh, huh, The Soviet Union was worse than Disney ever was, but why aren't you complaining about them being alongside the original, answer me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.60.7 (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Disney made their own version. It's not good or bad, simply a separate thing. Therefore it should be kept separate from the Milne article. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp and assistance 00:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just thought I should point this out, saw some vandalism on the page, and cleaned it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.172.137 (talk)

Vandalism? Oh no, how dreadful!
You haven't actually been editing Wikipedia long, have you? -- Ian Dalziel 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

He did it again. Then he redirected the warning messages to me. SOMEONE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS! I'M INNOCENT! PLEASE! -- Anonymou§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.1.191 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What's a Pooh?

While the page explains the source of the "Winnie" part of the "Winnie-the-Pooh" name, I'm still quite curious about "the Pooh". What, pray tell, is a Pooh bear, and how did it get that name? One-dimensional Tangent 21:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) (The cat killed curiosity)

As I recall, they explain it in the actual book. If someone could naba copy, maybe we could add an explanation here. --b. Touch 14:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There's an explanation in the article already (presumably added since 10 Nov 2004). --Paul A 03:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to register and wait until I can edit this article. If you actually follow the 2nd citation linked at the bottom of the page, you can see that wan should actually be swan. Swan named Pooh -- 70.81.193.217 22:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
wan = swan, thanks IdreamofJeanie 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The present state of the article is a somewhat confused mix of information about the book Winnie-the-Pooh and the character Winne-?the-?Pooh. I'm beginning to think there should be separate articles for each. Comments? --Paul A 06:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just a clearer deliniation of each within this article? --b. Touch 14:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. The other point worth mentioning is that, as a punctuation pedant, it offends me to see the book Winnie-the-Pooh filed under the title [[Winnie the Pooh]]. --Paul A 03:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know the story behind the sign that says "Mr. Saunders" over Pooh's door? David Battle

According to this Winnie-the-Pooh FAQ, Milne never said anything useful on where he got the name "Sanders" but it has been claimed that the original was a printer named Frank Sanders. There's never been an in-story explanation for the sign, either - Milne was smart enough not to labour the joke - but it's generally assumed that it was left behind by a previous occupant. --Paul A 06:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was also hoping the article would tell me why *NO* character in this series has (to my knowledge) EVER referred to Pooh Bear as "Winnie". This appears to be his name, but he's always referred to as "Pooh". Why? --and what IS a "Pooh"?? --Schmendrick 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was officially wrong, but I always thought it had to do with a bear being brown, and the central importance of defecation in a young child's psyche. Ie. pooh might as well stand for, well, poo. In fact, this might be the ACTUAL origin, with all the blowing and swan stuff made up to, well, make it presentable. Would love to find some Freudian source on this. 195.38.101.16 12:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Its explained in the Introduction to Winnie-the-pooh where Milne reminds readers of the Swan called "Pooh" in one of the poems in When we were very young he says that they decided to take the name with them. At this point Winnie-the-Pooh is simply Edward bear, but decides he would like "an exciting name all to himself, Christopher Robin said at once, without stopping to think, that he was Winne-the-pooh. And he was." (From the introduction to Winnie-The-Pooh) He then goes on to explain about visiting the London Zoo and being especially fond of the bear named Winnie. He then states that "we can't remember whether Winnie is called after Pooh or Pooh after Winnie." Clank.r 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Photos?

Why are all the A A Milne characters shown as Disney soft toys? Can we not use Shepherd's original drawings, or at least soft toys that look like them?(:

US copyright laws prevent this. This page explains the situation pretty well: http://www.hundred-acre-woods.ws/faq/chapter2.htm Turnstep 16:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oh right. Darn copyright laws.
Whoa! Are you saying that US copyright law makes use of Shepherd's classic images illegal, but Disney's abortions are okay? From the web page you cite I can see that Shepherd's images are banned, but I still don't understand why these horrors are allowed to be published. Copey 2 12:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I also see that the web page attempts to ban use of the images. From the Wikipedia Fair Use Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use it is absolutely clear that use of one of these images here is entirely legal. Some one with the time should add one. JD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.114.205.67 (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Disney's no Horror. You guys are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.60.7 (talk) 12:02, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly do they live?

This sentence from the top of the page does not make much sense:

  • They live in the Wood with a variety of other characters, with Owl being the only one to live in the Hundred Acre Wood.

Turnstep 02:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me either. Perhaps someone wasn't paying attention to what they were writing. Scorpionman 23:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Although the "Hundred Acre Wood" is commonly thought to be the setting of the stories, only Owl's house was actually located there. I don't think the location of the other houses is named, although it seems to be a wooded area with lots of trees. The next time I get a chance, I'll look at my books and see if they give any more information. -Jaclyn 14:39, 22 December 2005
Don't the books include a map? 惑乱 分からん 13:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and both the map and the text suggest that the Hundred Acre Wood is a part of the forest, and while everyone lives in the forest, only Owl lives in the Hundred Acre Wood part of it. Angr/talk 13:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

None of that makes any sense at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.198.32 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Think of the forest as a city, and Hundred Acre Wood as a suburb of that city. The other characters live in other (unspecified) suburbs. Clearer? 81.98.161.178 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

merging, moving and disambiguating

I just did a rather interesting series of moves that should probably be explained for posterity's sake, or so somebody can undo it all. I found that the content describing the character had been cut-and-paste moved from Winnie the Pooh to Winnie-the-Pooh (character). I deleted the latter, moved former on top of the latter and then undeleted the latter's content to fix the broken page history. I then started thinking that this was a rather silly place to have it, but Winnie-the-Pooh was a description of the book. I then moved the book description to Winnie-the-Pooh (book), moved the character description to replace it at Winnie-the-Pooh and dabbed the link in the character article text to the book article before fixing the numerous redirects. Knowing practically nothing about this topic, having everything redirect to the original character name and having the book be at the less obvious title appears to be logical. If the present configuration is completely ridiculous, please let me know on my talk page and I would be happy to change it to whatever the regular contributors here reach consensus on. Cheers, BanyanTree 21:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment by User:80.229.147.12 left in the middle of the article

80.229.147.12 14:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Someone needs to edit the caption to the picture in the section above -- I can't see how to do it. What you show is not Winnie-the-Pooh but Winnie the Pooh, the Disney bastardization. Better still, replace the picture with one by E H Shepherd, all of which are infinitely superior, though bear in mind that they are in copyright until 1926, I think.80.229.147.12 14:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

moved here by PFHLai 15:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Look at the comment "Photos" above. The original images are still under copyright. Scorpionman 23:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Winnie-Ther-Pooh

I think shomething should be mentioned about the first appearance of WTP's name, in the very first pages of the book, he allegedly was called "Edward Bear": 

"When I first heard his name, I said, just as you are going to say,
"But I thought he was a boy?"
"So did I," said Christopher Robin.
"Then you can't call him Winnie?"
"I don't."
"But you said--"
"He's Winnie-ther-Pooh. Don't you know what 'ther' means?"
"Ah, yes, now I do," I said quickly;
and I hope you [referring now to readers of this book] do too,
because it is all the explanation you are going to get."

I'm probably not the first to have noted it sounds very much like the German gender definite article "der", but the original books is not particularly explicit about the matter. 85.226.122.241 14:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

By 'gender' I think you meant masculine, nominative. I don't think it's especially relevant, as Christopher Robin is very young and unlikely to know any german. 57.66.51.165 13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, masculine, nominative, sorry I forgot that. Christopher Robin hadn't need to know much German to, somehow, somewhere, have picked up that in German, unlike English, you could differ between genders with the definite article and be fascinated by it. Anyway, it fits well with the explanation, but you're right in that it's fan speculation. 惑乱 分からん 13:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So what does "ther" mean then? This has bothered me since I first read the book, and it's not in any dictionary I've found. Is it some sort of gender-neutral linking word? 204.145.242.1 19:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything except "the" pronounced with special emphasis (keep in mind this was an upper-middle class English family in the early 20th century who definitely spoke RP). It isn't supposed to make sense except in the mind of a six-year-old, to whom it's quite natural that "Winnie-ther-Pooh" be a boy's name even though Winnie is a girl's name. Don't over-analyze it! Angr (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Just think of it as what it sounds like when a child emphasises the word 'the' – a vocal equivalent of italics. Christopher Robin is saying, exasperatedly: "Your point about Winnie being a girl's name is invalid in this case. The bear is not called 'Winnie Brown' or 'Winnie Smith' or even 'Winnie Pooh'. He is called 'Winnie-the-Pooh', all one name, and therefore perfectly acceptable for a male bear." Only the boy says it much more succinctly. Grubstreet (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

actors

So are all the original voice actors for Winnie the Pooh are dead now? Scorpionman 23:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Clint Howard is still alive and very actively working, and Bruce Reitherman is also apparently still alive. Of course, they were kids at the time, so that's not really surprising. All of the adult voice actors appear to have passed away, most recently John Fiedler and Paul Winchell. Also, some of the later voices of Christopher Robin and Roo are still alive, but you did say "original". Powers 20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actor Sterling Holloway was the original voice of Pooh. While watching an old Twilight Zone episode, I was surprised to hear Pooh's voice coming out of a TV repairman!! This **really** should be included in the article, but I don't see an obvious place to include it... --Samatva 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry but seeing as he is a relative of mine it saddens me greatly that no reference is made here to Peter Dennis, the original narrator of all of the Pooh stories, I knw he wasn't a voice actor for Pooh but honestly does anyone have teh deceny to add about him, or his website: www.poohcorner.com

The New Pooh

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2005-12-06-winnie-the-pooh_x.htm

Um. I haven't the heart, but it should go in the article somewhere. *weeps openly* Scix 22:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


That is just WRONG!!!!!!!!! They shouldn't be able to mess with Pooh! That should be considerd treason!

