Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh

An event mentioned in this article is an October 14 selected anniversary.

---

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)

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)

---

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1] 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 too 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_%28Winnie_the_Pooh%29&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)

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)

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 • contribs)

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)

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)

Broken links

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