Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fairy tale

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

---

Fairy tale

Self Nomination I've worked on it, I've put it up for peer review, so I'm putting it up for FAC. Goldfritha 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks pretty good, with lots of info and images, no unsourced statements, and a lot of references. I say it is FA quality 2Pac 00:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object. The article doesn't even mention Hans Christian Andersen, who is one of the most important people in this genre. --Maitch 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Before I add him, in what sense do you think him one of the most important people? Since I would like to address your actual concern. Goldfritha 02:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Or now that I've added some information. (He was already in the list of compilations of fairy tales). Goldfritha 02:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Does the term "fairy tale" refer to a primarily European form of storytelling? This is the impression I get from reading the article, but it is not made explicit anywhere. If so, this should be mentioned in the lead, as it is important to distinguish it from other cultures' folktales. If not, the article is lacking information on Asian, African, and Native American fairy tales. Andrew Levine 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What information do you think is lacking? Goldfritha 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is either missing a statement that fairy tales are predominantly European in origin, or else If they are not primarily European) the article is too Eurocentric on the whole. Whichever one applies. Andrew Levine 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your objection is not clear. What information is missing from the article that leads you to assert that it is "too Eurocentric on the whole"? Goldfritha 00:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is. If the fairy tale is a predominantly European form of storytelling, then the article lacks any explicit mention of the fact. If the fairy tale is not a predominantly European form of storytelling, then the article needs to make many more mentions of non-European fairy tales. Andrew Levine 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This article does not need to make many more mentions of non-European fairy tales just so there will be many more mentions of non-European fairy tales. The List of fairy tales exists to point to fairy tales. This article exists to treat the topic, not to itemize the instances; adding instances for the sake of adding instances is not strengthening it but weakening it. Goldfritha 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Swapping out a few of the European fairy tales discussed in favor of non-European ones is more along the lines of what I'm thinking. As it stands, this article merits a {{Globalize/Europe}} template. Andrew Levine 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure anything is missing here -- a fairy tale isn't particularly European, nor quite the same thing as a folktale (it's a subdivision of folktales as a whole). All of the information regarding fairy tales that the article presents would apply equally to Asian, African, and Native American tales. The objection might stem from the history seeming Eurocentric -- but quite a lot of the early development of the study of the genre was Eurocentric. I suppose in addition to the Arabian Nights and Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio, some other non-European collections could be mentioned (Lafcadio Hearn's Kwaidan is one that comes to mind), but part of the point of the article is that these tales are, at base, surprisingly similar to their European counterparts. Aside from that, I wanted to note that the references aren't all consistently formatted; some of them appear to be incomplete. The text of the article, though, is well-written, well-referenced, and reasonably comprehensive. Shimeru 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object, I'm afraid. First, it does need more about Native American and African fairy stories, I'd think a paragraph or even a full section on each, these are rich traditions. At least mention the very important Trickster motif which seems more common outside Europe. More specific complaints "According to a 2004 poll of 1,200 children by UCI Cinemas" - clearly needs a link or other reference information so we can find it. "Ethnographers collected fairy tales over the work" world, surely. The External links section is huge - many are more appropriate to the sub-articles, like on the Langs' tales. One paragraph talks about Briar Rose, and the next refers to Sleeping Beauty without any evidence that these are actually talking about the same story, we can't assume readers "just know". Why nothing at all about films, especially animated films? I'd think that to much of the world the Disney movies are now the iconic forms of Snow White, Cinderella, etc., and they introduced several other popular modern ones. Sorry, but you've picked a very big subject here, this article isn't comprehensive. If you don't think you have room in one article, then write a sentence or a paragraph with a clear "main article on this is here" link. Right now this doesn't have that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What is distinctive about the Native American and African fairy stories that would require them to have a paragraph or even a full section?

By that "Trickster" comment -- do you want a section in the article about motifs in fairy tales?

I'll see if I can get a reference for that, or I'll delete it.

Corrected the word and the Sleeping Beauty article.

