Talk:Teddy bear

Winnie the Pooh

Winnie the Pooh is not a "fictional" teddy bear. He was a real bear, a real American Black Bear, so named by a Canadian regiment during the World War I who found him in northern Ontario (and named him after the Canadian city of Winnipeg). They left him at the London Zoo prior to being deployed to France. He's the subject of a the CBC television film.

Actually, according to Wikipedia Winnie _is_ a fictional bear: "Winnie-the-Pooh, commonly shortened to Pooh Bear and once referred to as Edward Bear, is a fictional bear created by A. A. Milne. " MRA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matildaraikallen (talk • contribs) 10:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Spam template

I think I've fixed most of it. Mainly, I removed some random HTML tags (( that seem to mean someone copied a web site's source directly )) and also removed the image gallery below. I personally did not feel that the uploader gave a good enough fair-use rationale. As a matter of fact, they didn't give a rationale at all, they just said they took it from someone's webpage. // 3R1C 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What was the political dispute hinted at in the cartoon? AxelBoldt 13:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

According to this site: http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/kidscorner/tr_teddy.htm , the bear in question was not a juvenile but an old bear. The original cartoon reflected this, but was later redrawn to show it as a cub. The latter is the one shown in your article. Roosevelt did refuse to shoot the bear, but ordered it put down because it was injured.

I've never edited an article and don't really know how to. Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable than me will fix this. The site I mentioned above seems to have good cites.

I've read somewhere that a priest once spoke out against the teddy bear, declaring that young girls who abandoned dolls for bears would lose their "motherly instinct." Has anyone heard of this incident before? I'll try to find some information on it and possibly add it to the article.

Regarding the political dispute: Have found zilch. As for the story about Michtom I'm quite sure it's a myth; the bear got its name from The Roosevelt Bears comic, not the other way round. Hexmaster (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt doesn't have a daughter named Alysin. He did have a daughter named Alice, so I have editted this section accordingly.

Picture

I posted a picture of the "original" teddy bear. Hope noone objects. DO we still need two pictures at the top? Mhym 02:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think someone messed around with the page, part of it makes no sense. Hem hem 01:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: The bear in the picture might be from 1903, but the clothing cannot be. The name "Teddy B" is from a children's story published in New York Times in 1906. It was also the name of a real bear cub at the Bronx Zoo at the time.

Arctophile

I've added in the text regarding the term arctophile as part of a merge from Arctophile, which now redirects here. Just noting per GFDL. Hiding talk 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bridget (Guilty Gear)

• Bridget has a talking teddy bear named Roger. Has this been put/removed from the article before? Is it notable enough? I'm just curious. Danny Lilithborne 01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Which famous teddy?

could anybody identify this teddy for me? link Thanks! Peter S. 14:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just found it myself. It's from here. Peter S. 22:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

External link : spam or not spam ?

On Teddy_bear

I re-added the external link Teddy bear dedicated search engine , saying it is not spam.

Nlu (talk) reverted it and said "If you can make an argument that it does comply with WP:EL and WP:SPAM, please discuss on Talk:Teddy bear."

So do I,

in WP:EL "Links to be used occasionally" item #2 "A web directory category when deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article, with preference to open directories."

which is what is this search/engine-directory. Although is not 'open', the site lists about 2000 teddybear websites.

- it's a non commercial site (no product sales, no ads, operated by a NPO).

in "Links normally to be avoided" :

the website does not fall in any of the 10 rules.

And, by comparison, A link like Teddy Bear Museum Directory which has been listed for months in the article, and not considered as spam, is a part of huggableteddybears which actually is a commercial site selling products.

So, please consider the addition of Teddy bear dedicated search engine to Teddy_bear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.76.78 (talk • contribs)

"But there are other spam links around!" is not a good reason to add yet another spam link.

I agree of this point of course. I was wondering why in this case, Teddy Bear Museum Directory, which is indeed a commercial site, is considered appropriate. That does not seem consistent to me.

The reason why I believe that the link you are trying to add is spam is because fits as a site that you own or maintain (#3), links added to promote a site (#4), and links to a search engine -- which should be the same as search engine results (#10). Further, what you mentioned only said that it is a link to be used occasionally, not that it is definitely acceptable. I do not find it to be "deemed appropriate," but we'll hear what other people have to say.

(P.S. It also does not look good that you're IP-hopping.) --Nlu (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering point #3 : It is a site that I have been knowing and using for years as a teddy bear collector myself. I find it relevant (can that be considered as "promoting a site" #4 ?)

It actually contains a directory listing of the majority of teddy bear related websites in the world, sorted by categories (famous teddy bears for example, like teddybearsearch.com/dir/Winnie the pooh/USA). These are definely not search engine results (#10).

Please, have a look at Teddybearseach Directory before declaring it is spam.

To clear things, I suggest using Teddybearseach Directory instead of teddybearsearch.com

About IP hopping, please bear in mind that many ISPs allocate IP dynamically at each time you connect. To fix that issue, I created a user account, and I'm now using it presently - Does it look better ? :-) -- Collectours 08:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you see inappropriate links, remove them. That's why you have editing privileges.

