Jump to content

Talk:Henny Penny

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Goosey Loosey)

Change of Name

[edit]

The name of this article has been changed because "The sky is falling" is not the commonest or best known for the story involved. There are also too many other articles under that title and this led to an unacceptable number of ambiguities.

Another reason is that it helps focus the article on the fable itself. This is the reason why so many items that formerly were listed have now been deleted. Many referred to the idiomatic phrase meaning 'disaster is approaching' rather than the fable. In any case, simply listing every passing allusion to it without explaining why its mention is significant is not acceptable in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the discussion on this? I can see a possible reason for a move away from the sky is falling, but most references give the main charachter as Chicken Licken (or little) not Henny Penny. All the films have had that name and it seems odd to change it without at least some kind of consensus. Quoth 31 (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is taking place right here. I rather foresaw that there might be a clash of interests around which name to use. "Chicken Little" appears to be the name by which the character is now best known in the U.S. However, Joseph Jacobs, the tale's populariser, first heard it among a Cornish community in Australia (http://www.storyteller.net/articles/136) and used the title "Henny Penny" in his collection of "English Fairy Tales" (1890). There is a list of those included at the Joseph Jacobs article and "Henny Penny" now directs to this page. Though Walt Disney used "Chicken Little" in his 1943 title, Lightnin' Hopkins was using the alternative name in his "Henny Penny Blues" about five years later, which proves that too had currency in the U.S. I would dispute that 'most references give the main character as Chicken Licken'; perhaps they do in the U.S. (though that will need substantiating) but it may not be so elsewhere in the English-speaking world. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The web has many more references to Chicken little/licken than henny penny, and I think the split between little/licken was a key reason why the fable was called "the sky is falling" in the first place. More interestingly is the fact that the Joseph Jacobs version that you site does not even mention chicken little as a charachter. In every story (that i have found; apologies for OR) that mentions them both, Chicken Licken is the title charachter. I maintain that he is the more famous charachter and if the article changes from the sky is falling it would be better named after him. Quoth 31 (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some reasearch as well and have come across an earlier source than Joseph in The Remarkable Story of Chicken Little [1] which was printed in Boston between 1865-71. I also did a web search (with 'book' added to the search category so as to keep it more focused), as you have done, and there are indeed more entries for Chicken Little. However, this needs a little interpretation, since the web is largely dominated by the US so one might expect that. I fully agree with you that in the US the tale is best known as Chicken Little.

When I first came across that phrase in a story, applied by a father to his daughter, I was puzzled by what he meant; having been raised elsewhere, I knew the fable under another name and did not understand the allusion. The point I didn't make sufficiently clear above is that the WP title has to be recognisable to people in other English-speaking areas - UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa...India, if it comes to that, since it's the lingua franca there. But let's centre this discussion - which I'm very glad you've brought up, Quoth 31 - and look at the alternatives practically.

  • Chicken Little appears to be the title under which the tale is best known in the US. To have a radically different title might confuse many living there.
  • Chicken Licken has fewer web references as a book title. An argument in its favour would be that it is nearer to the US preferred name. In West Indian dialect 'little' is pronounced 'lickle', and that sound change could have something to do with the change in name from 'licken' to 'little'. NOTHING to do with the Kentucky Fried Chicken slogan!!
  • Henny Penny has early attestation - the translation of a Norwegian version [2] has Henny Penny as a character and predates Jacobs by two years. In addition, it is a title recognisable to many in the US too.
  • I agree with you that The Sky is Falling was probably chosen because of all this ambiguity. But as a title it involves even more ambiguity and appears to be no longer an acceptable solution. Added to which, of course, the tale was hardly ever known under that name.