I'll take a stab at the external links and develop the contemporary fairy tales in other media.Goldfritha 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the article isn't comprehensive. To be perfect, it needs to give an overview of nearly everything there is to say about fairy tales. It just doesn't. As so many have written above, it talks a lot about European fairy tales, then in an apparent effort to be politically correct, mentions Chinese fairy tales, but says nothing about African or Native American fairy tales, and doesn't point to an article that does. Here, let me contrast with another FAC I'm supporting, Solar System, up for review on this very page. That's another big topic, but that article does a much better job - it gives an overview of everything and refers to more specific articles for individual planets, units, history of discovery, history of exploration, etc. Notice the writers never say "What is distinctive about Uranus? Let's just leave it out." Yes, you need a section on common themes. You need a section on fairy tales from different regions and ethnic groups - all of them. You need to be able to answer any obvious question that comes to mind when a reader thinks about fairy tales, or at least give them an obvious pointer to what article they should go to for more details. Fairy tales are a huge topic, people get doctorates in this, many people devote their entire careers to this field of study. This article does not do that justice. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that having separate sections on European/Asian/African/Native American fairy tales is probably not warranted and would look like tokenism if done that way. I like the way Goldfritha has added them in the past few days, weaving them in with the mentions of the European fairy tales, as it emphasizes the similarities between fairy tales across cultures rather than their different settings. I think the article is now not too far away from being ideal. Andrew Levine 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would add that if someone asked "What is distinctive about Uranus?" it would be simple to point out many things, from its discovery to its axial tilt. Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And that if by "so many have written above, it talks a lot about European fairy tales, then in an apparent effort to be politically correct, mentions Chinese fairy tales," you are talking about the opening paragraph of the history section, may I point out that in that a lot of those "European" fairy tales -- aren't European? (If not, what section are you referring to?) Goldfritha 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, for me it is still far from comprehensive - though I do appreciate the addition of the film sections, etc. For example, the Association with children section only addresses European stories by implication. Were Chinese, Japanese, African, etc., stories similary bowdlerized? We don't know. Don't you think we should? The Popular tales section says European stories are popular, and cites an extensive collection, the opinion of someone who is both an important writer and a literature professor, and a survey, great. However then it says that Arabian Nights stories exist, but doesn't say whether they are actually popular, and who says so. Are they? Say so. How popular, where? That's what the section is supposed to be about. Anyway, are any other stories -- besides European and Arabian Nights stories -- less popular? If so, say so, and why. If not, say so as well. It also uses the wonderful lines "all people" and "most people" as if they really referred to worldwide popularity, though I humbly venture that Tolkien wasn't considering, oh, 1 billion Chinese who wouldn't know Perrault from Grimm if they bit them. That whole section could be used as a poster child for eurocentric bias. I still only see Africa and the Americas mentioned in a single sentence for the lot. No. If you want to rename the article "European fairy tales", I'll look at it again. For an article purporting to be about all fairy tales, it falls dreadfully short. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-read that section - who says Lang's work provides "excellent examples of the genre"? Shouldn't puffery like that be cited to someone? You can say it's extensive just from the pagecount, but "excellent" is a value judgement, not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's out. Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that this is not a criticism of Goldfritha's work, which is clearly improving the article by leaps and bounds just since my first criticism. That's great work, and I appreciate it. It's just a big topic, that people really do write doctoral dissertations on. Maybe the idea I threw out above is the best way to go about this, start with a sub-article on the European fairy tale, which really could more usefully take in 3/4 of the current content of this article, and would probably "inherit" most of the support votes from this FAC. Please don't take it as personal criticism, you're clearly a good editor, and I'm glad someone like you is writing here. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about "European fairy tales" and I vigorously oppose any attempt to rename it. Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unindenting for legibility. Struck some comments that have been addressed. New ones cropped up:

• • Puddocky is not a maiden in the Tower tale - inconsistent Capitalisation
  • "Anderson's work" - spelling
  • Where is the Chesterton quote from? You should always add a citation when quoting published material.
  • "The anime Magical Princess Minky Momo draws on the fairy tale Momotarō." - how? The Minky Momo article doesn't say anything about this.
  • You still haven't addressed the "fairy tales were altered for children" bit for non-European tales. If we're writing about Japanese anime, I'd say there's at least an equal amount of fairy tales being altered to make them actually pornographic....
  • There is still a heavy European focus, not just in the sources cited, but in the stories described - as a rough estimate, I'd say the article is 85% European, 5% modern American, 5% Chinese, less than 5% everything else. If it's not supposed to be about European fairy tales, you need to explicitly say why they're so heavily represented.
  • By the way, this complaint isn't just about the classic third world being left out - you're also leaving out American folk tales - Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Uncle Remus. Heck, how can you write an article about Fairy tale without mentioning Aesop? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.