Meanwhile, let's see if other people jump into this discussion. If not, I may file a WP:RFC. --Nlu (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, this page needs thorough cleanup and spam-removal. The writing is largely unencyclopedic; furthermore, I quite agree that many of the links are unnecessary at best and outright spam at worst... and that is only counting the links that actually work. I realize that such comments might put me at risk for "well why don't you do it yourself?" retorts, but I really don't care enough; I simply stumbled across this page and decided to weigh in. Good luck to whomever takes up the task.--Egghuntpbs 04:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholic drink (send to disambiguation?)

Would it be more appropriate for the reference to the alcoholic drink to be on the teddy bear (disambiguation) page? If so, I'd be happy to move it there. MKoltnow 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I got it. // 3R1C 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Inclusions into Fictional Teddy Bears list

This is my second request, for the same thing, since my last request was deleted. As per Wikipedia's TOS, I now add this before I restate my request:

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

That being said, I again ask why my content has been removed, both from the article and now from this Talk page? My request is both legitimate and honest.

The fictional Teddy Bears section is most helpful to viewers interested in learning about other Teddy Bears. It includes bears that I've never known before, which added to my desire to include, even more Teddy Bears that others might enjoy, too. Once the holiday season is over, and I have time, I'd like to add even more fictional bears that I've learned about through lots of research online. (These Teddy Bears include some from books, early-era TV shows, and Internet related bears.) I'm not negating your effort, just want to contribute to it, so with everyone working together, we can create a thorough and helpful entry for this subject matter.

I do realize that one of the references on the bottom of the article, includes every other kind of bear, but Teddy Bears are unlike any other kind of bear, so adding the lists to that article simply isn't as thorough as adding it to this one. Obviously, you object to my inclusions, but, respectfully, I'd like to know why. Atwhatcost 17:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I just removed an entry in this section of the article. It was as follows: Louis, who claimed to be a panther. This didn't seem to be anything from fiction or otherwise, so I removed it. If someone sources or explains who "Louis is, then feel free to put it back in. Phil 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Conker's Bad Fur Day: German Uniformed Villains

Instead of reffering to the outlook of the villains in the above-mentioned videogame as WWII GermanMilitary-like, I think it should be better to reffer to them as identical to the WWII Nazi forces. After all, organisations like the Gestapo are symbols of nazi violence during WWII & should not be mixed with the German nation. Please look into this. TathD 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since, no one bothered to look into the above-mentioned matter. I edited the the offending words myself. TathD 11:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

semi-blocking with expire due to pervasive vandalism

I've placed a semi block on this article for one week due to pervasive vandalism, especially recently. --Sean 21:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction to first paragraph

The last sentence of the introductory paragraph appears to be a fragment (concerning the closure of the museum). I'm not sure what the original author had intended to say. Comments? Bdmccray 02:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I attempted to restore the lines lost during this vandalism. The extra phrase was put in by someone else who removed the nonsense, but didn't catch the blanking as well. Thanks for pointing this out. --Sean 03:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article badly needs a section on the history of Teddy bears. I know one of the earliest makers was Steiff (from 1908 to the present day).

Actually, Margarte Steiff made her first stuffed animal in 1898, and, with the zoo sketch from her nephew, Richard, made her first stuffed bear in 1903. By the time WWI hit, men were taking them off to war at an incredible rate (and mothers were being sent the bears back, if sons were killed, sadly.) I am in the process of researching the history of the TB thoroughly, but am having trouble finding information NOT related to simply collectors. (Obviously, they need to be included, but collecting is merely a portion of the history of the teddy bear.)

The Internet is NOT a reliable source for this information though, but I am having difficulty in finding the info needed to broaden the history. Particularly fascinated on how the history of the TB follows the history of capitalism into the war-torn countries of Britian, Germany, Japan, and China (yes, I understand the irony of the last one ;) ) Any help is appreciated, and, obviously could use help locating photos without copyrights, with permission from those who hold the copyrights, and also think it is fair to include links for such photos in exchange for use of their copyrights. (Not sneaking into any self-promotion -- my bears aren't collectibles, nor am I owning any copyrights to photos of collectible bears.)

Of course, I'm a bit leary of tackling this rich history on Wiki since my previous attempts were simply deleted twice, with no reasoning behind them, so would also appreciate help, when I'm ready to upload my info to avoid such nonsense in the future. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Lynn, AtWhatCost Atwhatcost 09:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok... A straigth quotation: "Almost every child has one on their bed and loves to sleep with one next to them". Every child in... which country? Which part of the world? Of what age? I really doubt that even hald of the children in the world have teddy bears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.252.121 (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Stuffed animal

would it be worth adding Stuffed animal in the see also bit as they are sililar

Clarification Rewrite

This article needs a wording rewrite at the start. The introductory paragraph implies that it was actually a bear cub he refused to shoot in reality, and then the next section goes on to explain that it was in fact an old she-bear in reality, but was changed to a bear cub in the cartoon drawing of the situation.

