Goldilocks and the Three Bears received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goldilocks and the Three Bears article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Goldilocks and the Three Bears was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Talk:Goldilocks and the Three Bears/old history page were merged into Goldilocks and the Three Bears. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Since the original story did not involve Goldilocks for nearly 70 years, and both articles on WP are virtually identical, I say we eliminate the Goldilocks article and have it redirect to The Three Bears. -- Kitch 03:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The article claims "there is no record of the story preceding Southey's publication in 1837", but one of the references at the bottom, namely http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/goldilocks/history.html, mentions a version from 1831 and backs that up with a reference to a book: ISBN 0195202198. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.131.176.54 ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 January 2007
I'm not understanding the reason for the move. The story is known today as "Goldilocks and the Three Bears", not "The Story of the Three Bears." Viriditas ( talk) 12:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm missing a source for this statement, since I cannot seem to find either a German equivalent (and I think the Grimm brothers collected only/mainly German fairy tales), or any other source referencing "The Three Bears" as being part of the Grimm collection. Ub 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Tolstoy mentions in ANNA KARENINA that Kitty Levin was nicknamed "little bear" ( he uses the English words) in childhood because of her fondness for the tale. This indicates that the tale was familiar in his Russia in some form or other and was known to be of English origin. 2001:558:6011:1:9975:DAD7:61C2:1D96 ( talk) 05:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
There is another reference to goldilocks at financial & investment literature. Some one could explain the mean of "Goldilocks economy of the late 1990"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.82.248 ( talk • contribs)
The story has nothing to do with bears or as the person wrote in the plot... privacy. It is about the economy. A Goldilocks Economy is neither "Hot or Cold." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.81.194 ( talk • contribs)
NO ONE CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.68.68 ( talk) 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the photos has a caption claiming it to be from 1927, while there is this reference saying that the picture is from 1919 book. See: http://www.ongoing-tales.com/SERIALS/oldtime/FAIRYTALES/goldilocks.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.118.168 ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 May 2007
Goldilocks is one of fables Comic characters she is villain "With great good skills" how tray to kill snow white and she have affair with the young bear and blue beard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.22.20.191 ( talk) 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Recent changes have tremendously improved this article, though I'm puzzled that the definitive reference - Ober, Warren. The Story of the Three Bears: The Evolution of an International Classic. - doesn't appear to have been consulted; indeed, the title was dropped from the earlier list of references. Despite this, many thanks for an improved article. EdK ( talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw the rule of three discussed on the GA review, and I found a source discussing it in relation to this story.
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)Not quite sure how to fit it into the present article, though. PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about trying to get this article to Featured status, which should be relatively easy since it's already GA. However, two problems jump out at me that would likely need to be solved. First, the Origins section should be restructured further; specifically, the information about "Scrapefoot" should be integrated into the main section, perhaps near the top. I haven't yet figured out how to best do that. Secondly, Cultural resonance should look less like a trivia section. PSWG1920 ( talk) 03:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Just read the section on interpretations, I am sorry to say that it's why most academia has no truck nowadays...
the story may not solve Oedipal issues or sibling rivalry as Bettelheim believes "Cinderella" does, it establishes the importance of respecting the property of others and the consequences of meddling with it. Bettelheim may have missed the anal aspect of the tale that would make it helpful to the child's personality development
hUh?? What a load of twaddle? Big words, no substance and little understanding.
In the academic world, too little bullshit is just as inappropriate as too much bullshit. The proper amount of bullshit is juuuuuust riiiiiight. 172.190.201.211 ( talk) 15:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The article says: The tale experienced two significant changes during its early publication history. Southey's elderly antagonist morphed into a pretty little girl called Goldilocks, and his three male bears became Father, Mother, and Baby Bear. Morphed? Can't you write less fuzzily? It isn't at all clear from this whether Southey's version contained Goldilocks (and that happens to be precisely the information I'm looking for). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JO 24 ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
How is Goldilocks, or the old woman for that matter, an "antagonist"? This is needlessly artificial. Goldilocks is clearly the protagonist. -- dab (𒁳) 09:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
No, she's the antagonist because she's guilty of home invasion. The Bears didn't invite her or know her. She entered the home of strangers, ate their food and slept in their beds and upon their return, fled the scene. In fact, I remember more recent re-tellings (in Timon & Pumbaa, for example), where the story ends with Goldilocks being arrested for breaking and entering. User:coq87rouge —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC).