I can't believe this sort of thing is actually legal. Shame on Disney!
Just as a record, in case it confused anyone: Apparently I was a bonehead, misread the above comment as being in the article, rev'd it, then re-revved, as near as I can tell, fixing my error. Scix 06:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This IS NOT RIGHT! WINNIE THE POOH 'NOR CHRISTPHOR ROBIN SHOULD BE REPLACED! IT'S ALMOST LIKE DISNEY IS TRYING TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY CLOSE TO YOU IN YOUR CHILDHOOD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.171.57.223 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry guys, I disagree: the more changes the better. Let Disney take their bastardized version of Pooh as far from Milne as it can possibly go. Copey 2 12:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

They can't take away Christopher Robin! They can't mess with Pooh! Pooh and Christopher Robin are as natural as PB&J!

The whole Disney abomination has already "messed with Pooh". I'm with Copey - at least with a new "tomboy" character they're admitting that Disney Pooh has only the names in common with Milne's creation. Garth M 14:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No Disney's Pooh is still the same. But disney's messing it up, because it's been eisnerised. And One more thing, Disney's pooh is the same and close as ever. Disney Rocks. You're All Wrong.

I was searching for the actual origination of Winnie-The-Pooh and I found this wonderful dialogue. Who knew this fabulous bear had such a deep and moving following. As I read through the news article about Disney's plan to replace Christopher Robin??? I agree with (User:Copey 2) above ONLY in that change is inevitable and necessary for growth, but I wholeheartedly disagree with (User:Copey 2) that Disney should be allowed to take their bastardized version of Pooh as far from Milne as they possibly can. Winnie-The-Pooh was NOT a Disney creation - they simply bought the rights to A.A. Milne's characters as a means of financial gain.

Ms. Kanter comments in the article, "...Christoper Robin had a non-specific gender." Really?? How many women do we know named Christopher who wear shorts and collard shirts? Is she serious?? She goes on to explain that they were looking to introduce "...an alternate universe for Pooh and his crew." GOOD LORD, LADY!!! I think we have quite enough going on in the world in the way of alternate universes that we needen't add another, and least of all in the direction of our children, for God's sake!!! And I LOVE how she plainly, and probably flatly, states that "Christopher Robin is still out there in the woods, playing..." So yes, this is was a well thought out idea — now we have a beloved little boy who is unexplainably seperated from his friends to wander the woods alone and play. THIS idea coming from Disney themselves that it's OKAY to wander the woods alone to play....unsupervised. To Ms. Kanter - do you drink milk? Ever spin that carton around? MISSING CHILDREN. Did it ever occur to you, even once, to explain in your new "alternate universe" where exactly it was that CR went off to? So as not to traumatize the little ones who are taught NOT to wander off alone? Why couldn't a new kid move into the neighborhood? Why did you have to REPLACE Christopher Robin? Did you think that no one would want his forwarding address? Well, we do.

I believe that if Walt Disney were alive today that he'd b*tchslap most of the current Disney Corporate Exec's and then do his damndest to return his OWN creation, his own labor of love, back into the healthy, well-intended, and honest business that he originally created. Shame on Disney. Instead of this beloved bear and his friends remaining in our hearts and our children's memories, they are slowly but surely becoming lost in the Disney empire. Some things should just be left alone, and Winnie-The-Pooh and his friends are one of those things. HuggyKat (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)User:HuggyKat

Lumpy?

The 'Lumpy' hyperlink links to a Star Wars character - is there a page for the WtP character or does a new one need created?

There is no "Lumpy" Link in Wikipedia, but I have redirected the link of "Lumpy" to the article on heffalumps. Since I am not logged on I cannnot make a link about Lumpy right now.

Sex of Winnie-the-Pooh - controversion in Poland

The basic Polish translation by Irena Tuwim of 1938 presents Winnie as a boy. in 1986 translation by Monika Adamczyk Winnie is a girl. Xx236 13:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in the Adamczyk's translation he's a boy also. Only with a girls name. Barry Kent 18:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Video Games

Are you sure that Kingdom Hearts is the only Pooh video game?

I founded other Pooh video games at Amazon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elil (talk • contribs) .

(named after Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada)

Removed this from the very first sentence because it doesn't strike me as a) accurate (he is named afer the bear, not the place) b) suitable or helpful in an introduction. As it is not one of the most memorable, or famous, points about the subject, it should not be in that first sentence. Of course, you can disagree and add it back. 57.66.51.165 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Added back (as of now). Winnie the Pooh was named after a bear named Winnipeg (Winnie) who was owned by a Canadian soldier who named her after his hometown, Winnipeg. It is a very important point. 24.77.68.231 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Several times on this talk page it is claimed that we can't use the E.H. Shepherd drawings because they are under copyright. However, the Disney images on this page are also under copyright. Using an E.H. Shepherd drawing to illustrate what Winnie-the-Pooh looks like will certainly qualify as fair use, so I say, get rid of Disney's Pooh and replace it with the real thing! Angr/talk 13:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Or both, for comparision... 惑乱 分からん 13:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been bold and replaced the Disney abomination with a Shepard drawing, which certainly falls within fair use. The postmodern Pooh with the new little girl is still there, since she's referred to in the article. Angr/talk 14:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's dangerously POV to remove the extremely well-known Disney version simply because it's an "abomination". The CGI shot doesn't show Pooh very well. Therefore, I've kept the Sheppard illustration, re-added the Disney Pooh, and removed the book cover as unnecessary. Powers 15:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Purists would say the Disney image doesn't show Pooh at all. More to the point, since the image with the litle girl is also a Disney image, we now have two Disney Poohs and only one Shepard Pooh. I think that's dangerously POV. Angr/talk 15:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
We can't base our decisions on the opinions of purists, though, right? Anyway, the Sheppard image has the most prominent location, marking it as the "definitive" illustrative image. As for the CGI image, it shows several of the Pooh characters, with Pooh himself obscured and in 1/4 view; it's absurdly inadequate for illustrating the modern Pooh. If you think there are too many pictures, remove that one. However, I tend to view it as representative of the third stage of Pooh: the first being Milne's books, mostly with Sheppard's illustrations; the second being classic Disney Pooh; the third being this new CGI stuff without Christopher Robin. Powers 15:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Pooh was a cartoon designed to get people to respect people with mental dissabilities.

Pooh=Eating disorder/addiction Rabbit=OCD Piglet=Severe social anxiety Eyore=Severe depression Tigger=ADD

Funny, but not true. CMacMillan
Actually, this refers to a spoof article produced in a Canadian Medical Journal (Heading as follows):
Research of the Holiday Kind: Pathology in the Hundred Acre Wood: a neurodevelopmental perspective on A.A. Milne
Sarah E. Shea, Kevin Gordon, Ann Hawkins, Janet Kawchuk and Donna Smith
Sarah-the-Shea, Ann-the-Hawkins, Janet-the-Kawchuk and Donna-the-Smith are with the Division of Developmental Pediatrics and Kevin-the-Gordon is with the Division of Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
It's an amusing article, but clearly a spoof. I'm not sure that we need to reference it here... 157.203.42.40 12:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Having said that - re-reading the entry I note that the CMA Journal article is already linked in. 157.203.42.40 12:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Disney is the real thing you idiots. Disney Haters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.60.7 (talk) 12:06, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Disney haters?? Please. Winnnie-The-Pooh is NOT a Disney character. ...you are aware of that, aren't you? Disney bought the rights to these characters that were created by A.A. Milne as a means of financial gain. The Disney Corporation stopped being about family and a healthly happy co-existence when Walt passed away. Now it's about making money. Plain and simple. Why do you think they vault their movies? A marketing technique devised to rake in the $$ when, and only when, they decide. And they can do what they want - my opinion is that if Walt were here today that he'd b*tchslap every last one of the current Disney Exec's and do his damndest to return his beloved creation back into the family oriented endeavor that he so lovingly built. And lighten up...the thing about Pooh and the other characters being designed to elicit respect for people with mental dissabilities, that's just flat out hilarious. I adore Winnie-The-Pooh and his buddies, but THAT made me laugh. It could be that these characters were fashioned after folks in A.A. Milne's own family and were never intended to be negatively critical. Enjoy life - we never know when it will be taken from us.HuggyKat (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Pooh's Religion?