Would somebody more familiar with the subject matter like to reword this, or should I tackle it myself? Please let me know. - Vaelor 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reworked the story based on information on file at the Theodore Roosevelt Association and shared with me by Linda Milano, former assistant director until 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonATL (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort Simon but you need to read up on WP:OR. Most of what you put in was unsourced and unfortunately, as per Wikipedia policy, Linda Milano's account of the story doesn't count as verifiable or reliable source. -- ALLSTARecho 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is hogwash, and sounds like revisionism on the part of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, which appears to be responsible for the "mercy killing" version of the story. The correct synopsis is that Roosevelt was bear hunting and refused to shoot a tethered bear because it was unsportsmanlike. He would have shot it if it had not been on a rope. Check the article on Holt Collier, Roosevelt's guide. It has a more or less accurate account of the incident. Collier's biography has a detailed account. DrHenley (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is this in Missisippi?!

Got nothing against the state of Mississippi, got some fine cousins there, and I also understand that the Teddy Roosevelt incident happened in the state, but the Teddy Bear wasn't made in that state. It's not a strictly American thing either. Just curious why this is part of Mississippi?! – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Lynn, AtWhatCost Atwhatcost 09:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Because its name is a result of the hunting trip to Mississippi and because it is the official toy of the State of Mississippi as made so by the state legislature. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Music and warmth pad teddy bears

My son has one teddy bear that makes music when pulled on its string and one teddy bear that contains a warmth pillow (the warmth pillow can be extracted from the bear, heated up in the microwave and introduced back into the bear). Do these two types of teddy bear also correspond to the "teddy bear" definition? If so, we should put them under the section "Kinds of teddy bears". I can post a picture of both the music bear and the warmth bear. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Colorado legend

If the Colorado legend is definitely not true then why is it in the article? Is it really so well known as to be a notable fiction? Or was it just made up by some PR person at the Hotel Colorado? -- Zsero (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the only source is the hotel itself makes it look very much like thinly veiled advertising. I'm removing it. If someone finds reliable secondary sources it might be worth re-adding. Siawase (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing External links section

I'm removing this whole section. Some of the material that's in the links (ie The robotic 'Huggable' Teddy Bear project at M.I.T. iCampus) might be worth including in the article itself, but neither link looks compliant with WP:External links. It's generally hard to find links compliant with the external links policy for articles like this, and since it's a magnet for advertising links, caution should be taken when recreating the section. I'd highly recommend explaining on the talk page first. Siawase (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read about the external links terms, any that keep to the subject, and aren't advertisements, can stay. Removing all links seems unnecessary. Why can't we objectively agree on which should be removed, instead? If the link helps fill in more info or give us more interesting sites, isn't that part of the purpose of the article - to give as much info as anyone is interested in? I don't think it's an advertisement for M.I.T., however, it would be a fun place to visit, if a reader were interested in robotic bears, too. Personally, I'm not interested in robotics, however, the reason I came to this article, and this conversation is because of my love for certain kinds of bears. If we all work together, I'm sure we can make this as complete an article/resource as possible. --Atwhatcost (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the time that I removed it, the section only had the robot bear link one other spammy link.[1] The robot link isn't appropriate because it's too narrow in scope. Also, note that references are a completely different beast from external links.

But if you have some suggestions for sites that are compliable with WP:External links and have information about teddy bears in general, by all means suggest them! Siawase (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

History

First, it is unknown whose idea it was to make that first "Teddy's bear", but Mrs. Michtom sewed it, and many of the following bears.

Second, there is no evidence that the Michtoms requested Mr. Roosevelt for permission to use his name. Chances are good, their claim was merely a good ad campaign, given Mr. Roosevelt hatred for the toys, even after winning re-election because of them.

Third, the Steiffs were creating toy bears since about 1896-1898, with a few different ones by 1903. The only reason they aren't given full credit for the first one was because, a.) they didn't call theirs "teddy bear" for decades, and b.) because they weren't mass produced until the end of 1903, when an American exporter saw their bears at a European toy expo, and requested 3000 to bring to the United States.

(I don't know if this ads to the history, or merely clarifies the English's declaration that they, too, made bears at the same time, but the story goes, that a salesman went to the King Edward's house one night, to sell the toys, and, supposedly the maid responded, "We prefer our Teddy bare!" LOL)

Fourth, the story of the bear continues past it merely becoming popular. It became quite the fashion statement in England, with men using teddy bear flasks, women using teddy bear muffs, necklaces, and pins, and all the fashionable - men and women alike - carrying a teddy bear in their arms at events. Mothers and nannies made English boys, going off to the first world war, their very own teddy bears dressed in identical uniforms. It was so common in the first war, that mothers knew what it meant, when soldiers came up their walk holding onto their son's bear. Many of those bears, and the ones that returned with the "boys" have been kept as momentos of the time.