The bears take a walk because their porridge is too hot, right? Goldilocks walks in and starts enjoying the buffet. The Papa Bear's porridge is in a big bowl and is still to hot - fine. The Mama Bear's porridge is in a medium bowl and is too cold - plausible. The Baby Bear's porridge is in a wee little bowl and is just right. Huh? How could his porridge be warmer that Mama Bear's if they were poured at the same time? This premise (which is key to the story) defies immutable laws of physics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.164.32 ( talk) 04:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, not sure why but under the "published in" section it just says the doctor, shouldn't this be a date? and if so could someone add in the correct date? Thanks. -- 58.178.159.204 ( talk) 14:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
To editor SeeSpot Run: please enlighten me – in your quest to make this article a FA, what good does it do to delete images and text, some of it with ref. citations? I can understanding finding and removing a dead link, removing unsourced text if it is damaging the article, and so forth; however, you've made several edits with which I do not agree:
...so I will revert them unless you can explain them here, thank you. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Any editor is free to remove uncited material. I've removed much. An article about a fictional work needs only to focus on the original work. Editors are not required to develop sections on adaptations, allusions, etc. It appears to me that you are unfamiliar with the MOS and Writing about fiction Please read these guidelines. SeeSpot Run ( talk) 20:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. I seriously weighed Paine Ellsworth's concerns about the title of the Southey story. But as it stands, the article is about a fairy tale and its variations; Southey's story is only one aspect of that. There could be a split at some point, but for now, the title will be what has been demonstrated to be the most common name for modern readers. -- BDD ( talk) 18:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The Story of the Three Bears → Goldilocks and the Three Bears – As per WP:AT. The title forgets the story's central and most notable character. No one talks about the "Mother bear habitable zone" . Ngrams, I hope, seals it. There are content disputes on the page so I thought this was best to bring to RM. Greg Kaye 08:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
"Goldilocks and the Three Bears" is displayed overtop File:The Three Bears - Project Gutenberg eText 17034.jpg from "English Fairy Tales, by Flora Annie Steel". Given that the image itself doesn't include "goldilocks" though, I was curious if the source did. If you search http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17034/17034-h/17034-h.htm you do find "Goldilocks" though, so this version of the story does have it.
However... we list 1837 and "The Doctor" as the first incarnation. Do we know if the Robert Southey version of the Three Bears story has Goldilocks? This article says that it was not until 1849 that Cundall replaced the old woman with a young girl.
Using 1837 as publication date only makes sense if we host this article at The Three Bears, otherwise we should include a later date for Goldilocks herself since she is in the title.
For that reason I will add a second date to the template as a guideline until we can pinpoint when in the 19th century the vague 'young girl' specifically became Goldilocks. Ranze ( talk) 00:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I would love to see an article for this but I don't know which shows get articles. How can we establish its notability? Until then I will collect the data here until we can export it in a section>article split. 174.92.135.167 ( talk) 06:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The two edits 782713121 and 778712079 seem to rewrite the plot to a different, apparently more modern version (while also leaving a dead sentence from the previous version). This makes following mentions of the old lady and her fate obscure. Personally, I think the edit seriously damaged the readability of the article, and that it should be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:2:aab0:5d3d:a666:a767:65c9 ( talk) 02:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The current article says the story was published in 1837 and "The same year Southey's tale was published, the story was versified by George Nicol". This is supported by citations. Indeed, the versified version was initialed "G.N. July, 1837." as shown on a scan. However, George Nicol (bookseller) died in 1828. I don't know what's wrong here, so I'm tagging it as dubious. Hopefully someone will solve the mystery and explain it to the rest of us. Krubo ( talk) 07:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
“Southey most likely learned the tale as a child from his uncle William Tyler. Uncle Tyler may have told a version with a vixen (female fox) as the intruder, and then Southey may have later confused "vixen" with another common meaning of "a crafty old woman".”