Fixed.

It's out.

I provided a reference.

The equal amount does not refute that they are also being altered for children.

That's not my point; you don't say that they are being altered for children, just "draws on" which could mean anything. Did this also started with the Victorians, only with the coming of anime, or when? Are African, Native American, South Asian, Middle Eastern fairy tales also being altered? How and when? Again, this section seems European focused. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not the tall tales article; therefore, Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill are unsuitable. So is Aesop, who wrote fables. Goldfritha 01:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I guess this goes to the insufficient definition of your main term, then, the one you have given -- "story featuring folkloric characters such as ... talking animals" -- seems to fit many fables quite well, and isn't far from tall tales either: Paul Bunyan is clearly a folkloric character, and though not one of the stereotypical ones of the definition list, neither is Bluebeard. Panchantra and LaFontaine feature prominently in both the Fable article and your Fairy tale article. That's a pretty strong objection, by the way, the article clearly needs to define its main term, and not in a way contradicted by the article's own main author. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That a collection contains both fables and fairy tales, and that a writer wrote both fables and faiy tales, is not an argument that they are the same.

And just because I've done a lot of work on it does not make the "main author."Goldfritha 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose changed to Support -Susanlesch 14:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) at this time. Sorry but I do think you will get there eventually. By "modern versions usually have a happy ending" do you mean Disney versions of old tales? Or do you mean new tales written today have happy endings? Can you give some summary in the lead and in the article of who authored, or told, fairy tales, where, and when? Like for example, authors, countries and years? Which publishers are best known for fairy tales? Which editors worked with which publishers? Who did the publishers hire to illustrate the tales? Did that choice influence the popularity of some stories? Or do fairy tales exist apart from books? If so, who is responsible for repeating the tales? Did Disney influence the list of most popular stories? (When did Disney start to publish Little Golden Books? I don't know sorry.) Would it be helpful to say that the Brothers Grimm were German, that Andrew Lang was Scottish, that Hans Christian Andersen was Danish? -Susanlesch 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is meant by the "happy endings" comment, since I didn't put it in, but it's easy to pull out.

"Can you give some summary in the lead and in the article of who authored, or told, fairy tales, where, and when? Like for example, authors, countries and years? Which publishers are best known for fairy tales? Which editors worked with which publishers?"

To quote the article: "The fairy tale was part of an oral tradition; tales were told or enacted dramatically, rather than written down, and handed down from generation to generation. Because of this, the history of their development is necessarily obscure."

Or, in other words, No. I can't give any such summary. No one else can either.

For what reason do you think Little Golden Books important enough for this article? Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Little Golden Books themselves don't belong here (unless you start talking about publishers). I meant to suggest they may give a date on which to hang Disney's influence. The release date of the Snow White (1937) and Cinderella (1950) films might accomplish the same thing. In the Popular tales section, we have Tolkien saying that people recognize tales of Perrault. The list of favorites made me wonder if and if so to what extent and when Disney replaced Perrault as people's source of information in their answers (the books are just one indication, e.g., they are labeled Movie or Television Tie-Ins at Random House).

Thank you for removing "happy endings," something that would have needed to be explained if it is true that tales have changed over time. On second read this article is a great deal better than I realized, and it was only the style of the treatment of facts I tend to scan for that had me lost. In other words, the people and titles of works are here. What I didn't see right away was that Panchatantra for example is Hindu and maybe 1700 years old. Sorry for that impatient reading.