Fifth, the story itself continues through two wars, especially amazing that Steiff kept going, despite being a German company, and forced to make munitions during both wars. Most of the bear manfacturers that survived through both wars, had to stop most of their production, because cloth was being rationed, and everything else was being rationed, so people ended up making their own bears out of patterns found in newspapers and magazines. The manufacturers got into making one-of-a-kind bears from the few who could afford them, sometimes using special material from these customers. Mostly, though, the few bears made, were made in some kind of uniform (often bell-hops), so the uniform became part of the bear to cut down on how much mohair was needed.

The story continues from there, including how new fabrics, made from wartime needs, were being used to mass-produce more bears, how the teddy bear was fading out in the 60s and 70s, and what revived the fad. I have no idea how to take all of its history and condense it down to one article, but I do recommend getting accurate history from Michele Brown's book, The Little History of the Teddy Bear. The history reflects the world from the aspect of one small, well-loved toy. Without it, we'll never know how Germany would have been forgiven so quickly, nor see how China became the great manufacturing country it is today.

(I also don't think merely getting rid of all references with links, was the fair way to get around what was and wasn't "spam" for this article, but that's another topic.) --Atwhatcost (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I replied above, references are not the same as external links. As long as they are WP:Reliable sources I'd never remove a reference!

You sound very knowledgeable about teddy bears, and I'd suggest you just be WP:BOLD and dive right in! A lot of what you just wrote here could probably be added to the article. The more you can source the better, especially if it's something controversial. If you don't know how to cite sources, take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources or ask me (here or on my talk page) and I can probably help. Siawase (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Marshmallow

Marshmallow has informed me that he wants his picture in this article. What do you think? Isn't he adorable? Plenty of Wikimedia wikis think so. Mike R (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Did none of the political cartoons survive?

It seems a shame not to include the cartoons which inspired the toymaker... 82.80.85.38 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Teddy bear images on Commons may be purged

Just a heads up. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Important source

This detailed BBC item gives the history of the Steiff teddy, possibly the first ever, along with a notable mystery, and needs to be included here.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.182.96 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for bringing that here. Some of it is already included in the article, sourced ot an earlier BBC report.[3] But it could probably do with some expansion and more detail. The article is not protected so feel free to edit it. Siawase (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Winnie the pooh.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Winnie the pooh.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

name teddy

As to my knowledge countries England and Germany also claim for origin for name teddy. This is not mentioned in the article.59.162.170.113 (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We'll need some reliable sources that discuss those claims; if they exist, then they probably should be added. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lovers of teddy bears are called arctophiles

I tried to add to this article that lovers of teddy bears are known as "arctophiles", but some one removed it on the grounds it was not sourced. Well, here is a source:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/arctophile

Is this a suitable source for this information? Incidentally, if you type "arctophile" into the box on the left, you get re-directed here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a valid source, though we should probably change "lovers of" to something more neutral. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Types of teddy bears

• 
  J. K. Farnell teddy bear
• 
• 
• 
  A limited edition "Henry" teddy bear, made in 2011 with brindle-grey hair
• 
  An "Ironbridge Gold" teddy bear, one of the company's regular designs, made c. 2010
• 
• 
• File:Ours en peluche - 02.jpg
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I do not quite agree about We don't need a big bunch of pictures there, per MOS:IMAGE. There is a little more to that than just: don't use images. See-> Wikipedia's image use policy. (the following is citation from Wikipedia:Image use policy).

However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–75 in Western fashion for an example of a good use of galleries.

This article is very poorly imaged. There is indeed some rather hard to see gallery about the topic :how to make a teddybear, but teddybears are more than that. There are so many styles, textures, facial expressions, color, and so on. And yes, I think a better gallery (with proper captions maybe) add to the reader's understanding of the subject. I have a book called The Ultimate Teddy Bear Book by Pauline Cockrill . Very nice and very instructive with lots and lots of images about all kinds of teddy bears. This article is just nothing compeared to this book. there are sometimes things one can't explain by words only. A collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images, and in my oppinion this is exactly one of those articles. Hafspajen (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is not supposed to be a replacement for a dedicated book on the subject; that's the difference between a dedicated reference book on a single topic and a general encyclopedia. Please explain how those images help the reader understand what a teddy bear is and its encyclopedic history better than plain text. Furthermore, please explain how have an image gallery is better than just a few selected sidebar pictures. I would say that less than one out of ten thousand articles on Wikipedia can even come close to justifying a gallery. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I don't agree, and I did explain this above, but it is your article. Hafspajen (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not my article any more than it is yours; I'm willing to discuss the matter further. Would you like to get outside help; maybe, a Third Opinion? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I can't help that some of the images above ( not all) could make this article more interesting. Especially the old type of baers, the ones one can not find in the shops today. But Third Opinion, who will do that? Hafspajen (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If the images illustrate the prose already in the article in a way the images already there do not, or if you have reliable sources to add encyclopedic information related to images you want to add, then I would say go ahead. From looking at a random sample of the images you posted above though, most seem to be of little encyclopedic/academic value, having few or no details on their design, creation, era, location, and so on. If there are any valuable images that I missed, please point them out and how those specific images are of encyclopedic value. Siawase (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed it is not much information about those images. Kind of irritating. I would say that nr 1 and nr 2 are bears that are of a special type, that are recognizable from the book mentioned above. Teddy bears were not always made the way they are today. It is a history behind the. First they were with long legs and arms, like nr 3 . There are special types characteristical for certain eras, 1920, 1940, -50, 60. there is differences in materials, colors, noses, ears, heads... You say that it seem to be of little encyclopedic/academic value in pictures of teddy bears. I do not agree. How come that this book is such a very popular book? The Ultimate Teddy Bear Book by Pauline Cockrill pictures This book has about 300 pictures, all of them about teddy bears. It all depends on how you want to write the article. There are only close up 2 pictures of teddybears in this article. It is very little. Anyway it is not me who will add them. I don't feel like getting reverted again. Hafspajen (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC).