The proceeding paragraphs have described various theories about the origin, but this paragraphs seems to express an opinion of which origin is “most likely” based on nothing more than speculation (if there’s evidence it isn’t presented). I don’t think this paragraph leaves the reader well informed at present, and should either be removed, or expanded to explain who this Uncle William is and why it’s likely that Southey didn’t write the story but heard it from him. Mazz0 ( talk) 22:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
As an interpretation, could it be mentioned that females are particular about things being in the right zone, such as room temperature? 68.196.165.94 ( talk) 21:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The Goldilocks and The Three Bears animated short from 1939, it's not on this page, I feel like someone should fix that, especially since that short created a huge meme.
-Usual "Bagelton" Drama. (it's a fake name lol, but the animated short is real, someone add it.)
UsualDrama (
talk) 14:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of the article was written by the banned user ItsLassieTime and is being sent for purging at Copyright Problems. At the least, the Schultz source has confirmed copyvio, and given the far-reaching problems it's likely that the rest of the article is a copyvio too. Wizardman 23:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is it so short? It seems to have been severely chopped down to (less than, honestly) the bare minimum, with hardly a mention of origin or history. Plot summary is all but nonexistent, and discussion of literary themes is sparse and half-assed. There are just over a dozen sentences about this very famous fairy tale, and a good percentage of the text is only tangentially related to the subject. Going through the history, there seems to be a copyright issue and submissions by a banned sockpuppeter. But it's hard to determine how this went from "Good Article" to nearly a stub almost overnight. I'm very far from an authority, but I think such drastic measures merit a more thorough explanation than what's provided in the above GA Reassessment section. ~~ Mattevt | Hit me up 21:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
An instersting comparison is the much better German page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldl%C3%B6ckchen_und_die_drei_B%C3%A4ren Pytchblend ( talk) 03:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Goldilocks and the Three Bears received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goldilocks and the Three Bears article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Goldilocks and the Three Bears was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Talk:Goldilocks and the Three Bears/old history page were merged into Goldilocks and the Three Bears. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Since the original story did not involve Goldilocks for nearly 70 years, and both articles on WP are virtually identical, I say we eliminate the Goldilocks article and have it redirect to The Three Bears. -- Kitch 03:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The article claims "there is no record of the story preceding Southey's publication in 1837", but one of the references at the bottom, namely http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/goldilocks/history.html, mentions a version from 1831 and backs that up with a reference to a book: ISBN 0195202198. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.131.176.54 ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 January 2007
I'm not understanding the reason for the move. The story is known today as "Goldilocks and the Three Bears", not "The Story of the Three Bears." Viriditas ( talk) 12:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm missing a source for this statement, since I cannot seem to find either a German equivalent (and I think the Grimm brothers collected only/mainly German fairy tales), or any other source referencing "The Three Bears" as being part of the Grimm collection. Ub 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Tolstoy mentions in ANNA KARENINA that Kitty Levin was nicknamed "little bear" ( he uses the English words) in childhood because of her fondness for the tale. This indicates that the tale was familiar in his Russia in some form or other and was known to be of English origin. 2001:558:6011:1:9975:DAD7:61C2:1D96 ( talk) 05:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
There is another reference to goldilocks at financial & investment literature. Some one could explain the mean of "Goldilocks economy of the late 1990"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.82.248 ( talk • contribs)
The story has nothing to do with bears or as the person wrote in the plot... privacy. It is about the economy. A Goldilocks Economy is neither "Hot or Cold." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.81.194 ( talk • contribs)
NO ONE CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.68.68 ( talk) 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the photos has a caption claiming it to be from 1927, while there is this reference saying that the picture is from 1919 book. See: http://www.ongoing-tales.com/SERIALS/oldtime/FAIRYTALES/goldilocks.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.118.168 ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 May 2007
Goldilocks is one of fables Comic characters she is villain "With great good skills" how tray to kill snow white and she have affair with the young bear and blue beard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.22.20.191 ( talk) 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Recent changes have tremendously improved this article, though I'm puzzled that the definitive reference - Ober, Warren. The Story of the Three Bears: The Evolution of an International Classic. - doesn't appear to have been consulted; indeed, the title was dropped from the earlier list of references. Despite this, many thanks for an improved article. EdK ( talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw the rule of three discussed on the GA review, and I found a source discussing it in relation to this story.