As WP editors, it's our job to help work out which title will be most accessible to users and the dilemma is that whichever we choose is bound to cause dissatisfaction. Having set up the alternatives, let's see if anyone else joins the discussion. The last time I checked the article has an average of 200 hits a day. Incidentally, I didn't raise it as a discussion point before making the change in name because so few people do respond, whereas if one goes ahead and makes the change that is more likely to generate talk. Take a look at the Talk Page on Aesop's Fables and you'll find some discussion points not acted on since 2005. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the titles is going to be a compromise it seems, and I think I'm defintielty on board to changing from "the sky is falling" I'm actually British, and had the same experience as yourself when seeing the name of the film come up as chicken little rather than chicken licken as I had always known it. But Henny Penny is a radically different name in other countries too. Moreover as the only charachter not to have a second name beginning with an 'L' it's not immediately noticeable that it's the same story. Also it appears that the earliest version uncovered is "the remarkable story of Chicken Little" that was your first link. For me the choice comes between chicken licken and Little.Quoth 31 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere on WP there's a place where you can ask other editors for their views. Do you know where it is? If we simply wait for someone else to come along and offer an opinion, it may take for ever. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been away. I notice you've edited a lot of fairy tale entries, perhaps it would be good to ask some of the editors you've been in contact with on those articles for their opinion? Personally I think Chicken Little should probably get the nod with an immediate note saying also known as Licken and Henny Penny (I think we can drop 'the sky is falling') It has the earliest acreditation and is the title that has been used the most in other media. Quoth 31 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3rd Opinion Hello. I would support Chicken Little or Chicken Licken. I'd say that Chicken Little is the most easily recognizable. I'd also comment that Chicken Little is probably more well-known in England and Anglophone parts of Asia (having lived as a child in both, alongside the US)- almost certainly as a function of most commercial media I can recall employing that title. The Rhymesmith (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either I or Quoth31 can agree with you on recognizability, Rhymster. As you'll see from the discussion above, neither s/he nor I recognised the name Chicken Little when we first encountered it, or realised that it had any connection with the fable. We're both UK residents but, I suspect, of different generations. It's a purely US usage.Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a site that gives much earlier 19th century instances of the fable: http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type2033.html#chambers. There's an 1849 "Story of Chicken Licken" with the character Hen-Len. Slightly earlier there's an 1841 "Henny Penny and her Fellow Travellers" without a Chicken-Licken; and in 1853 there's a translation from the Danish of "Little Chicken Kluk and His Companions" with Henny-Penny among them. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling about this is that the name of the article is not so important. The article's usefulness is mainly in providing information about the story, whatever its name, and the different titles will redirect here. I don't think it's worth finding a neutral term, as in the case of Fixed-wing aircraft, where the proponents of "airplane" and "aeroplane" were at loggerheads! I know the tale from both titles, and I think of the same tale. It's important not to let this get out of proportion... (Now if only there was a story that could illustrate that...)--Annielogue (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Requested move/dated|Henny Penny}}

Henny Penny (fable) → Henny Penny — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC) While the name of the article may have been the subject of some debate in the past, it appears that "Henny Penny" is a stable name now. That being the case, if the article is to stay at "Henny Penny" the disambiguating term "(fable)" is unnecessary per WP:AT. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable: this request was submitted practically simultaneously to the above one... I'm leaving it here as an alternative to consider. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alternative. Henny Penny (fable) → Chicken Little (fable) — This seems so obvious by WP:COMMONNAME that I would have moved it unilaterally, but discussion at the talk page indicates some objection is probable, so discussion and WP:RM processing is recommended, hence this formal proposal and discussion.

    The google test results at both U.S. [3] [4] and U.K. google [5] [6] are overwhelming: "Chicken Little" has well over ten times as many ghits as does "Henny Penny"; that "Chicken Little" is more commonly used than "Henny Penny" is indisputable (though it must be disambiguated, like Henny Penny, due to other uses).