I'm guessing the book explains the significance of the bears depicted though? Another thing to keep in mind is the restrictions around Wikipedia:Non-free content. The copyright issues surrounding toys are notoriously murky, but in general, toys are regarded as art under copyright law, and images of them can only be used on Wikipedia if they fulfill the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (which among other things means no galleries.) Many (most?) of the images found on commons of modern toys shouldn't really be there either. Siawase (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hm. My idea was to use the book to do the explaination. Reference. But about We don't need a big bunch of pictures there, per MOS:IMAGE., there was a CONSENSUS here, and also a CHANGE OF POLICY, after that. ->Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 12#Why Galleries are useful. Hafspajen (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you use the book as a source to explain the significance of each image (ie, what makes that particular bear unique/its noteworthy features/origins and so on) that would be quite a different type of content from the addition you originally made, which was just images with no explanation at all. Like I said above though, even if you find consensus to add a gallery here, it's quite possible that any images of modern/contemporary bears will be deleted down the line for copyright reasons. This is one reason why so many toy articles are illustrated by just a few representative images rather than a whole gallery. Siawase (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, everybody has their own ways of editing. Yes using the book as a source to explain the significance of each image (ie, what makes that particular bear unique/its noteworthy features/origins and so on) was the original idea, of course. Me or somebody else, anybody actually. It is called let's be constructive and just work together to make this a better article on a better Wikipedia. But than that hardly can be done now, since it was reverted. And it is also a matter of tastes. The French thanked me for adding it to Ours en peluche. Tastes are different too. And now I think I wasted enough time here. Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2014 "Teddy Bear"

The passage regarding "The Teddy Bears Picnic" is incorrect. The piece, composed and copyrighted by John W. Bratton in 1907, had its copyright assigned to and was published by M. Witmark & Sons, New York, later that year as "The Teddy Bears Picnic. Charcteristic Two Step." That is how the first page of the published piano score reads, as well as the orchestration Witmark published that was arranged by Frank Saddler. The illustrated sheet music cover gives the title as THE TEDDY BEARS' PICNIC, with apostrophe on "BEARS" and no genre descriptor. _Vide_ 1st edition copy of piano version at Lilly Library, Indiana University http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/metsnav/inharmony/navigate.do?oid=http://fedora.dlib.indiana.edu/fedora/get/iudl:338273/METADATA&pn=1&size=screen The piece was already established under that title when lyricist Jimmy Kennedy wrote the now familiar lyrics for it in 1932.

So I request the passage in Teddy Bear article "History" to be re-edited to: [...]while composer John W. Bratton wrote a characteristic instrumental two-step "The Teddy Bears' Picnic" in 1907, which later had words written to it by lyricist Jimmy Kennedy in 1932.[...]

69.207.94.22 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done albeit I slightly reworded your suggestion. Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Costco bear

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds of referenced independent notability (uncontested objection). Klbrain (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Not independently notable, but still worthy of inclusion as part of the larger topic. Also, large teddy bears are available other places besides Costco, so the name isn't precise. Bradv🍁 15:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm proposing that useful content from Costco bear be added to the Teddy bear article in a subsection, and Costco bear turned into a redirect. Bradv🍁 15:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I support this, and I think the whole teddy bear article could use some large improvements, but I'm not sure where to start. Natureium (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I am against the merger. Too cute to be merged! --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed! As the creator of the Costco Bear article, it's worth noting that the article itself has been covered in media outlets like Business Insider: [4]--Prisencolin (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Queen Victoria's Chow?

Queen Victoria was notoriously fond of lap dogs, and owned several during her lifetime. Never, according to any reliable source, a chow - which is hardly a lap dog, except for a very short period of its puppyhood. We in fact have an article listing all of Queen Victoria's pets, and there is no chow among them. After her famous King Charles spaniel Dash she owned several small terriers before settling down with a succession of Pomeranians - the last of which kept her company on her deathbed. Her larger dogs included greyhounds and deerhounds but there is no evidence they were ever intimate companion animals, even when they were very small puppies.

