Talk:The Tao of Pooh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Children's literature (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Taoism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taoism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Is it Tao or even Pooh?[edit]

How did the author have the idea to use Winnie the Pooh in this book? And did he have any problems getting the rights to use him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 (talkcontribs) 07:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article going completely unchalleneged in terms of scholarship, accuracy and a complete lack of adequate references while so many articles on Wikipedia cannot survive a single day without being put up for deletion on the basis of these issues?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.91.158 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting question. Basically, there are different standards for different subjects. To be blunt, it's not reasonable to expect a video game aimed at six year olds, or a bubblegum rock record to receive the same intellectual interest as particle physics, philosophy, or even sports. One of the common criticisms of Wikipedia, and one of the reasons the founder views it in some way as being a failure, is that people with no knowledge or qualifications are able to express themselves without appropriate supervision. 24.130.13.180 (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. Anybody who takes this interpretation of these religions seriously will be in trouble. Somebody noted above that the Wikipedia article is almost identical to passages in "The Tao of Pooh," a harmless bit of fluff beloved by high school students and freshmen, whose best parts are the nostalgic drawings from "Winnie the Pooh." (Are there no copyright laws?) Its author summarizes Tao at one point: "Life is fun." The kindest interpretation would be to relabel the book as Young Adult, not simply inaccurate. Hoff seems a harmless person on his website. But as someone has said, "The book is bad Tao, and bad Pooh." There was, indeed, a professor at my school, Mr. Popularity, who, to our embarrassment, assigned the book to students taking their one required liberal arts course. So the article's remark about it being assigned in a genuine college is accurate. His defense was that our current students probably hadn't read a "chapter book" except for Harry Potter, and now some of them might be intrigued about Asian philosophy. Yes, but if you have to rewrite Taoism into "Life is fun' to attract them, is that really getting them interested in Asian philosophy? Profhum (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Meaning?[edit]

Quite apart from the fact that this use of "actual" is inappropriate in tone for an encyclopedia, whatever is meant by "a story ..., which is an actual painting..."? --Pfold (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nostalgia[edit]

I remember my dad reading this to me around the age of ten. A bit odd for a bedtime story, but I liked it.

I'll have to go back and read through the book myself one of these days. Maybe I'll understand more of it this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.84.90 (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources for being 49 weeks in the New York Times bestseller list[edit]

There is a text in the article saying that book was in the New York Times bestseller list for 49 weeks (almost a year):

The book was on the New York Times bestseller list for 49 weeks

I marked this text with {{fact}}, because I'm unable to find any records in the archive of list (according to New York Times bestseller list the archive is at http://www.hawes.com/pastlist.htm from 1950 to 2012). I used google queries https://www.google.com/search?q=site:hawes.com+tao+of+pooh and https://www.google.com/search?q=site:hawes.com+Benjamin+Hoff - there are 40 records found for " THE TE OF PIGLET"; but nothing about "The Tao..". I think, additional sources and verification is needed. `a5b (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Tao of Pooh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)