    Per the principle criteria at WP:TITLE, while neither has a significant advantage in terms of precision, conciseness, or consistency, "Chicken Little" is at least as natural as "Henny Penny", and is clearly more recognizable. Accordingly this title should reflect the name most commonly used to refer to its topic... Chicken Little, by being moved to Chicken Little (fable) (or, perhaps, if primary topic criteria is believed to exist, which is probably, to Chicken Little). --Born2cycle (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article was to be moved to "Chicken Little" I would still question the need for a disambiguation term like "fable". The other uses of the term are clearly derivative of the main term and Chicken Little should be moved to Chicken Little (disambiguation) to allow Chicken Little to be at its common, undisambiguated name. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Chicken Little (without disambiguation). "Chicken Little" is a much more common title than both "Henny Penny" and "Chicken Licken", and looking through the oldest results in Google Books, it appears that "Chicken Little" was the original name of the fable (at least in published form) - 1825 for "Chicken Little", and 1849 for "Chicken Licken" (which used "Hen-len" instead of "Henny Penny", incidentally). Dohn joe (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal: Henny Penny. See discussion below, but essentially, "Henny Penny" is used worldwide, as opposed to largely regional uses of both alternatives. (fable) is not needed to disambiguate, since Henny Penny already redirects here anyhow. Dohn joe (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against Support original proposal in the light of joint research and discussion with Dohn joe. I think too that Annielogue makes a valid point at the end of the section above. Since both "Chicken Little" and "Chicken Licken" redirect to "Henny Penny" already, there seems little point in changing the title yet again.Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is admitted in the discussion in that section, "Chicken Little" is the name by which the story goes in the U.S., yes, but it is also known as "Henny Penny" there. Those outside the U.S. do NOT recognise the name "Chicken Little" as that of the fable, although they might know it as a rather feeble recent film that has very little to do with it. The numbers argument doesn't hold, because the majority are probably U.S. references. The 1825 'oldest mention' is a book from a Boston publisher. Many of the oldest (so far) British references during the 1840s have Henny Penny. The argument boils down to whether the British or American preferred name should have precedence. I'm inclined to see in the proposal a piece of Hollywood-dominated chauvinism. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also Henny Penny (restaurant) and Henny Penny (manufacturer). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

[edit]

The WP article on this quotation says it is 'a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics, to bolster weak arguments'. Counts of appearances of "Chicken Little" in Google have been cited as proof of the name's universal recognisability. To begin with, of course, since we are dealing in this article with the nursery tale, you have to strip out all references to firms with that name, and to the recent Disney film, which has very little connection with the traditional tale. That would reduce the count considerably. But, since the argument is chiefly about recognisability in the UK (and UK-influenced countries), a better approach is make the Google search "Chicken Little" +book +UK. The result of that turns up material predominantly dependent on the 2005 Disney cartoon. Another approach is to look in the Bodleian catalogue, since that has the complete run of books published for over a century. "Chicken Little" does not figure there before the 1990s while "Henny Penny" and "Chicken Licken" appear frequently in titles back to 1880 and - as cited already - we know they appear in compilations of stories even earlier than that.

User:Dohn joe is demanding citations for all this. There aren't any because no-one up to now has been so bone-headed as to insist that "Chicken Little" is the most recognised title for this story outside the U.S. Mention of proof via focused searches in appropriate places technically counts as original research on WP. But the fact remains that there is absolutely no documented proof that the name "Chicken Little" was even recognised outside the US until very recently. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only person who seems to think that "the argument is chiefly about recognisability in the UK" is you. What actually matters is recognizability as a whole, regardless of country, so restricting searches to just the UK is rather ridiculous. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read more closely, Fyrefly, you will find I mentioned 'the UK and UK-influenced countries' who would not recognise "Chicken Little" as the title of the tale. These include Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Gambia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jamaica and other West Indian islands, in most of which there is still a keen appreciation of animal fables. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you paid attention to your own words, you'd notice that you still used "Chicken Little" +book +UK as suggested search parameters. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: documented proof that "Chicken Little" was recognized outside the US. See The Oxford Companion to Children's Literature, published in 1984; and this 1985 publication by the Children's Book Council of Australia as evidence that "Chicken Little" was recognized in Commonwealth countries well before that Disney movie of the last decade.
And I'm sorry to see that I've been misinterpreted on this talk page. Nowhere have I meant to suggest that "Chicken Little" is more recognized outside the U.S. than "Chicken Licken". All I meant to say is that no one has shown to what degree the various names are known or used - anywhere. All we know (now) is that there is some level of recognition everywhere of all the main titles, with "Chicken Little" predominant in the U.S. (and Canada?), and "Chicken Licken" predominant elsewhere, with "Henny Penny" the runner-up. Dohn joe (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for misinterpreting you, Dohn joe. The two citations you give are interesting as illustrations of how the alternative title was beginning to be recognised outside the US during the 1980s. The Oxford Companion quotation is really about a novel by an American author and therefore needs to provide a gloss to its title. Unfortunately the title of the book under discussion in Australia is cut off so it's not possible to judge the real context of that mention. Interestingly, though, they both support Quoth 31's contention that Chicken Licken is the primary and more recognisable title.