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)Not quite sure how to fit it into the present article, though. PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about trying to get this article to Featured status, which should be relatively easy since it's already GA. However, two problems jump out at me that would likely need to be solved. First, the Origins section should be restructured further; specifically, the information about "Scrapefoot" should be integrated into the main section, perhaps near the top. I haven't yet figured out how to best do that. Secondly, Cultural resonance should look less like a trivia section. PSWG1920 ( talk) 03:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Just read the section on interpretations, I am sorry to say that it's why most academia has no truck nowadays...
the story may not solve Oedipal issues or sibling rivalry as Bettelheim believes "Cinderella" does, it establishes the importance of respecting the property of others and the consequences of meddling with it. Bettelheim may have missed the anal aspect of the tale that would make it helpful to the child's personality development
hUh?? What a load of twaddle? Big words, no substance and little understanding.
In the academic world, too little bullshit is just as inappropriate as too much bullshit. The proper amount of bullshit is juuuuuust riiiiiight. 172.190.201.211 ( talk) 15:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The article says: The tale experienced two significant changes during its early publication history. Southey's elderly antagonist morphed into a pretty little girl called Goldilocks, and his three male bears became Father, Mother, and Baby Bear. Morphed? Can't you write less fuzzily? It isn't at all clear from this whether Southey's version contained Goldilocks (and that happens to be precisely the information I'm looking for). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JO 24 ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
How is Goldilocks, or the old woman for that matter, an "antagonist"? This is needlessly artificial. Goldilocks is clearly the protagonist. -- dab (𒁳) 09:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
No, she's the antagonist because she's guilty of home invasion. The Bears didn't invite her or know her. She entered the home of strangers, ate their food and slept in their beds and upon their return, fled the scene. In fact, I remember more recent re-tellings (in Timon & Pumbaa, for example), where the story ends with Goldilocks being arrested for breaking and entering. User:coq87rouge —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC).
The bears take a walk because their porridge is too hot, right? Goldilocks walks in and starts enjoying the buffet. The Papa Bear's porridge is in a big bowl and is still to hot - fine. The Mama Bear's porridge is in a medium bowl and is too cold - plausible. The Baby Bear's porridge is in a wee little bowl and is just right. Huh? How could his porridge be warmer that Mama Bear's if they were poured at the same time? This premise (which is key to the story) defies immutable laws of physics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.164.32 ( talk) 04:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, not sure why but under the "published in" section it just says the doctor, shouldn't this be a date? and if so could someone add in the correct date? Thanks. -- 58.178.159.204 ( talk) 14:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
To editor SeeSpot Run: please enlighten me – in your quest to make this article a FA, what good does it do to delete images and text, some of it with ref. citations? I can understanding finding and removing a dead link, removing unsourced text if it is damaging the article, and so forth; however, you've made several edits with which I do not agree:
...so I will revert them unless you can explain them here, thank you. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Any editor is free to remove uncited material. I've removed much. An article about a fictional work needs only to focus on the original work. Editors are not required to develop sections on adaptations, allusions, etc. It appears to me that you are unfamiliar with the MOS and Writing about fiction Please read these guidelines. SeeSpot Run ( talk) 20:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. I seriously weighed Paine Ellsworth's concerns about the title of the Southey story. But as it stands, the article is about a fairy tale and its variations; Southey's story is only one aspect of that. There could be a split at some point, but for now, the title will be what has been demonstrated to be the most common name for modern readers. -- BDD ( talk) 18:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The Story of the Three Bears → Goldilocks and the Three Bears – As per WP:AT. The title forgets the story's central and most notable character. No one talks about the "Mother bear habitable zone" . Ngrams, I hope, seals it. There are content disputes on the page so I thought this was best to bring to RM. Greg Kaye 08:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
"Goldilocks and the Three Bears" is displayed overtop File:The Three Bears - Project Gutenberg eText 17034.jpg from "English Fairy Tales, by Flora Annie Steel". Given that the image itself doesn't include "goldilocks" though, I was curious if the source did. If you search http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17034/17034-h/17034-h.htm you do find "Goldilocks" though, so this version of the story does have it.