So how did we get a cited tale that the teddy bear originated as a "substitute chow" for the queen to fill her arms when a dog would have been inappropriate? Assuming good faith on the part of the editor who added the story - anyone familiar with the genre of "handbooks for owners of particular breeds of dog" will be familiar with their tendency to wax sentimental, and recount anecdotes of greater or lesser relevance - some much more likely than others. I have deleted this one anyway - "cited" as it is. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Alternative etymology?

I have heard that the teddy bear was named after King Edward VII, and although it's not the most likely story, I feel it should at least be briefly mentioned in the article. Just look up "Edward VII Teddy Bear named after" (or words to that effect) and various sites come up that site this alternative version of events. "And for their part, many in Britain believe the teddy bear name derives from King Edward VII, whose nickname was "Teddy," though British claims to the origin of the toy are not as widely accepted as those in America and Germany, according to teddy bear authorities." - https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2002-09-01-0209010279-story.html "The English story is that teddy bears were named after King Edward VII and others say that he was German, but the most popular version of how the teddy bear came into being maintains that his true father was another famous Teddy - Theodore Roosevelt, former President of the USA". - http://www.bearplanet.org/teddy-bear.php#:~:targetText=First%20appearance%20of%20Teddy%20Bear&targetText=The%20English%20story%20is%20that,former%20President%20of%20the%20USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Teddy bear scare: Worth including?

There is a podcast with RS in its notes and related newspaper article about the early history of the acceptance of the teddy bear. Anything usable for the article? Full disclosure: I included the newspaper article in the WP article earlier but it was reverted and I'm putting it up for discussion (WP:BRD). Mapsax (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This follows a discussion on my talk page. Broadly, my own view is that if this has any relevance at all, it is in the context of gender stereotyping, or even as an article in its own right, but not here. Certainly would have a link to this article from its proper place. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"Little or no improvement in any of this"

Soundofmusicals, care to explain why all or most of your preferred wording is for the best? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

To slightly clarify my summary of reasons for undoing your work, "in-sentence consistency" should be "inline consistency", there was a period between (1907) and 1932. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Let them stand for the moment - but let's have a line by line justification for each of your tweaks on the talk page for the article - the existing article was not "my preferred wording" but the existing form of a much-edited article. Not that it can't be brushed up of course, but we usually try to make it clear what we're doing and why. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

See, I thought I was clear. But if you insist, we can do this the hard way. First off, the subject of this article is teddy bears, so MOS:NOBACKREF advises against needlessly repeating "teddy bear" in headings. The Wikipedia-recognized title of the song is "Teddy Bears' Picnic", no "the". Since it's a popular song, it belongs in the Pop subsection of "Cultural impact", with parenthetical years OR without, not both clashing. If your child has an emergency and needs a bear, the 911 dispatcher is damn well going to ask if you want police, fire or medics; then the appropriate responder responds, not a mysterious "emergency official". The short paragraph opens with how stuffed toys might help shocked kids, it's silly to repeat it as a closer. The day "April Fool's Day" is far more recognizable and comprehensible than the common noun "April fool", especially when meaning the act instead of the person. Love is the underlying cause of (genuine) expressions like affection, congratulations and sympathy, not fear. Isn't that obvious enough without needing to violate the Rule of Three? I don't like serial commas, but concede I may have gone against local precedent here. So? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Berryman's Bear, Steiff and Michtom: Significant improvements

What I feel to be major improvements to this article are as follows, shown in brackets and bold type:

A teddy bear is a stuffed toy in the form of a bear. [First developed as a 'cuddle toy' in 1902 by Richard Steiff under his aunt Margarete Steiff's company in Germany and widely replicated by toymakers in New York City], the teddy bear, named after President Theodore Roosevelt, became a popular children's toy and has been celebrated in story, song, and film.

...(No changes to an intermediate paragraph)...

..[Teddy bears' initial success resulted partly from the popularity of Clifford K. Berryman's cartoon cub, known as 'Berryman's Bear'. The character was created for a famous political cartoon by Berryman featuring President Roosevelt (hence the association), where-after the cub became a reoccurring character in Berryman's widely-circulated illustrations].

...(No changes to the first intermediate paragraph; info from the second intermediate paragraph incorporated into the second example paragraph below)...

..[Earlier that same year in Württemberg, Germany (1902), the Steiff firm produced a stuffed bear 'cuddle toy'] from Richard Steiff's designs. Steiff exhibited the bears at the Leipzig Toy Fair in March 1903, where it was seen by Hermann Berg, a buyer for George Borgfeldt & Company in New York (and the brother of composer Alban Berg). He ordered 3,000 to be sent to the United States. [Steiff's records show that the 3,000 bears were produced, while the records of their arrival in the U.S. have not been located, leading to a legend that the bears were shipwrecked. Author Günther Pfeifferd says that (as an early model) the 55 PB may not have been sufficiently durable to survive until the present day. The bears' arrival to New York City would have coincided with the popularity of 'Berryman's Bear', a cartoon cub character that continued to be featured regularly in Clifford Berryman's widely-published political cartoons. At some point, quick sales influenced by the cute, popular character created a sudden demand, and local toymakers starting producing bears similar to the German 'cuddle toy' counterparts from Württemberg (where stuffed toys had originated as an alternative to hard metal toys).