Running through early 20th century children's books in the US, I discovered use of "Henny Penny" in 1921 and 1915; the latter is described as 'the classic Chicken Little story' in the present day catalogue (http://www.alephbet.com/store/27621.htm) - an example of the gloss having to work the other way now. I omitted Canada from the list of Commonwealth countries above since I haven't checked how early US influence came to bear on the story's name there.Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Aussie cite, I was able to decipher the ISBN number - 0195581083 - which refers to "Chicken Licken" by New Zealand author Gavin Bishop. So no particular reason for the Aussie publication to bring up "Chicken Little".
And here's an interesting Google Books return from Boston in 1915 - an Index to Fairy Tales, helping people find tales known under different names. Here, the tale is indexed under "Chicken Little", but there appear to be 9 instances of "Chicken Little", 9 instances of "Chicken Licken", and 5 instances of "Henny Penny". It's tough to tell the origin (whether US, UK, or other) of the books included in the index, though (they're listed at the end, but it's too much time for me to figure them all out at the moment). It would be great to have a similar reference from the UK in that (or any) timeframe.
By the way, it would not surprise me in the least if all of these titles originated in England. After all, the U.S. was a "U.K.-influenced country" from its origins, certainly through the mid-nineteenth century, when we see "Chicken Little" appear as a title. Dohn joe (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously a more knowing researcher than I am so far as finding resources goes, Dohn joe. As I said above, the Bodleian catalogue is a good place to search for UK titles, as I did at the outset of this subject. You may do even better. Since my past message, I did a quick Google search of titles in Canada and found, rather to my surprise, that Chicken Little only starts to gain currency there too in the 1980s.

It's true that the US (well, the East Coast states) was 'UK influenced' but I believe that there was a reaction against this after 1780, in much the same way as there was against Denmark (and Danish) in Norway after it regained independence in 1904, in Eire (as it then called itself) against the UK after 1923. For all I know, that's one reason why the name Chicken Little was originally given prominence over Chicken Licken. Nationalism and historical memory can drive people to extremes. When I was in Norway back in 1960, a girl told me that her grandfather had insisted that his family use the verb 'ete' for 'to eat', despite the fact that it was normally confined to animals (i.e.feeding) - and all this because Danes used the word 'spise' and he wanted the language to distance itself from 'Danish' roots. That, incidentally, is what happened in the case of Portugese (at a much earlier date); it was artificially fostered to be as different as possible from Spanish, again because of national and historical tensions.

I don't think I'm being too thin-skinned over this. I was with a party that visited New York and Los Angeles back in 1983. Believe me, we couldn't go anywhere without people making remarks about 'redcoats'. If the historical memory could still be that strong after a couple of centuries, I doubt if much has changed in the years since! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously quite a tangent from the Henny Penny v. Chicken Licken v. Chicken Little debate, but I have to say, as an American, that I don't think there's more than a whisper of anti-British feeling in the U.S. Of course, during the Revolutionary War, the redcoats were the "bad guys", but ever since the War of 1812, we've buried the hatchet, and the U.S. has looked to the U.K. for all kinds of socio-cultural influence, from Blackstone in law, Dickens in literature, and the Beatles in music. We're still obsessed with the royal family. If I heard someone call a Brit a "redcoat", I would think it was tongue-in-cheek, good-natured ribbing, like a New Yorker saying someone from L.A. is from LA-LA-land. I really don't see us as a Dane-Norwegian situation, and I apologize on behalf of New York and L.A. if you came away with that impression. Dohn joe (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fyrefly has privately called me to order. There is no need to apologise for what is at most subliminal hostility. I should apologise for going off-topic, although giving the discussion some context isn't altogether bad. Getting back to the real subject, though, I think what has been established by our joint investigations is that since the 1980s there has been acknowledgement everywhere (US included) that this story goes by different names. That may not add up to universal recognisability of any one title; that titles are still being glossed proves that. I was very surprised too that Paul Galdone's very popular retelling was titled "Henny Penny". He's a US writer of European extraction. I think too that the cartoon "Chicken Little" has muddied the waters and now hinders recognisability. The film's connection with the nursery tale is so thin that many will think use of that name refers only to the film. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So where does that leave us? I've also been surprised by the currency of "Henny Penny". And in fact, given the undisputed worldwide recognition of this story by that name, I'm going to amend my !vote above to support the initial suggestion of merely removing "fable" from the title. What would you say to that? (That could be the first act of the Anglo-American Reconciliation Committee....) :) Dohn joe (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's very handsome of you, Dohn joe. I'd like to think too that this is an example of how disinterested research transcends nationality. I agree with you that if the present title is retained then the bracketed fable should be removed. Henny Penny is, after all, the original use of the name. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Bachlund