Now, I don't know if this is just some joke or parody, but I found a video of Poohbear worshipping Satan.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't know if that's just a joke or parody??? Angr (talk • contribs) 06:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It must be a parody alright. Sorry. It's a parody from his exercise "Up Down, Touch The Ground" routine. :)-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 08:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if this very post is a joke or parody. At least I hope so, for the sake of mankind. 195.38.101.16 12:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't wonder if this section is a joke or parody. To me it is just blindingly obvious that Winnie is a faithful adherent to the religion of utter blind stupidity, while his Russian cousin Винни (yes, I have watched both characters) is of course an atheist. Now, being a close relative of Winnie, he's still pretty stupid. Very stupid even. But a good few notches less stupid than Winnie. Aidan Karley (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Brainie The Poo

A supposed parody of this pooh bear. Should this be posted up here?-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 08:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Having the Disney parody of Winnie-the-Pooh in this article is quite enough. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Name?

Again, this question is being popped up. What's a pooh? A bear, or just a word put in for the sake of filling up part of Poohbear's name? Really, I don't know!-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 03:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it means feces. ;) wink-wink. You should stop spamming this page with nonsense.195.38.101.16
it is from an earlier work he did before, Pooh was a swan fed by Christopher Robin. He said that Pooh was such a great name because if it didn't come when you called it, it looked like you were just saying pooh, as in showing your dislike of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuroi gekijo (talk • contribs) 00:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Google hacking...

This is the first result when you search "wikipedia annoying" on google...

Although I doubt wikipedia can do anything about this it would be nice if something was done somehow.

24.239.174.223 05:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

New section from User:68.234.187.80

This edit [2] by User:68.234.187.80 has added a lot of poorly formatted, unreferenced text to the article. The actual data seems legitimate, but it desperately needs references and cleanup; I've tagged it accordingly. I also worry about the current section divisions; they made sense before this addition but not so much anymore. Powers T 13:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen a more deformed article. At least it has the information... 67.158.5.216 07:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved Slesinger and Disney related Content

You can find it under Slesinger representation of the Milne character "Winnie the Pooh".Lkinkade 00:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Disney representation is in many cases contradictory to the original A. A. Milne character. Eeyore is first and foremost a character in books by A. A. Milne, and that is being lost and overwhelmed when the Disney infomation is in the same article.

I am currently working on separating out all of the A. A. Milne characters from their more recent animated versions. The information about the original character was difficult to distinguish from the Disney character and attempts to use the article to find out about the original character were being foiled.Lkinkade 11:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it could do with a headline redirect for those who are *looking* for the Disney Pooh. -- Ian Dalziel 14:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That is a good idea.Lkinkade 14:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a bad idea. The contravercy over the difference in characters, if mentioned by a Reputable Source should be mentioned in the article. Splitting the two incarnations makes the encyclopedia less informative. JBKramer 17:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the split is a good idea either. We get better context by keeping things together- we can compare and contrast the Milne originals with the Disney versions without splitting into two articles. Other equally notable representations of these characters (if such exist) would also be covered. Friday (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a good start on separating Pooh, the literary character from the Disney franchise. Perhaps some of the content in the other article belongs in the main article, but certainly not all of it. As it is, content that is NOT about Disney tends to get lost in the great morass of Disney-related content. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
{{sofixit}}. This article is about "Winnie-the-Pooh." People looking for information about "Winnie-the-Pooh" will look to this article. At the very least, the information I reinserted should be returned to the article - substantially more, but I didn't want to step on toes and reinsert anything about disney content per the above. The character is included in disney films and videos. Such information should be here. JBKramer 18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a split, but it should be along the lines of having three articles, one on the character, one on the Milne series of stories, and one on the Disney franchise. As I explain below, the character is the same (or intended to be the same) regardless of which version we mean. Powers T 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if this is where we're going to discuss it, we ought to notify editors from other pages like Talk:Piglet (Winnie the Pooh). Powers T 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In light of the fact that recent accusations regarding my faith have caused me to feel a small amount of ownership over this article, I am walking away for 3 hours. I suggest you make such notifications. JBKramer 18:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reconsidered and removed these articles and related discussions from my watchlist persuant to WP:COOL. Good luck - remember, there is no rush, and the articles can certainly be in a less-good form for hours, days, weeks or even months without hurting anyone. Happy editing. JBKramer 18:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
We should notify the other editors and tell them what is going on. I think that we need an article on the characters as they are in the books, and another as they are in the other media, and then other articles as appropriate to discuss the other related phenomena such as the Disney franchise. We need to make it clear to the reader where they can find what infomation they want.
One reason to have articles both on the characters as they appear in the books and as they appear in other media is the change in details from books to animation. Eeyore's personality, in particlar, is very different in the books from the way he appears in animation. The answers to legitimate questions like, "when did Tigger start bouncing?" are being glossed over now.
Another reason is that there are certain kinds of facts you put in the introduction and others you put in the later paragraphs. Birthdate is usually in the introduction, but Disney specifies a different birthdate than would be gathered from the books; if you have both Disney and Milne in the same article, either you mention both birthdates in the intro and give their sources, or you relegate one to one paragraph further down on and risk the reader, who may have really wanted that date, missing it. Unless the article on the book character is separate completely, to avoid ambiguity, each fact would need to be labled in the text as coming from the A. A. Milne books, or from another source, and that soon gets tiresome, and would likely be the subject of someone cleaning up for style and so you get back to the situation of all the facts from all sources intermingled without clear delineation.
If Hoff can get two books of medititaions out of the original characters, I think we can write a decent, if short encylopedia article on them. There is far less original text on Tolkien's Balrogs and they have quite the article that mainly deals with their representation in text. Disney representation of Hercules has it own article, and film and books routinely have separate articles. I think there is enough to split these up. Repeat the descriptions and facts that apply to both, that it applies to both is information that some reader may find valuable. Lkinkade 01:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I have three significant concerns with your proposal.
First, the length of the split articles. To take your example, Hercules, the detail present in the article Hercules is really prohibitive of including any other representation in that article. That's not the case for the Pooh characters; even the very long Winnie-the-Pooh article is mainly about the franchise as a whole, not Pooh himself. It seems to me a better idea to leave the information on each character in one article until we have enough information to justify a split.
My second concern is the relative prominence of the different character versions. Again, taking Hercules as an example, the hero described in ancient texts is far and away the most common version, so it makes sense to place the Disney character at a disambiguated page. For the Pooh characters, however, the situation is much less clear. For the many kids who grew up familiar with Disney culture, the Disney versions are far more recognizable; the opposite is true for the kids who grew up with the original books and stories. I don't think we can really make a determination as to which is more popular or recognized; it's well within the margin of error on Wikipedia. =) So, in light of that, once the articles grow to a length where it makes sense to split them, the main character page would almost have to be a disambiguation page pointing to the two different versions.
Third, I'm still not certain these characters are really different enough to require separate articles. As has been noted in the various AfD discussions, the Disney versions are simply interpretations of the original characters. If you feel things like the origin of Tigger's bouncing are being "glossed over", then I think revision for clarity is the answer, not splitting the articles just for the sake of splitting them. In fact, I think the articles would benefit from keeping the information together, as it allows highlighting of the commonality between the versions rather than focusing on the differences. Powers T 12:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me make a few points here, see where we disagree. This is the version of Winnie-the-Pooh immediately prior to the split. As far as I can tell, the information in the article specifically related to the character of Pooh is limited to the original book-version, with the sole exception of "See also" links to Pooh's three voice actors. So, in that respect, I would agree that the Disney-related information doesn't belong. =) However, doing would produce a problem that I think is best illustrated by the Piglet and Disney representation of the Milne character "Piglet" articles. Both articles (Piglet post-split is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piglet_(Winnie_the_Pooh)&oldid=72489069 here) are very short. I don't see any reason to split them, when two sections would work just fine. This is especially true since the psychological description of the character ("He has constant fear of the dark and is anxious about most things. Despite the fact that he is a Very Small Animal, he often conquers his fears.") fits both versions just fine. I just don't think there's enough extra information that can be presented on either version to justify making two articles out of it. And I think, if we remove the information on the group of characters and the franchise from the Winnie-the-Pooh article, that the same will be able to be said of that one. Powers T 19:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just make more sense to have an extra chapter in each of those pages entitled "Disney's Representation". And besides the pages are so small. Maybe it wwould make more sense if the pages were larger but at their current size?Eeyore1993 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're All Wrong, Really.