Teddy bears were soon produced on a wide scale by New York toymakers. One such example is by Morris Michtom, who in 1907, established The Ideal Novelty and Toy Company. According to Michtom's son, his father independently invented teddy bears as a direct adaptation of the popular Berryman's Bear character. According to this story, Michtom created a tiny soft bear cub inspired by the cartoon and put it in his candy shop window at 404 Tompkins Avenue in Brooklyn with a sign "Teddy's bear". People then wanted to buy it, so he made more. After sending a bear to President Roosevelt, he purportedly received personal permission to use his name (which is unlikely, as Roosevelt detested being called 'Teddy'). Michtom was, however, an early producer of teddy bears]. 72.220.73.191 (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The BBC source does mention the Berryman cartoon, but not the details you're including nor the claim that the cartoon contributed to the popularity of the stuffed toy. That source also says, of Michtom and Steiff, The new toy was an immediate success, and the sale of teddies was soon so brisk that Michtom went on to establish the Ideal Novelty and Toy Company. At almost the same time, and apparently by entire coincidence, stuffed bears were also being introduced to Germany, where they were first manufactured by Margarete Steiff, who'd been making soft toys since the 1880s, and who'd recently been joined in the business by her nephew Richard. It was Richard Steiff who created his own version of the teddy, which he exhibited at the Leipzig Toy Fair in 1903.. That source doesn't support the difference in dates that you're adding nor that the Steiff's called theirs a "teddy" bear.

Basically, you need to add sources (or cite the ones already in the article) that support all of your changes. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that Steiff referred to their cuddle toy bears as 'teddy bears'. Also, is there any evidence that Michtom, although one of the fairly early teddy bear makers, created any toys prior to establishing his company in 1907? His son's story is contradictory in the part where he claimed Roosevelt gave permission to call the bears 'teddy bears'. When I edited the article, it already referenced the fact that Roosevelt hated being called "Teddy", and so the idea that he would okay the production of cute bears called 'Teddies' in reference to himself sounds hilariously absurd and makes the article sound contradictory! To report this as fact, when it so blatantly contradicts a well-known fact contained in the article makes Wikipedia look bad. Personally, as a cartoonist, I would find it exciting if Michtom's story was true, because that would mean that teddy bears, that are perhaps the most popular toy ever created, were not merely indirectly and circumstantially popularized because of a cartoon character, but also that the very first one ever made was intentionally and directly based on a cartoon character.

Your edits were reverted because they contradicted sources in the article and did not include any new sources to allow verification of your content. Come with sources, and changes can be made. (You might also take a look at WP:OR.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I appreciate that you're discussing the issue here, rather than trying to edit-war. It's refreshing. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.

I'd like to include a statement about the cartoon origin of the 'teddy bear', with this link as a reference: The First Teddy Bear by Terry & Doris Michaud, from the official website of the collectibles magazine, Bears & Buds: The Guide for Collectibles, Plush and More

Can you find something better? I question the reliability of what appears to me to be an enthusiast site. Although you're welcome to ask for additional opinions on it as a reliable source at WP:RSN, so other editors can weigh in on its appropriateness. They might all disagree with me. (added:) Interesting that the article begins Our heading would give the impression we are discussing the long held debate over the first teddy bear … the one designed by Brooklyn store keeper Morris Michtom (inspired by the Teddy Roosevelt political cartoon), or the Richard Steiff bear designed in 1902. As most authorities agree, both events took place coincidentally about the same time, so both sources have claimed title to first teddy bear design., so apparently this question has been a matter of dispute for quite awhile! So the authors' contention that the first should be considered the cartoon is...well, the wikipedia article should summarize the mainstream views, with minor attention to views not as widely accepted, where their argument seems to fall. Schazjmd (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, at least they're not an animation or comic book magazine making the claim, they're a toy collectors' magazine. So that in itself does say something. Plus, their point is that the debate between the stuffed Steiffs and Michtom's claim-to-fame is moot when it comes to the concept of naming a cub a 'teddy bear', because it is known to come from Berryman's famous first cartoon featuring the character alongside 'Teddy' Roosevelt, called Drawing the Line (kind of an ironic title, as it's a cartoon 'drawn' with 'line' art, but it is actually a reference to a historical border dispute between states where Roosevelt's refusal to shoot a disadvantaged bear inspired the cartoon). Roosevelt and the cub even continued to make co-appearances in Berryman's cartoons throughout the artist's career. My interest has to do simply with the fact that the name of the toy was inspired by a very early cartoon character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.73.191 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