After looking at Google I think you have the majority of the work done and very well. You may have seen parts of Twice Upon a Time in Google Books. I read it too fast but think Harries makes an argument that oral tales are separate from literary tales. If that seems reasonable, then one can give a factual history (countries, dates, persons) of the literary form, while keeping the view that the origin of oral tales is unknown. One of your external links has what looks like a suitable timeline that could be condensed into one paragraph of prose. But you and others will surely know better. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have included a history of literary forms, in the history section. Is your complaint that it doesn't have enough dates and countries? Goldfritha 15:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Goldfritha. Afraid I don't much like a change in vote being called a complaint. Thank you for removing the list of popular tales, a good edit that solved an issue. Yes, I think countries and dates are important. Dates would be enough, and here are some examples. "The oldest known written fairy tales stem from ancient Egypt", the Panchatantra or The Golden Ass, Carlo Gozzi and Pu Songling, Perrault's Cinderella, Lang and or Andersen and MacDonald. I have no more comments. Thank you and best wishes. -Susanlesch 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC). P.S. Another date that would help is some indication of when the Brothers Grimm worked. -Susanlesch 16:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You described something about the article as being wrong; I would say that a neutral description of such a description is "a complaint."

I will look at putting in dates, where available. Goldfritha 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

More dates are in. Goldfritha 04:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I know that "fairy tale" is a very hard genre to define, but it seems to me that the page lists lots of examples of fairy tales, some characteristics and lots of competing definitions. I think that it needs to pin down either a single definition or a smaller set of competing definitions. It is not easy to figure out what a fairy tale is from reading this page. Doing so might help you determine what traditions to include or not include on the page. Once a genre becomes so inclusive that it appears all over the world and all across time, one wonder how helpful the definition really is. Awadewit 09:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is unsuitable for Wikipedia, arguing for WP:OR. Given that there are a lot of competing definitions of fairy tales -- and there are -- it is Wikipedia's place to report that and not to pin it down to a single definition or a smaller set of competing definitions. Given that folklorists agree that there are fairy tales all over the world and all across time -- and they do -- Wikipedia must report that, regardless of whether we think it would be helpful if it were more limited. Goldfritha 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If folklorists argue that fairy tales exist in all times and places, that is fine (I'll go argue with them, then). But I still feel that the page needs to tighten up its set of definitions. Certainly, among folklorists some definitions must be more accepted than others and it is those that should reflected in the wikipedia entry. I am just concerned that after reading this very thorough page, a reader may still not be able to say what a fairy tale is. Imagine reading it and then being asked to explain in a few short sentences "According to this article, what is a fairy tale?" I found myself unable to do so in a very coherent way and since the most important function of the page is to define the fairy tale, I feel that this is a problem. Awadewit 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This article records that, in fact, the definition of fairy tale is unclear, less than coherent, and not capable of being defined in a few sentences without sacrificing accuracy about how the term is used. Some definitions are more accepted than others. Those are the ones I put in the article. Goldfritha 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this problem could be solved by simply organizing the article a little better. For example, could you create subsections for each definition? I think that such a division would greatly assist the reader in identifying the various definitions.Awadewit 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the competing definition are clear cut enough to make that feasible. Goldfritha 04:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, where is Bruno Bettelheim in all of this? His Uses of Enchantment is a standard interpretation of fairy tales. Awadewit 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a mention. Goldfritha 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support I find this an excellent treatment of fairy tales. Goldfritha has done excellent work encapsulating a topic that is broad and, in itself, somewhat ill-defined. Shimeru 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Good article. This is neither a support nor oppose, but I expected to find quite a few references to Roland Barthes here, but I see he isn't cited in the article. Is the lack of Barthes an oversight or is it simply not necessary given the cited work of Angela Carter and others?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you expect to find him referenced here? Bearing in mind that the article is concentrating fairy tales and not interpretations and uses of them. Goldfritha 02:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves me, Barthes - alongside Vladimir Propp and Angela Carter (who are cited in the article) - is a key text for students of fairy tales. [1] In fact, why would this article not also mention interpretations and uses of fairy tales?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It does mention them; it does not concentrate on them because this is about the tales, not the interpretations and uses.

Furthermore, there are a lot of authors who have written about fairy tales. Compare the counts from your search and from this one.[2] or this one [3] or even this one.[4] Goldfritha 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - comprehensive, well written and coherent. Fulfils all FA criteria. cheers Cas Liber 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.