Straw Poll

To gauge where we are. This is non-binding, as are all other strawpolls. JBKramer 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Disney Content should be located in this article alone

  1. Best. JBKramer 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Per JBKramer, this article is about the character. Whatever changes have been made to the character, it's still inherently the same character. See my comment above as well. Powers T 18:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. I totaly agree Eeyore1993 19:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. (same opinion as I gave above) Cover both in one article until there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. Splitting prematurely into seperate articles can make article bias more difficult to manage. Friday (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. The character has not changed; both Milne and Disney's contribution to the character should be included in the same article. This would be similar to (for example) the James Bond article discussing the different actors who played the role (with or without audience approval).SpikeJones 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Agree with SpikeJones, the Milne/Shepard Pooh is original and should be first, the Disney variant should come after. 惑乱 分からん 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. I beleive it should stay in present article, as the overall size of the content doesn't require a split. However, all data about the Disney representation should be in its own section, and carefully separated from the original character. 195.38.101.16 12:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep to the same article: to most people Disney's version is WTP, keeping it all together allows you to follow the development easier IdreamofJeanie 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Disney Content should be mentioned in this article and placed in a separate article

  1. Acceptable Compromise. JBKramer 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. I really agree with Angr under the next heading, but since the Disney version exists and is connected, a single link to a main Disney-Pooh article should be allowed in each Winnie-the-Pooh article. Eg, an article on Eeyore would link to Winnie-the-Pooh (Disney films), but not to Eeyore (Disney character). Copey 2 12:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I take that back. The Milne characters should be the default. Since people looking for (e.g.) Eeyore would find the Milne character first, those looking for the Disney one should have a reference there. Copey 2 10:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No Disney Content should be located in this article

  1. No Disney content should exist anywhere in the universe, for that matter. Angr 09:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Disney can be mentioned in one single line, amongst other adaptations. There is really nothing extraordinary relevant about the disney pooh except that he is famous to the average anglophone wikipedians. 84.167.239.146 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This poll is premature

  1. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Darby

The caption under the picture of Darby with Pooh and Friends directly contradicts the article on Christopher Robin about whether or not Darby will replace Christopher Robin. I've marked both articles as contradict-other. Someone with more time on their hands, please figure out which is true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.193.151 (talk)

Please be more specific about what is contradictory - A quick search on other pages seems to indicate no contradiction, as all three pages state that Christopher Robin still appears in the show. --Sigma 7 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming Winnie-the-Pooh

According to the article on Christopher Robin Milne, 'On his first birthday, he received an Alpha Farnell teddy bear he called Edward. This bear, along with a real bear named "Winnie" that Milne saw at the London Zoo, eventually became the inspiration for the character of Winnie-the-Pooh.'

In this article it says 'Christopher Milne had named his toy after Winnipeg, a bear which he and his father often saw at London Zoo, and "Pooh," a swan they had met while on holiday'.

Either the real teddy bear was called Edward, and A.A Milne named the character Winnie-the-Pooh, or it was called Winnie and A.A Milne named the character after the teddy. Which is it?--Jcvamp 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the real teddy bear was called, but the first chapter of the book is the only one where he appears out of character (as the physical teddy bear that CR is pulling downstairs after himself) and is there called Edward Bear; in the same chapter he is called Winnie-the-Pooh when in character (as a honey-eating bear living in a forest under the name of Sanders). Marnanel 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not an either/or, Jcvamp. The answer is 'both'. The teddy was originally named Edward, but CR decided to rename it Winnie-the-Pooh after encountering a real bear called Winnipeg and a real swan called Pooh. AA Milne calls the bear Edward when it first appears, in When We Were Very Young, and again in the opening lines of Winnie-the-Pooh. He changes its name thereafter in accordance with his son's wishes. Grubstreet (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

Call me a traditionalist, but wouldn't it be better to draw the illustration from the original -- Milne's works illustrated by Shepard -- rather than the later (and controversial) Disney? As an added bonus, some of the images will soon be expiring into the public domain, or already have done so. laddiebuck 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Disney pooh should have another article. 84.167.239.146 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Newspeak, etc.

There will come a time when those of us brought up on the original Pooh stories are no longer around to insist on the fact that there was a version before Disney - and the Disney Empire will make sure that their marketing machine smothers any remnants. It has already started on the Wikipedia article and discussion pages. Was that the Evil Empire George Lucas had in mind? Hardly bears thinking about, does it? --83.180.164.137 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed 3 broken links that made the article look very weird. Dirty deeds done cheap. 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Could a suggest the following link is used as a replacement for the current broken link for Ashdown Forest website? http://www.ashdownforest.org/winnie-the-pooh/pooh.php Pazza98 (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Fixed, with acknowledgement to you in the edit summary. Thanks for spotting this! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Who/What is Slesinger?

Slesinger is mentioned out of the blue in the Disney and Ownership Controvery sections. There's no previous mention of a Slesinger nor what the full relationship is to the Pooh franchise. Kawaikunai 02:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and was just checking the discussion page to see if this was mentioned. Who is Slesinger? What does he/she have to do with Winnie the Pooh? MightyAtom 09:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely confusing. Who has information on this to clean it up? Jkdeadite 2:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I found information on Stephen Slesinger. Maybe it had been removed? In particular there is a section on Winnie-the-Pooh that starts out: "Slesinger acquired US and Canadian merchandising, television, recording and other trade rights to the "Winnie-the-Pooh" from A. A. Milne in the 1930s, and developed "Winnie-the-Pooh" commercializations for more than 30 years. Slesinger created Pooh's trademark red shirt and adapted Shepard's drawings into a classic Americanized versions for the stage, radio, television and character licensing." I am tempted to correct this, but I feel that I am not savvy enough with wikipedia to attempt to mess with the article myself. Wunderwood 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I got my courage up and made a minor edit that mentions who the heck Slesinger is after reading on the Wiki style pages that I should "be bold but not reckless". Wunderwood 23:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotta love Irony

Should the irony of a ferocious, man-eating monster of a beast representing a popular children's character?--Porsche997SBS 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your English is quite something, you know. Well, to address your concern, bears, as the most "humanlike" and most powerful of indigenous animals, are an important part of the Western culture. In previous ages, they have in many cases been regarded as sacred, and worshipped as totems. It's only to be expected that they show up as a children's toy and as characters in children's tales. 195.38.101.16 11:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
My English is not the something you may have thinking of your in your mind. I was just combining sentences that were once two and into one sentence, and proofreading for of errors was not made so theree were errors that were made. Alrighty then.--Porsche997SBS 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

More Winnipeg

This copied from talk page Talk:A. A. Milne:

Hello all,

I was reading here about AA Milne and Winnie the Pooh. There was some editing to be done about Winnie's exact origin but I don't want to screw something up in the process. It is quite interesting and I have a little wee connection here. Winnie the Pooh is named after Winnipeg Manitoba Canada. My Father served in the Canadian Armed Forces, his Regiment was The Fort Gary Horse, in Winnipeg. The real story in that a militay veterinarian, Lt. Harry Colebourn before WWI was travelling across northern Ontario and bought a bear cub from a hunter who has just shot it's mother. The Lt. was an Officer in the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, later renamed The Fort Garry Horse. It was the Regiment Mascot. Somewhere in there is the connection to Mr. Milne serving in the war and this black bear cub, who later went to a Zoo in England. I will send some reading and if anyone would like to put this in there, it would be greatly appreciated. My Dad who is now deceased would thank you aswell. He served the Garry's with pride and a mention in there about them would be great. The story is adorable and is all Canadian. Thank you.

Bert Johnson Jr..... [email protected]

http://www.fortgarryhorse.ca/phpweb/ (main site)

http://www.fortgarryhorse.ca/phpweb/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=22&MMN_position=44:44 (story)

http://www.fortgarryhorse.ca/phpweb/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=5 (pictures of Winnie)

  • One last note
I forgot to add the Wiki on Fort Garry Horse so here it is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fort_Garry_Horse

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma2112 (talk • contribs)

In Which Some Things Are Perhaps Not So Obvious

It occurs to me that perhaps we need to point out a few things explicitly, because some people seem not to be in on the joke:

1) That "ther" as in "Winnie-ther-Pooh" in RP is nothing more than "the" spoken with emphasis;

2) That the pun in WtP's real-life name of "Edward Bear" is that Edward is abbreviated to Teddy in the UK (I only recently found out that Teddy is only "Theodore" in the US, at least in the part of the US where I'm living);

3) That "under the name of Sanders" is a pun. ("What does 'under the name' mean?" asked Christopher Robin. "It means he had the name over the door in gold letters and lived under it.") Apparently some people are not aware that the natural reading of "X was living under the name of Y" is that there was a person called X but everyone around them believed their name to be Y; Milne sets the reader up to believe this and then explains that he physically has the name written above him.

I think that questions on this page and elsewhere which can be found by Google show that these are obvious to some people and pass some people entirely by. Marnanel 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Should mention though that Teddy is used as a nickname for Edward among Massachusetts senators, so it is found in the US. Clamshell (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Pooh

I know this has been said before on this page, but it needs to be said again. We shouldn't have a picture of the Disney Pooh on a page devoted to Milne's character! Disney has pulled an enormous coup, having gotten at least one whole generation to grow up thinking Disney's Pooh is Pooh, and having next to no notion of the original story and its characters.