[edit]

On 11 Feb I deleted what I described as 'an unreferenced piece of self-advertisment'. Even though this was obvious, I didn't take action until I'd done a bit more web research to establish that the guy was non-notable and had posted more information about his activities elsewhere on WP. I don't think sufficient research has been done in the case of the Gary Bachlund reference that has been deleted. He didn't place it in the article himself, any more than he did another reference to his site on WP here. (It was a fellow Brit with an academic background). While it's probable that Bachlund's site is maintained by him, lots of professionals have such sites and there's no call to delete items on that account. What has to be established is that the person in question is not notable. A glance at the amount of ambitious work there is impressive. So is the biographical information available elsewhere on the web. Bachlund has had a distinguished opera career, is a L.A. cantor, has appeared on at least one recording and has had a piece of commissioned work performed at a public concert. Though we may not approve of his politics, and I believe that it was in his synagogue that one of the 'redcoat' cracks was made when I was there, the reference to his work has a right to be here on the grounds of notability and I have therefore restored it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case. Bachlund has no Wikipedia article, and is only referenced in six articles in all of WP (all but one of which are links to his website). Looking around the web, and in particular at Google Books, it seems he has had a respectable singing career. However, I've found little on Bachlund the composer. There's the above link Mzilikazi provided to the commissioned work, and this link shows that Bachlund has been composer-in-residence for a parish church in L.A. But there are no reviews of his work, and even general web searches for ""gary bachlund" composer" turn up little in Yahoo or Google. At this point, I would say that Bachlund is not notable as a composer for our purposes, and I'd ask Mzilikazi to kindly consider reinstating the removal of his work - unless of course, you've got more info about him that I didn't find.... (By the way, I have zero idea what Bachlund's politics are.) Dohn joe (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked at the notes to one or two other works on his site that interested me. Those he provides for his opera set mention that 'the "Four Fables" were debuted at Pasadena City College in California, by the students of its opera workshop', which makes me wonder whether there may be other information about performance history tucked away on his site for any eager student. However, while doing a Google for this just now I came across a site holding his scores and found there this biography that explains how he came to switch to composition and some of his performance history. It's difficult enough to get known as a composer and be talked about - think of all those years Haydn was tucked away at the court of Prince Esterhazy! It seems, however, that Bachlund is notable enough, even if he's not very newsworthy. However, it isn't altogether on account of his profile that I'd like the mention to stay. There are two more interesting reasons. The first is the text that he set, from a 1910 child's reader; that has curiosity value. The other is that we've been underlining the political use to which the tale has been put over the course of a century, and the notes to the piece make clear (as I mention in the article) that it was this that guided Bachlund's choice of the tale. (Incidentally, that's where you'll learn what his political opinions are). To sum up, we learn from the inclusion of this information something about the tale's reception and memorability; it's not just an item of information in a catalogue, it's a fact from which conclusions can be drawn. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know how you distinguish Gary Bachlund, whom you feel is notable as a composer, from Greg Maskalick, whom you determined was not notable. Maskalick's music is available online, and his Chicken Little opera was actually reviewed (in a regional newspaper, but still). Dohn joe (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maskalick was advertising himself and this wasn't the first time he'd put stuff about his own activities on WP. Bachlund doesn't act in that way. That's how I distinguish between the two. Derby happens to be 30 miles north of where I live, I know the paper that carried the review. The performance wasn't even in the city but at a school in a village outside. It's strictly Podunk stuff. Bachlund does have a music publisher; the bio mentioned above is from its site. And there's a LA Times review of his Requiem. As I've explained, however, there were reasons beyond the purely musical for mentioning his piece. I've another bone to pick with you: you mention finding 'six articles in all of WP (all but one of which are links to his website)'. I've now quoted six mentions from reputably objective sources that have no mention in them of Bachlund's website. Forgive me for my dishonourable suspicions, but could it be that you don't want to find the evidence? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That LA Times review changes the calculus dramatically for me. The difficulty I've had has been in establishing secondary sources about Bachlund the composer. Three of your first four sources (and the vast majority of other sources I found), while certainly reputable and objective, discuss his singing career. They do not tell us anything about the notability of his compositions. And his website merely tells us that he is prolific. I could write 300 songs and post them on a website - but that doesn't mean in itself that I am a notable composer. Prior to that Times cite, the only secondary sources I'd seen were the single, undiscussed commission, the blurb from the American organists guild, and the fact that a Pasadena church counts him as their official composer. To me, that just wasn't enough to make him a notable composer, and by extension, neither were his works - no matter how relevant to this article.