My interest has to do simply with the fact that the name of the toy was inspired by a very early cartoon character. The claim in the article for the toy being named after Roosevelt is sourced to The Handy Presidents Answer Book (page 474), which basically says hunting trip -> book The Adventures of the Roosevelt Bears -> toy. A later source in that section (americaslibrary.gov} says He [Michtom] created a little stuffed bear cub and put it in his shop window with a sign that read "Teddy's bear.". The article does already specify that Michtom was inspired by the cartoon. (I've removed the claim about him sending it to Roosevelt and getting approval, because that is not mentioned in the source.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, if that's not in the source, it certainly makes the story sound more plausible! Only I think I've heard that part of the claim before elsewhere. Not sure if that was an urban legend tacked on, but for now, at least the reference doesn't mention it and it's not included in the article in a contradictory way. Also, it seems misleading for the photo caption to say that the bear donated by Roosevelt's son is believed to be a Michtom bear for two reasons: 1. Why is it believed to be and by whom? 2. This seems to imply that this bear was given to Roosevelt by Michtom himself. Is there any evidence that he actually sent Roosevelt or his son a teddy bear? Also, just because an outside article says something doesn't make it true. Even though we need to provide references, we still also need to be discerning, and for these references to be accurate and provide evidence, otherwise they should only be referenced in Wikipedia as theories.

Another thing that seemed imbalanced was that Michtom is given priority in the article over the Stieff bears who: 1. existed before even the cartoon 2. are documented being created as well as purchased for shipment to New York! 3. No documentation or proof exists for the Michtom claim (that I'm aware of). On the other hand, undue doubt is cast on the Steiff bears' arrival because it is claimed that records of their arrival don't exist. That sounds biased, like the records never did exist, and there is no evidence to prove that the records didn't exist, while there is solid evidence they were made and sold to be sent to New York. Unimaginable numbers of shipping records existed and have been lost of shipments coming into New York from that long ago. I had edited the article to state that the records hadn't been located. This thing about a story in the 50's being made up for a centennial is also bunk, because the records of their creation and purchase exist. Just because someone in an article says maybe it was made up is moot when there is evidence. The centennial simply brought relevant interesting historical information to the forefront, as such things tend to do because they are times of memorial celebration. If no records existed, then speculation would be possible, but they do, so the uncalled-for speculation is actually defamation.

I had tried to brush that stuff up a bit to where it made more sense and didn't sound weasly. Someone deleted it all out-of-hand, because they thought I removed Michtom (totally false assumption, they didn't read my entire edit). If they took the time to read my edit, they would have seen that I included him chronologically right after the Steiff part, representing the chronologic order of when Michtom's company is documented to have come into existence, in 1907. I talked about his claim as a possibility, and that he was one of the earliest teddy bear makers. Indeed, the controversy that was started by the Michtom claim has itself become enough of a part of the history of the teddy bear that even if his story is a fabrication, it could still be mentioned as having been something that was believed for quite some time. I had also linked-up the name of Michtom's toy company from the teddy bear article to its own Wiki article page, as it hadn't been linked yet (just his name had).

All of this is interesting, while I find the bias distasteful and discouraging and think it should be able to be brushed up to some extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.73.191 (talk • contribs)

The image is from the display at the Smithsonian; you can see their fact sheet on it here. (It notes that Roosevelt's approval of the name "teddy" is "According to family lore..." so not a reliable claim for the article.)

Your edit removed all mention of Michtom from the image and the lead, and rewrote the history to emphasize Steiff. The article's sources give credit to both (slightly favoring Michtom), and the article should reflect the sources. Schazjmd (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, this has gotten quite lengthy, but I think we're getting somewhere. Do you think that the article not only favors Michtom but is also rather slanted against Steiff? I tried not to tip the scales in the other direction by keeping Michtom in there. Maybe I ought to have kept him in the intro, too, simply because the lore has become part of the history for being so widely believed. The lack of evidence should be noted in a sensitive way. Family lore simply does not match documentation like Steiff has.

The state I found this article in was actually quite ridiculous, and so it does need important improvements. This doesn't necessarily have to involve adding or removing a ton of content. How do you think it could be worded more accurately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.73.191 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the problems in the article that you do. The lead credits Michtom and Stieff. The history section has more about the Steiff bear than the Michtom bear. For weight, perhaps more could be added about Michtom, but I don't think it's really necessary. Schazjmd (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It really boils down to some of the wording in the article sounding a bit off.

However, I really don't like having to change other peoples' work unless it's necessary, so I suppose these sorts of things can be done with the absolute least amount of change possible. Even though I moved some of the info around, I did try to work with what was already there. I guess I could have done better. Thanks for the constructive criticism! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.73.191 (talk • contribs)

What is the source for this?

In the Commercial section it reads: "They must have securely fastened eyes that do not pose a choking hazard for small children. These "plush" bears must meet a rigid standard of construction in order to be marketed to children in the United States and in the European Union." I am personally very interested in these standards, I can provide a source if needed but I would like to know if the original editor knows the source used. SewBunny (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@SewBunny, that content was added in 2006 by someone who has not edited again since then. If you can add a source, that would be excellent! Schazjmd (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)