It's absolutely unacceptable for an encyclopedia to encourage people to conflate the original with the adaptation! If Shephard's original drawings are unavailable because of some weird copyright situation, then we should have no picture at all. Tom129.93.17.139 03:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article covers both the original stories and Disney's stories. It is not unacceptable to have a picture of the disney version, particularly as this is the version most people know about, for better or worse. --Yamla 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair-use Shepard illustration added. Disney image retained in the ==Disney== paragraph.--Old Moonraker 07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This seems to me the most logical and best solution. Could we find a proper Ernest Shepard drawing for the Piglet page as well? At the moment there is only a Disney image on that page; this should definitely be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowcrow (talk • contribs) 04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Do you guys say that disney shouldn't be here. What if it was warner brothers. you wouldn't mind, or the soviet union. you don't even mind that the mgm wizard of oz is in the real wizard of oz pg. Why, Why? You're All Wrong. Disney-Haters. Winnie The pooh is with Disney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.60.7 (talk) 12:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? There are separate pages for L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (the book) and the 1939 film adaptation, The Wizard of Oz. Plus a list of the whole series of Oz novels, and a page on the character of the Wizard of Oz - is this what you mean? That particular page has only a short paragraph on the 1939 film adaptation.Shadowcrow 04:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, before they were on the same pg. even wicked is on the wizard of oz film pg with great detail when it's not even related. Simba Was Ripped Off Of Kimba, Pirates Of The Caribbean was ripped of monkey island, Disney should not be on the pgs with the originals while others can, You're all just finding excuses to bash disney. Without Disney, there'd be no animation, there'd be no naruto, no dragon ball z, no star wars. You Guys are killing History. SO STOP.

holly

pooh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.26.145 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Pooh's wonderfull, and kingdom hearts is okay too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.60.7 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing section

Though Charles Scribner, The New York Evening Post, and St. Nicholas Magazine published Milne’s stories with illustrations by several of the more famous American artists of the 1920s, Milne’s original version is better known to have been illustrated by E.H. Shepard. Though Shepard decorated the books published by Methuen and E.P. Dutton, he preferred to be known as a political cartoonist for London’s Punch Magazine.

I'm confused by this. Was WTP first published in these US magazines, and then later in the 1926 English book form? If yes, can we have elaboration on why they were first in US magazines - it seems odd that an English author should choose US magazines. And who were the 'more famous American artists'? If no, then the US section should be moved to after the section about Milne and EH Shepherd, for obvious reasons. 81.157.197.44 11:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to Winnie-the-Pooh (character)

Ridiculous! Let's move it back to plain Winnie-the-Pooh. I can see no justification for this mouthful of a title. Winnie-the-Pooh can quite happily sit alongside Winnie-the-Pooh (TV series). I will do this in a few hours unless cogent arguments are presented in favour of the new arrangement. Snalwibma 09:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do!--Old Moonraker 10:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah... It needs administrator help. I can't just move W-t-P (c) to W-t-P because W-t-P already exists... I'll set about getting it done, though. Snalwibma 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Now done - thanks to Anthony Appleyard for taking care of it. Snalwibma 11:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disney Drawings?

It might be nice to know who did the original drawings for the Disney version of Pooh, if anyone can find out.

IceDragon64 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Female Characters

I think the only female characters in the 100 Acre Wood are mothers of young boys because they don't see anything else as females. 24.180.186.24 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to examine all Rabbit's Friends and Relations to be sure of that. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean raletions, of course. And don't forget Kanga. Snalwibma (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the character guide from Pooh and friends, and saw something about a blue bird named Kessie. Sadly, she only appeared in "The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh." 24.180.186.24 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)24.180.186.24

Winnie the Pooh is female?

The Finnish version of this article claims that Winnie the Pooh is female, because of the name "Winnie". I have always thought Winnie the Pooh is male, and AFAICR, even Milne's original books refer to Winnie the Pooh as "he". Surely Milne's original ideas are more correct than a hasty conclusion based on the popularity of some name? JIP | Talk 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Winnie" is also a (rather uncommon) male name as well as a female one - a contraction of "Winston" - notably applied to the wartime British Prime Minister. In fact Pooh was named after a (real) female bear - but in her case "Winnie" was a contraction of "Winnipeg", a place name, rather than "Winifred", the usual girl's name. Perhaps the editors of the Finnish article are under the impression that "ie" is a feminine ending in English. Of course in English we don't have grammatical gender or anything like the regular system of gender-specific endings to words or names that they have in most European languages. Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If the books refer to Pooh or the other characters as "he" or "she", then "he" or "she" it is. Frankly, since the stuffed bear doesn't have any genitalia, trying to classify Pooh's sex (or any of the characters in the story beyond Christopher Robin) is rather silly. Go make the correction on the Finnish page, and we can cross this discussion item off the list. SpikeJones (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We shouldnt refer to the sex as the book doesn't, the Finnish wikipedia is wrong but as a non-Finnish speaker there is nothing I can do about it. I know of no evidence that the bear has a sex and wee certainly cannot claim it does so when there is no mention of it in the book (I assume Paddington Bear is the same). Thanks, SqueakBox 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
As quoted further up this very page :
When I first heard his name, I said, just as you are going to say,
"But I thought he was a boy?"
"So did I," said Christopher Robin.
"Then you can't call him Winnie?"
"I don't."
"But you said--"
"He's Winnie-ther-Pooh. Don't you know what 'ther' means?"
"Ah, yes, now I do," I said quickly;
and I hope you [referring now to readers of this book] do too,
because it is all the explanation you are going to get."
Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Winnie ille Pube

Article says: "The Pooh stories have been translated into many languages, notably including Alexander Lenard's Latin translation, Winnie ille Pube, which was first published in 1985, and, in 1906, became the first foreign-language book to be featured on the New York Times Bestseller List" - clearly wrong, I have changed it to 1986 (possible) but of course it could have been 2006: I will try and confirm the year, but if anyone beats me to it fine by me. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the dates (and title of book) are way out, and are a result of earlier vandalism by Special:Contributions/Aggiefreak999. I have reverted. Wonder whether this page ought to be semiprotected, given the sheer number of vandalism edits... Canthusus (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks( no wonder I was struggling ).--IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
no problems. I've just requested semi-protection for the page - looking at the history, in February there have been 115 edits with three substantive changes. All the rest is vandalism & reversion. Canthusus (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being labelled a pedant (it won't be the first time), I'm uncomfortable with the whole statement in any case. Firstly, if Latin is a 'foreign language', which country is it the language of? None that I can think of (unless you count the Holy See). As an ethnic language it is extinct. The 'living' form of Latin is employed by a relatively small number of people in a large number of countries, so is international rather than foreign.

Secondly, who determines which languages are 'foreign' to the United States? If a native of New Mexico writes a novel in her first language of Spanish, is this regarded as foreign or American? Would a Yiddish book be exotic or US? How about California Cantonese? And would a book in Navajo be classified as foreign? That really would take the cake!

If (and I can't be sure about this) what is meant here is "first non-English language book", it would be much better to say that. It would be more precise, as well as ceasing to smack of anglophone POV. Does anyone know if this is what was meant? Grubstreet (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The model of Pooh in the illustrations by E H Shepard

It is generally to be understood that the illustration of Pooh were based on a toy bear owned by EHS's son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LO AMO CON TODA MI ALMA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.166.236.106 (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Dennis

No whoever he is he's not the voice of Pooh I talked with Disney and Jim Cummings is the voice of Pooh Dennis is being removed Matthew Cantrell (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Using a "book" infobox instead of "cartoon" infobox

I am considering replacing the current "cartoon" infobox with the "book" infobox, to reflect the origin of the character and, after all, the main subject of the article. This is what it would look like. Views, please. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Do it. And do it quickly. That listing of voice-artists has long annoyed me - as if W-the-P were a character created by Disney rather than by Milne. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

INACCURATE HISTORICAL REFERENCE

For example: Winnie the Pooh did not make the first appearance in a book. Milne's works were first published as individual stories and verses in a number of publications such as Vanity Fair, St. Nicholas Magazine, Punch and others. Tigger, for example, first appeared in a Charles Scribner book "Sails of Gold," illustrated by Reginald Birch, an extremely popular illustrator of those days. The London Evening News published Milne's first Winnie the Pooh story in their newspaper with illustrations by J. H. Dowd who was another exceptionally talented children's illustrator. This article contains other inaccurate and incomplete references as well but I have no Idea how to use any of the codes required to communicate them and enter the proper source in this wiki style. The problem is everyone has a special interest from the publishers to the trust that controls some of the rights to Disney and it's difficult to get to the truth unless you do a considerable amount of research. Milne's original autobiography, for example is nearly impossible to get because it was removed from the shelves since it contained statements which could have been misconstrued and damaged his publisher's book sales. Only the 1930s edited versions are available. Under all of the hubris and ego and special interest and corporate greed there is a textural story worth telling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telelegal (talk • contribs) 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Added "in book form" to the lead. It's already dealt with briefly at Winnie-the-Pooh#Publication, but that shouldn't prevent any WP:BOLD editor from expanding further. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you add different names of Winnie-the-Pooh by Milne in other languages? --Stravinskiski (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Someone is vandalising the Winnie the Pooh and Tigger pages, then redirecting the warning messages to me. Please make this article semi-protected or protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.1.191 (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pooh has no nationality"

A regular contributor to Disney-related pages on Wikipedia has reverted a couple of spellings here from British English to American English on the grounds that "Pooh has no nationality". This nonsense: apart from "Ashdown Forest in East Sussex, England, was the basis for the setting of the Winnie-the-Pooh stories" in the article, it would be hard to find a better example of "Strong national ties to a topic", as specified in WP:ENGVAR. The character is a national icon in Britain, virtually a national mascot, and one of the "most quoted children's books in British culture". (Emer O'Sullivan, Comparative Children's Literature, 2005). The British English spellings should be retained--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC).