Having said all that, we do now have a discussion of his works by a secondary source. And while it would still be nice to have more, that's certainly enough for me. It's more than a lot of articles get on WP. In fact, I think I'll redlink Mr. Bachlund so that someone might be interested in creating an article on him. (I might even do so myself, one of these days.)

I hope you see where I was coming from, Mzilikazi. Dohn joe (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that we're once again two birds on a single bough (as they say in Burma). Looking thru all the Google Books items, I did discover a reference to yet another Bachlund performance and possibly there are others tucked away elsewhere. What annoys me about Google is how inefficient it is; one has to keep changing the search terms and then one gets important items that didn't show previously. I got the LA Times review by typing in the name of the requiem; there were a couple of other news items too that simply mentioned that a performance had taken place (in other locations). I noticed as well that Bachlund lives half of the time in Berlin but my German isn't good enough to formulate an effective Google search for German items. You may have noticed that some of his output is in German; I've mentioned one of his settings of Lessing in another article.

He may deserve a WP article. The bio on his music publisher's site can serve as the basis. But just to make sure, I suppose one of us could send the guy a fan letter asking about other performances and what media publicity they got....but (deviously) not mentioning what we have in mind. There's a rather nice jazz setting of an e e cummings poem available as an audio file on yet another site that interested me. Shades of my Beat youth rose up to greet it! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions in French

[edit]

Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CL vs HP

[edit]

WP:NAME states, "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Reliable sources include books and magazines. One index shows 60,700 titles referencing "chicken little" and less than half as many (just 28,800) titles referencing "henny penny". Ironically, the search likely INFLATES the number of "henny penny" references, since many renderings of the story include both "Chicken Little" as the star and "Henny Penny" as a separate supporting character.

When Disney chose to name it's 2005 computer-animated film "Chicken Little", Disney was intending to connect with an already-existing name MOST RECOGNIZABLE to the entire English-speaking community. I'm the last to bow to the wisdom of the mousehouse, but whatever the case may have been before 2005, the release of a major motion picture would have stomped out alternatives in the years since.

Perhaps it's likely that "Chicken Little" was not the protagonist's name in the very earliest recorded versions of the story, but so what? Typically, Wikipedia doesn't care about that at all when naming articles. The guideline WP:NAME also states, "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles".