However... we list 1837 and "The Doctor" as the first incarnation. Do we know if the Robert Southey version of the Three Bears story has Goldilocks? This article says that it was not until 1849 that Cundall replaced the old woman with a young girl.
Using 1837 as publication date only makes sense if we host this article at The Three Bears, otherwise we should include a later date for Goldilocks herself since she is in the title.
For that reason I will add a second date to the template as a guideline until we can pinpoint when in the 19th century the vague 'young girl' specifically became Goldilocks. Ranze ( talk) 00:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I would love to see an article for this but I don't know which shows get articles. How can we establish its notability? Until then I will collect the data here until we can export it in a section>article split. 174.92.135.167 ( talk) 06:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The two edits 782713121 and 778712079 seem to rewrite the plot to a different, apparently more modern version (while also leaving a dead sentence from the previous version). This makes following mentions of the old lady and her fate obscure. Personally, I think the edit seriously damaged the readability of the article, and that it should be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:2:aab0:5d3d:a666:a767:65c9 ( talk) 02:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The current article says the story was published in 1837 and "The same year Southey's tale was published, the story was versified by George Nicol". This is supported by citations. Indeed, the versified version was initialed "G.N. July, 1837." as shown on a scan. However, George Nicol (bookseller) died in 1828. I don't know what's wrong here, so I'm tagging it as dubious. Hopefully someone will solve the mystery and explain it to the rest of us. Krubo ( talk) 07:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
“Southey most likely learned the tale as a child from his uncle William Tyler. Uncle Tyler may have told a version with a vixen (female fox) as the intruder, and then Southey may have later confused "vixen" with another common meaning of "a crafty old woman".”
The proceeding paragraphs have described various theories about the origin, but this paragraphs seems to express an opinion of which origin is “most likely” based on nothing more than speculation (if there’s evidence it isn’t presented). I don’t think this paragraph leaves the reader well informed at present, and should either be removed, or expanded to explain who this Uncle William is and why it’s likely that Southey didn’t write the story but heard it from him. Mazz0 ( talk) 22:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
As an interpretation, could it be mentioned that females are particular about things being in the right zone, such as room temperature? 68.196.165.94 ( talk) 21:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The Goldilocks and The Three Bears animated short from 1939, it's not on this page, I feel like someone should fix that, especially since that short created a huge meme.
-Usual "Bagelton" Drama. (it's a fake name lol, but the animated short is real, someone add it.)
UsualDrama (
talk) 14:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of the article was written by the banned user ItsLassieTime and is being sent for purging at Copyright Problems. At the least, the Schultz source has confirmed copyvio, and given the far-reaching problems it's likely that the rest of the article is a copyvio too. Wizardman 23:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is it so short? It seems to have been severely chopped down to (less than, honestly) the bare minimum, with hardly a mention of origin or history. Plot summary is all but nonexistent, and discussion of literary themes is sparse and half-assed. There are just over a dozen sentences about this very famous fairy tale, and a good percentage of the text is only tangentially related to the subject. Going through the history, there seems to be a copyright issue and submissions by a banned sockpuppeter. But it's hard to determine how this went from "Good Article" to nearly a stub almost overnight. I'm very far from an authority, but I think such drastic measures merit a more thorough explanation than what's provided in the above GA Reassessment section. ~~ Mattevt | Hit me up 21:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
An instersting comparison is the much better German page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldl%C3%B6ckchen_und_die_drei_B%C3%A4ren Pytchblend ( talk) 03:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)