I agree. My reaction to this edit summary is that I can hardly think of a more archetypally English character than Pooh! To be fair, the article has had American spellings for some time (and maybe since the beginning), so I don't think it's a matter of retaining so much as imposing British English style - but there certainly seems to be a good case for doing so!. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You are, I'm sure, refering to this policy: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. If this article was solely about the books, I would grant that your change would be fine. However, if you look at the Pooh timeline, Pooh has been a Disney-fied character for approximately the same amount of time as it was solely a book character (give or take a bit, it's 40 years from 1926 to 1966 when the first Pooh film was released vs the 40 years from 1966 through today... with more to come, one hopes). The Disney version has no nationality presented, so there could be an equally valid argument that the Disney version, albeit based on the original, has stronger ties to the general English-speaking public than does the book version. Reading your responses, I apologize for the inference of "no nationality". I meant that the Pooh character is not a citizen of GB in the same manner we have said that Shrek is not Scottish. Christopher Robin, on the other hand, could be... but that's a different matter, however. SpikeJones (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, in that the origin of the character is utterly English (specifically, home-counties early-20th-century upper-middle-class English). But I'm not going to fight about this. In fact, the only specifically American spelling in the article is a single occurrence of "color" - and that occurs in the context of American adaptations. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Winnie-the-Pooh (series)

Reviewing this page, does anyone have any objections of isolating it to only "Pooh" the character, and moving non-character content to a new page dedicated to "Pooh" the franchise where discussion on the books, movies, schlesinger, disney influence, etc would reside? SpikeJones (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

...and I think we'll be okay, pending some minor redirect fixin'. SpikeJones (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see... That would mean leaving the essentially English character of Pooh in an article of his own, with British-English spellings, yes? Seriously, though - it sounds like a reasonable idea. Go for it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
ADDENDUM. I have just seen this edit. It appears that you think the article on the bear himself should be Winnie-the-Pooh (character), and the stuff about the franchise etc should be at Winnie-the-Pooh. That is totally unacceptable (see above). Pooh was a character created by Milne, and adapted by Disney. The Disney (etc) franchise is the secondary article, not the primary one. It must be Winnie-the-Pooh for the bear himself and Winnie-the-Pooh (franchise) or some such for the other stuff. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree: it makes no sense to have the spinoffs bearing the title of the original work, with the original work seeming to be a mere adjunct to the spinoffs. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't follow the stridency of "must be Winnie-the-Pooh for the bear himself" as the character is the in-univverse element the real world is the short story collection called "Winnie-the-Pooh". The book has the stronger claim I would believe. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if it appears strident! I meant that in the (oversimplified) context of there being two articles, one about the bear and one about what Disney and others have done with the character (which is what SpikeJones seemed to be suggesting), the hierarchy is clear, and the naming of the articles should follow that hierarchy. Of course it is in fact more complicated than that: there are already several other related articles, and I guess the number of such articles is likely to grow. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This one is likely to run and run. Winnie the pooh is "originally" the title of a book and the main character. The title "Winnie the Pooh" should probably be for the short story collection as this was essentially the primary artifact. The "Winnie the Pooh (character)" article should be for what is obvious. The Winnie-the-Pooh (franchise) is a good notion but the borders between the various elements would need careful crafting. "Winnie-the-Pooh (series)" should be reserved for the various A. A. Milne stories that form the orignal cannon. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Using Star Wars as the reference, that page began as being dedicated to the first movie (as that was the original name of the first movie), then it got switched around to be the franchise-oriented page - with individual pages for each film, book, tv show, character, etc being fed off that one. That was the concept I was using. And yes, Snalwibma sees one benefit above. As for the franchise page, it would cover not just the Disney portion, but discussion on copyright, previous books, artwork, etc - not all of which is Disney-related. As for "must be Winnie-the-Pooh for the bear himself", that's not the current case if you look at the contents of the article and compare it to articles dedicated to the other WtP characters. And yes, I did read the above section where this was discussed previously. SpikeJones (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point. Star Wars is a good analogy, and I must confess I hadn't thought of it. However... I think it's important that the whole issue is discussed here before anything is done. Unilateral moves and renamings of articles are very likely to get people's backs up. Winnie the Pooh bears (no pun intended!) some resemblance to Star Wars, but there are also key differences. In the case of Pooh, there is a big divide between the original and the spin-off that does not exist in Star Wars, and many people (myself included) may feel that the Disneyisation of Pooh is one of the worst examples of the cheapening and coarsening effect of American imperialist culture. In appearing to say that Pooh is "really" a whole range of things encompassing not only the Milne original but also the Disney films and TV adaptations, you may find yourself up against an army of people who will insist that the only "real" Pooh is the one portrayed in Milne's books. (You saw a bit of this in the way that Old Moonraker and I responded to your assertion that Pooh has no nationality!) If you want to reshape the articles, tread carefully, be diplomatic, and make proposals here before you do anything drastic. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, and other than the "see also" I added to the current article, I had no plans to "be bold" without bringing it up for discussion first. To do otherwise would be silly and cause much wailing and nashing of teeth. There are other examples that could be used (Peter Pan qualifies, but does not support my side of the discussion so I will purposefully not mention it here), such as The Little Mermaid or The Pink Panther. Given enough time over the next few days, I'm sure I can locate other, more reasonable and applicable examples to share. Please "bear" in mind that my suggestion is not to promote the Disney version over the original, but to classify the pages appropriately so they each can be expanded further. I don't expect other editors to "cave" to my whims, but to discuss with open minds. Pooh does, whether you agree with what has been done or not, cover a wide-range of topics besides the original book series. SpikeJones (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Millions of Pages"

Under the copyright dispute section, it says that Disney destroyed "millions of pages" of evidence. I find this very hard to believe - "millions" is a huge, huge number. And the link provided doesn't seem to mention anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.107.119 (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out, and don't forget WP:BOLD! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:TheNewAdventuresofWinniethePooh.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Winnie the Pooh redirects here...

I just think that since Winnie the Pooh has its own article, it should have its own talk page. Thoughts? 0dd1 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was a screwed up page move. SpikeJones (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Should any of the stuff here, above, be on there? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I would say only the "Disney Drawings?" section, as far as I saw. I am the 0dd1. (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A street?

Is there really a Winnie-the-Pooh street in Poland? That picture looks photoshopped to me. Perhaps it shoud be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.192.165.125 (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Googling (including YouTube -- video is harder to photoshop:) ... there appears to be such a street. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about controversy

The (sometimes heated) debate about whether or not Disney is evil and sacrilegious isn't just confined to this page: any time I discuss Winnie the Pooh with anyone, strong opinions come to the fore pretty quickly (I live near Ashdown Forest and visit the "real" Pooh Bridge a few times a year - no prizes for guessing which side of the argument most people 'round here favour!) Given that such controversy is (IMO) fairly widespread, isn't there a case for adding a section in the article? Dom Kaos (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any unbiased, 3rd-party media sources that discuss this topic? If so, then a neutral addition can be made with the cited references. SpikeJones (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at the moment. There's stuff in the local media from time to time, usually when the bridge needs some repair work and the council try to get Disney to make a donation, that sort of thing. A councillor, being interviewed on the regional TV's evening news programme a couple of years back, did manage to sneak in the line "...after all, Disney have made plenty of money from Pooh over the years." But I digress - I'll keep an eye out for usable stuff to cite Dom Kaos (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - without an *unbiased* 3rd party reference to cite, you cannot include any such info in the article. SpikeJones (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

'First publication' inconsistencies

The inclusion of When We Were Very Young in the intro contradicts (not obviously but logically) two other statements in the article. At present, an awkwardness over what should be deemed 'first publication' is being reconciled by saying that:

"Pooh first appeared on Christmas Eve 1925 [in a story published by] London's Evening News." And:
"The character first appeared in book form in Winnie-the-Pooh (1926)..."

However, When We Were Very Young was published in 1924, and predates both claimed 'firsts'.