I'm American, incidentally, and most familiar with the name "Chicken Little" long before 2005. Even as a child, I noticed that the name "Chicken Little" is gender-ambiguous so that the lesson contains no gender-bias. Also, the versions I heard as a child reinforced the idea that the hysteria was greatly compounded by unskeptical repetition; the REPETITION was by characters with REPETITIOUS names (eg Henny Penny, Turkey Lurkey, et al). But...both lessons are spoiled when the hysteria originates from an obvious female (a hen) whose name has the same repetitive construct as subsequent characters who repeat her hysteria. Regardless of my original research, the greater ubiquity of the name "Chicken Little" should be reflected in the article title. I suppose I'll wait a bit before moving it.--→gab 24dot grab← 02:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You won't move it at all until you initiate a proper proposal and show evidence that you have thought about the arguments already advanced in the discussions above. All you demonstrate so far is naked POV. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging his POV and being cautious about it is hardly merely "demonstrat[ing]... naked POV". When this conversation starts up again, here's some more ammo. This article is unquestionably in the wrong place: within the existing article, it outranks HP 25 mentions to 15; at ngrams, it's even more common than the generic expression "the sky is falling". Almost three times more common than "Henpen" at Google Scholar as well. — LlywelynII 19:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, this is not an "Amerika über alles" issue either. Chicken Little has been the more common name in British English since the '60s. The only difference is that Chicken Licken isn't quite so much of a non-entity (i.e., it does deserve mention in the lede, which the overall data wouldn't suggest). — LlywelynII 19:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

This article itself is in both Category:Fictional chickens and Category:Fictional birds. I removed the latter because it's redundant with the former. However, someone reverted me, saying that the article should match all the story's characters. In that case, then it would make sense for this article to belong in all of Category:Fictional chickens, Category:Fictional ducks, Category:Fictional geese, Category:Fictional turkeys, and Category:Fictional foxes. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the person to talk to is the one that added the Category:Fictional chickens. It strikes me as a perverse limitation for an article which is plainly about Category:Fictional birds and I'd be inclined to delete the other. I notice that User: ‎Apokryltaros has been following up the anonymous editor who deleted the birds category in the first place and has reversed each of his edits. I was dubious when User:Kjell Knudde first started categorising folk material by the animals that appear there back in 2015 but did not feel strongly enough to try and dissuade him. Maybe I should have! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've located the fictional chicken man, the aptly named A bit iffy (20 November 2005‎) Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henny Penny. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henny Penny. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

In Season 6, Episode 26 of the Golden Girls, "Henny Penny — Straight, No Chaser" (May 4, 1991) an entire episode is devoted to the Fairy tale. In citing a television episode, if one includes the necessary information inline (show, season, episode and title) as editor 331dot pointed out: "no source is needed as the plot can be confirmed by watching/reading the subject itself." In keeping with the song lyrics of the other referenced content, I have included a YouTube clip from the episode which should suffice alone; given that this is the only other source provided in this section. In keeping with WP:POPCULTURE: "all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject." The source: "Fine Feather Friends" complies with this far more than song lyrics that hint at the mention of the Fairy tale and/or verse found within: "Did ya hear what happened to the world today? Somebody came an' they took it away". The source: Golden Girls Fashion site discusses at length not only the episode, the transcript, the fashion, but offers video clips. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Lead clearly states that "Henny Penny" is a folk tale, it should not have been described as a fairy tale in the entry. Nor is the name of the co-star of the TV show at all relevant, since the article is about the tale, not the show itself. WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:RELEVANCE are cited for the changes made. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP does not have an article for "Folk Tale", the WP link to "Folk Tale" directs you to the word Folklore; an all encompassing definition that includes: "tales, legends, proverbs and jokes." Click on tale, it then brings you also to further descriptions: fairy tale, fable, legend, thriller, novel. That aside, more importantly, within the Henny Penny article itself, this "story" is referred to as a Fairy tale; along with "Fable", "Story", "Rhyme", "Parable", etc. So, telling me here that my use of the phrase "Fairy Tale" was not allowed reveals that this is more personal than policy. In regards to your complaint: "Nor is the name of the co-star of the TV show at all relevant, since the article is about the tale, not the show itself." I will not list all other instances that you have allowed within the article, but will provide this: "... a 1943 animated short released during World War II as one of a series produced at the request of the U.S. government for the purpose of discrediting Nazism." Case and point. Maineartists (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henny_Penny&oldid=1248940011"