All edits have clearly been made in good faith and in a spirit of co-operation; they just can't all live together! Excising the reference to WWWVY would remove the contradiction, but I am sure most people would find it unsatisfactory, because the Teddy Bear poem in WWWVY is usually considered part of the canon – collectors of 'Pooh first editions', for example, generally reckon on putting together a four-book and not a three-book set. Grubstreet (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've done my best to resolve this in both locations. Granted the heat that seems to be generated by this article, I doubt if it will be the last word, but I hope it makes things clearer for now. Grubstreet (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Slesinger

"Slesinger marketed Pooh and his friends for more than 30 years, creating the first Pooh doll, record, board game, puzzle, US radio broadcast (NBC), animation and motion picture film."

which motion picture film and/or animatio series were made by Slesinger? I cannot find any more information, all movies/TV shows wikipedia have about Pooh are from disney era.. --78.128.199.9 (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search will show you more info about Slesinger's Telepictures division that made Pooh films in the '40's. SpikeJones (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Soviet cartoons

{{editsemiprotected}} The Soviet TV version is mentioned under "Other cartoons". Since it's the only content in that section, I wanted to move it to a subheading of "Television" titled "Soviet adaptation", and to put the screenshot (currently further up the page) next to it. I'm learning Russian and though I can't follow very well yet, I love watching these cartoons. Very Lewis Carroll :-) 86.154.105.55 (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the article. I moved the section up, as requested, but left the picture alone since it hung down awkwardly when I tried it closer to the text. Good luck with the Roosky Yazik! Celestra (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

addition of darby

I do not know why Christopher Robin is not on the "My Friends..." and why the intro of Darby? Seems odd. I have tried to follow some of the more in-depth explanations but really, my 9 yr old loves all of it, and we just wondered where CR is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.213.2 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The information you're looking for is on the page for the Disney character, not here. SpikeJones (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Playtime Videos

I just removed the alleged playtime videos "Piglet War" and "Sumo Christopher Robin" from the "Television" section. Also, I think that the entire part about the "Playtime Videos" shouldn't be there anyway, as the Playtime Videos were just collections of the televised show. --Bozwaldo (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The 18 year Slesinger/ Disney court case appears to have been settled: http://www.american-reporter.com/3,781W/3.html . Can someone with full edit rights post a summary to the main page? Robofw9 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for the update. Page protection is in force until April 2010. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sanders

Discussion of the Sanders question is not "idle chat" or "ignorant blog" as dismissed by Snalwibma who reverted my edit which was my serious attempt at improving on a previous attempt (in which I admit it was maybe a mistake to use the word "mysteriously", though it is a mystery). The Sanders question is a point worthwhile mentioning in just that section of the article, complete with the book quote and reference to the illustration. This has been mentioned several times in Talk pages dating to many years back, as follows:

Does anyone know the story behind the sign that says "Mr. Sanders" over Pooh's door? David Battle
According to this Winnie-the-Pooh FAQ, Milne never said anything useful on where he got the name "Sanders" but it has been claimed that the original was a printer named Frank Sanders. There's never been an in-story explanation for the sign, either - Milne was smart enough not to labour the joke - but it's generally assumed that it was left behind by a previous occupant. --Paul A 06:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3) ... "under the name of Sanders" is a pun. ("What does 'under the name' mean?" asked Christopher Robin. "It means he had the name over the door in gold letters and lived under it.") Apparently some people are not aware that the natural reading of "X was living under the name of Y" is that there was a person called X but everyone around them believed their name to be Y; Milne sets the reader up to believe this and then explains that he physically has the name written above him.
I think that questions on this page and elsewhere which can be found by Google show that these are obvious to some people and pass some people entirely by. Marnanel 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what the real teddy bear was called, but the first chapter of the book is the only one where he appears out of character (as the physical teddy bear that CR is pulling downstairs after himself) and is there called Edward Bear; in the same chapter he is called Winnie-the-Pooh when in character (as a honey-eating bear living in a forest under the name of Sanders). Marnanel 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Undisputed facts are (1) the sign on the tree (2) the text mentioning Sanders in Chapter 1 (3) Not so easily spotted, and not speculation, is that there is a pun there, as mentioned by Marnanel above. This was my attempt: no doubt I or someone else could improve on it, but let us not sweep Mr. Sanders under the carpet! The "puzzlement amd speculation" is shown in the first reference, and the Chapter and Book in the second reference.

There has been puzzlement and speculation over of the use of the name "Sanders" in Chapter 1 of "Winnie-the-Pooh". It has been suggested by readers that it may be part of the bear's name or the name of the previous occupant of his house:[1]
"Once upon a time, a very long time ago now, about last Friday, Winnie-the-Pooh lived in a forest all by himself under the name of Sanders.
'What does "under the name" mean?' asked Christopher Robin.
'It means he had the name over the door in gold letters and lived under it.' "[2]
  1. ^ Winnie-the-Pooh FAQ : The "Sanders" question
  2. ^ "Winnie-the-Pooh" Chapter 1: "Winnie the Pooh and Some Bees". In the illustration shown, the name over the door is MR. SANDERS

P0mbal (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for my brutal treatment of this speculation about the name Sanders and what "lived under the name of Sanders" means. I deleted it twice simply because there is no reliable external source that discusses it. It's a nice joke in the book, but there are lots of other little jokes and puns as well, so why single this one out for extended treatment? Without a decent external source to refer to it's all original research. The fact that it has come up on Wikipedia talk pages does not mean that it is up to a Wikipedia editor to explain it at length in the article. By all means insert a simple statement, based on the book itself, that he lived in a forest all by himself under the name of Sanders, and that Milne explains that this means he had the name over the door in gold letters and lived under it - but no speculation about how puzzling it is (which, frankly, it isn't). SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, understanding what you say, I let go of this one. P0mbal (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Disorders

having read the article about the possible disorders of the characters, I added this table which took me a long time, but was later removed, so just to not make the information go to waste, I have pasted it here...

Possible disorders inferred by Shea et al. 2000 in the most prominent inhabitants of the hundred acre forest, however, a full medical examination was recomended to correctly diagnose the inhabitants of the forest.[1]
Inhabitant Conditions Additional Factor Cause Drug (brand/common name)
Pooh inattentive subtype (ADHD); cognitive impairment; possibly Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) (ADHD impulsive subtype excluded), if so he may have Tourette syndrome Obesity and poor diet "Shaken Bear Syndrome" (dragged down stairs by Christopher) resulting in microcephaly, ADHD: cause unknown Stimulant (Ritalin/methylphenidate)
Piglet Generalized anxiety disorder Bad environment emotional trauma from trapping heffalumps antipanic agent (Seroxat/paroxetine)
Eeyore chronic dysthymic disorder or Major depressive disorder Housing problem Unknown antidepressant (Prozac/fluoxetine)
Owl dyslexia (very bright) Housing problem see: Theories of dyslexia
Roo statistically high risk for Poorer Outcome (single-parent household (overprotective, unemployed) aggravated by Peer influences, i.e. Tigger as a Role Model)
Tigger hyperactivity and impulsivity subtype (ADHD) Unknown Stimulant (fluoxetine) sedative (clonidine)
Christopher Robin possible Gender identity disorder in children (from illustrations), overactive imagination (though delirium is not speculated in article), complete absence of parental supervision and educational problems Unknown
Rabbit Narcissistic personality disorder (God Complex) Unknown

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidonius (talk • contribs) 12:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Very amusing, but it appears to be original research, and therefor not appropriate for inclusion in the article itself. I did get a good laugh out of it though, so thanks for that  : ) Doc Tropics 03:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doc  ; you may not be aware of this, but there is a long standing history of humorous short articles of this sort appearing in the "formal literature", so it is a perfectly citeable datum, even it it is clearly an article written for entertainment more than information. Doctors are human too! (You may not like some of the other aspects of medical humour, it's very often gory and sexually perverted ; "Not Safe For Work"). For what it's worth, last week I had my attention drawn back to an article in the Lancet from a Christmas edition (it's not always April Fool day, though that is obviously popular too) about 10 years ago, which described the strange suite of psychological symptoms and possible differential diagnoses of a patient they referred to as "Smeagol", though the patient often referred to himself as "Gollum".
I don't remember the exact paper under discussion, it's not my particular type of humour, but I do remember seeing the article when it came out. It is a formal, published piece of science, and while a lot of it is "ha ha," there is a real element of "but serious" in there too. I guess that the authors (or their students) find that they're useful teaching tools. Aidan Karley (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
No. It is not original research, the reference, which is a peer reviewed paper, was written in the line above the table and not in the table (as I was not aware of how to do it: I have amended it now above with a | line), the only one line that has a potential of being original research is the mention that the article does not regard C Robin as delirious (a condition which it does not mention). the table was removed as it was hard to understand and not relevant to winnie the pooh article. I disagree with that (hence the past post), but I am no litterature expert so my opinion is worthless. Sorry about the time gap of the reply (page not watched). --Squidonius (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
See above comment to Doc .
The table needs it's source paper fully referenced (journal, volume, page, authors, title). For this topic, some comment along the lines that "medics have used the behaviours of some of the characters as examples of a variety of disorders", give a few examples from the table and link to the source paper. The table itself might be appropriate in a compendium article in a subject area like "scientific humour" or medical humour, if such exists. You've obviously put work into it, so it might as well be put to use.
I'll try to remember how to set a watch onto this page. AH, there's a tick-box along with the "Save", "Preview" etc buttons. Aidan Karley (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Audio Versions

{{editsemiprotected}} In addition to the Peter Dennis recordings, there are a couple other notable recordings. Charles Kuralt's unabridged recording, copy right 1997 and produced by Penguin Audio, won the 1998 Grammy for Best Spoken Word Album for Children but is only available on cassette. In 1995 Alan Bennet also created recordings produced by BBC.( The wikipedia listing for this says 1990, but I found the radio program listed as early as 1984.)

I joined just to add this information, but as a new user I can't edit the page. So I hope that someone else will add these recordings to the listing.

Can you please post references here as well? BejinhanTalk 10:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible Plagiarism?

From Time Magazine [3]

"Christopher Robin Milne, pictured here with his fiancée Lesley Selincourt in 1948, received a scholarship to Cambridge but took a break from his studies to serve in the British army in World War II. During his service, he began to resent what he saw as his father's exploitation of his childhood and grew to dislike Pooh and the books that made him famous. He wrote three autobiographical books, one of which gave an account of his childhood and the problems he encountered because of his father's creation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchman Schultz (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

True enough: according to WikiBlame this was added here on 31 December 2004 [4] and appeared in Time in September 2009. Any reason why the query isn't on the talk page to the relevant article? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pooh wasn't really a good character for the children. Many parents have complained how winnie the pooh is bad influence on other kidd's but the fact is that children still watch it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlee110 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Disney movies

Most (but not all) of the movies on this page feature Winnie the Pooh (Disney), but new creations from Uncle Walt's studio are being added here regularly and the list's getting quite long. Would it be more sensible to have them in that article? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Both pages should be merged! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.114.250 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I just want to point out that Reference 26 (to the Soviet cartoon about Pooh) links to a horribly mistranslated website from which one can know that our cartoon includes such an incredible character as 'five-kopeck coin'. That is not to be believed! Somebody might have been using an automatic translating programme. In Russian, 'pyatachok' is both 'pig's snout' (that is Piglet's name in the cartoon) and 'five-kopeck coin' (now nearly obsolete)93.80.32.149 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The true origin to the name Winnie-the-Pooh

Winnie the pooh was not named after the author's son's teddy bear, rather it was the other way around. His son had named his bear edward, and changed it later. The name winnie the pooh comes from two sources, the first, winnie, was a real live bear at a zoo in London where Christopher Robin visited frequently. On one occasion he was even allowed to enter the bear's habitat to feed it. The name "Pooh," rather surprisingly, came not from a bear but a swan. In the introduction to When We Were Very Young, A. A. Milne referred to the swan in the poem "The Mirror": "Christopher Robin, who feeds this swan in the mornings, has given him the name of 'Pooh.' This is a very fine name for a swan, because, if you call him and he doesn't come (which is a thing swans are good at), then you can pretend that you were just saying 'Pooh!' to show him how little you wanted him."

(info on this page is from penguingroup.com)

Kuroi gekijo (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Toy Animals

It states under the photo of the animal characters that Owl, Rabbit and Gopher were not original, added later by Disney. This of course is rubbish. Owl and Rabbit were as original as the other characters,only Gopher was added later. Children in the UK would have no idea of a Gopher then, maybe not now either. It is verifiable by reading the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.19.101 (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not?

Why not adding the name "Edward Bear" (in the lead) Ref: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1364007/Winnie-the-Pooh

Ukok Matys (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

Put British, Not "Hundred Acre Wood". Pooh is a Brit. He was created by a Brit and he has always lived in Britain. 85.210.153.165 (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Page move?

Can we move the page to Winnie–the–Pooh? It's easier to read that way.Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Licensing

The section titled 'Stephen Slesinger' begins 'Stephen Slesinger purchased... [the] rights... creating the modern licensing industry'. The last part of the sentence is a tiny bit unclear, when I read it the first time I thought it referred to the industry of licensing products as a whole. It might benifit from having a phrase like 'the licensing industry around Pooh' or 'around Milne's work', or something like that. If you agree, change it. (on the other hand, if it does mean the idea of licensing, then it needs a source)130.216.173.26 (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.52.93 (talk)

Pooh and hunny

I'm sorry an editor has rather readily assumed that "Hunny" is a Disney trait rather than something that originates from AA Milne and was further reinforced by the original illustrator, EH Shepard (see particularly the chapter "In which Piglet meets a heffalump" where a particular jar, so labelled, plays a key role). Besides, eight out of ten stories in Winnie-the-Pooh concern Pooh's foible for honey or "time for a little something", and in at least half of those it is a, or even *the*, key element of the story. Even in The House at Pooh Corner includes instances of Pooh's obsession - e.g. when he explores Kanga's cupboard on visiting with Tigger - which would be gratuitous except they are clearly in line with his characteristic obsession.

I take BlueMoonlet's point about Pooh's hums and songs, though there are quite a few instances where he clearly wishes to share them (especially with Piglet) and when in Chapter 2 of Winnie-the-Pooh he visits Rabbit he explicitly states one motivation for visiting is to have him "listening to me humming". Still, I've reworded as a compromise. Alfietucker (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You are now using references to condensed milk and "a little something" to support your claim, where your initial statement was solely about "hunny." Yes, there are a number of mentions if you broaden it in that way. Yes, it's worth mentioning that Pooh holds food rather dear. But I object to treating it as a "foible," as there is no basis for a moral judgment. I also object to calling it his "primary motivation"; as I read the stories, both his friendships and (arguably) his art are more important to him.
I'll make an attempt to flesh these things out better. By the way, I have no idea why your impulse seems to be to trim the text. The hatnote says that this article is primarily about the character, but it said next to nothing about the character until my two-paragraph addition yesterday. You are trimming that down to one paragraph, but why not let it be, or even let it expand? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I've now expanded it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry you don't like my using the word "foible", though by suggesting I'm making some moral judgement by it I think you put far more weight on the word than it actually implies. I mean it in the sense of "a minor fault in someone's character or behavior" - this seems fair as Pooh's foible concerning honey potentially sabotages not only Pooh's attempt to give Eeyore a birthday present but also leads to him eating a pot of honey which was intended to capture a heffalump, and his subsequent appearance when he gets his head stuck in the pot terrifying Piglet for good measure. As for prime motivation, isn't it significant that it's key not only to the first but also the second story of Winnie-the-Pooh? In short, it's an endearing part of his character, that he can't help himself when it comes to "Hunny". :-) Alfietucker (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

My edit would be to add the word 'teddy' between the words 'anthropomorphic' and 'bear' in the first sentence of the article. Pooh is a teddy bear, not a real bear. Thank you! Tygerstripes (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

Since this page is semi-protected, it should be put in the category Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages. 174.29.75.144 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done It is already in the sub-category Category:Wikipedia pages semi-protected against vandalism Stickee (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2015

Please replace the word "meanings" at the top of the page with "other uses of 'Pooh'" because people might be confused about what other uses they're looking for (other uses of "Pooh" or other uses of "Hunny?"). 174.29.75.144 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Live Action film in production (2015)

Here's the source for it's inclusion. Npamusic (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Pooh's Gender?

@Coolabahapple: I noticed that "Gender Male" was added to the info box and that seems to me to be an opinion and not a fact. Thoughts? HullIntegrity\ talk / 12:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@HullIntegrity: Hi, Winnie-the-Pooh (WP) is male, referred to as such in the stories, the teddy bear on which he is based was originally called Edward by Christopher Robin before he changed it to Winnie after a bear of that name he saw at the London Zoo, who in turn was named after the town of Winnipeg, this is all covered in earlier chats on this talkpage. WP is also referred to as a male in children's literature books that I have eg. Who's Who in Children's Books: A Treasury of the Familiar Characters of Childhood by Margery Fisher. That said, do we have a policy about whether to include gender in infoboxes of fictional characters? For example Woody is male but his gender is not stated in the article's infobox, while Paddington Bear, Felix the Cat and Garfield (character) are.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Coolabahapple: OK. I will agree with the use of "he" in the text as evidence of "gender" for this purpose and leave it alone. Though the "factual" gendering of fictional anthropomorphic animals gives me the willies for some reason. Perhaps because "gender" is such a culturally-based, loosey goosey term to begin with (and ergo an "argument" by default). But then I probably read way too much gender theory. ;) HullIntegrity\ talk / 13:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@HullIntegrity: Thats cool, when I was little, my teddy, called the imaginative name of 'bear', was a he probably because we did all sorts of boyish things together, but then I loved (still do) reading the secret seven and the famous five who are boys and girls that have great adventures together, I didn't really think about their gender. ps. I still have lots of bears, just don't tell anyone:) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Coolabahapple: I have my own classic Pooh, and I think we just told "everyone". LOL. HullIntegrity\ talk / 20:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Shea, S. E.; Gordon, K; Hawkins, A; Kawchuk, J; Smith, D (2000). "Pathology in the Hundred Acre Wood: A neurodevelopmental perspective on A.A. Milne". CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne. 163 (12): 1557–9. PMC 80580. PMID 11153486. {{cite journal}}: Missing pipe in: |journal= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh/Archive_1&oldid=1190146920"