Talk:Cinderella

message: The Cinderella story is much criticised for its negativetraditionalistic, approach to women.
while the first part certainly is true we don't need the author sticking in his own opinion here. Whdrilled into us as the ideal type of women for many decades now...that doesn't mean a modest quietly kind girl like Cinderella can't get her fair shake and come out on top too... Jarwulf 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Power NPOV 

message: I've always wondered why the glass slipper stayed in glass and didn't transform back to whatever she had on her feet before.
--Stereo 12:38, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
----
Forgot to mention in my edit summary that I added "see also artistamp" under the philatelic usage of the word "cinderella."
----
It is inaccurate to say that Cinderella's name was "Cinderella."  This is the abusive nickname given to her by her stepsisters as she was dirty and forced to sleep in cinders.  Her true name is never given in the story.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: In the arabic/Persian version I just came across while reading the Thousand Nights and One Night, none of the characters have names, either. The girl doesn't have any nicknames, either, though.
Evil step mother is my siter ( S.G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.22.48 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how common it is in fairy tales, that the central/title character is the only one with a name (compare Rumpelstiltskin, Mossycoat), and how often it's an acquired name rather than a real one. -- Smjg 17:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the slipper - not necessarily glass, but certainly small - remain? Well, because she accidentally lost it, of course. The version of Cinderella taking out the second one (where from, we might ask again...) seems to be Disney's own invention. (Ah, yes. Count me among the incurable ones for whom neither a pumpkin nor a fairy, nor mice for that matter, plays any role in that tale - but, instead, a swarm of doves, a mother's grave, and a hazelnut tree. Also I doubt the Brothers Grimm mentioned the material the slipper was made from. ;-) )--2001:A60:1507:8C01:848C:92ED:8772:3CD (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

text: They do mention it, but they're normal shoes (doubtlessly valuable ones) decorated with gold and silver, or only gold for the last evening.--2001:A60:1507:8C01:848C:92ED:8772:3CD (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot hole?

message: Last Friday, QI featured the question "What were Cinderella's slippers made of?"  I'm inclined to believe QI got something wrong again.
There was no mention of the original gold mentioned here, but the answer referred to vair, which apparently refers specifically to squirrel fur (it was the "squirrel" answer that the panel were supposed to find).  The corruption was attributed to Charles Perrault.  However, if Perrault really was French, would he have confused the two words? -- Smjg 14:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Perrault wrote "verre", and it means "glass". Confusion with "vair" is impossible. The critic of Perrault was made in XIXth century, by prestigious authors like Honoré de Balzac, Émile Littré and others, in the name of the Reason (the French Reason, the Logic and the Cartesianism !). but in French folklore, you have lots of nonsense and strange things like glass shoes. Morburre (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moreover on verre/vair confusion 

message: Despite the article's former claims, the Disney version is NOT universally the standard version of the tale.
Unless my generation has bigger problems than I am aware of, the predominent version of the tale in Germany is Grimms' Aschenputtel, which is only vaguely similar to the Disney version. In fact, until I bumped into the Disney movie on pay-TV, I wasn't even aware of Disney's Cinderella being based on the same tale.
Disney movies HAVE been quite good at sanitising various fairy tales and stories beyond recognition, but at least in the German speaking countries, Grimms' Fairy Tales are still well-known and thus their versions are still popular.
Sorry if I sound a bit irritated, but I have a serious grudge against Disney -- a therapist would probably blame the Mary Poppins movie for that, but if someone says that out loud, Jack Thompson might start crusading against cartoons, too. =P -- Ashmodai 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my own research, Walt Disney Pictures based their feature-length film musical on the Giambattista Basile-Charles Perrault version out of France, one of the variants of this tale.  I have not found a film interpretation of Aschenputtel, as told to the Grimms, to date--in that variant, the wicked stepsisters cut off their toes in order to shoehorn their massive feet into the mystery pump, and birds perched over the carriageway call the bluff--"Blut in dem Schuh" was the quote the birds are alleged to have used. - B.C.Schmerker 23:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disney vs Brothers Grimm 

message: One thing I've noticed is that there is a slightly dirtier version of the rumor about the glass/fur slipper that suggests that not only was there a confusion about whether the slipper was glass or fur, but also that the "fur slipper" which was supposedly mistranslated was in fact a euphemism for something a bit more womanly and earthy than it's literal meaning.  Apparently, in this version, instead of the women lining up to try on the slipper, they line up and the Prince tries out their slippers. Maybe this is a reaction to the sanitised Disney version (and sorry, Ashmodai, but at least in the UK, and by extention, I assume, the English speaking Western World, that is the standard version, even if it's local to Angloland rather than universal), or something. Reveilled 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow ! I didn't know this one. I like it ! Morburre (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "fur slipper" rumor 

message: The anachronism of a supposed skin-color sensitivity in Egypt itself is revealing.
What's so anachronistic about that?  Poor girls worked outside and got their skins darkened; rich girls stayed inside and were paler.  Very like the ashes and rags of the Cinderella tradition.  Goldfritha 22:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Egyptian

message: It seems useful to post the Chinese text here. I will add the translation... when I have time, though there must be more capable translators around here. 
南人相傳，秦漢前有洞主吳氏，土人呼為吳洞。娶兩妻，一妻卒。有女名葉限，少惠，善陶金，父愛之。末歲父卒，為後母所苦，常令樵險汲深。時嘗得一鱗，二寸余，金目，遂潛養於盆水。日日長，易數器，大不能受，乃投於後池中。女所得余食，輒沉以食之。女至池，魚必露首枕岸，他人至不復出。其母知之，每伺之，魚未嘗見也。因詐女曰："爾無勞乎？吾為爾新其襦。"乃易其弊衣，後令汲於他泉。計里數百也，母徐衣其女衣，袖利刃行向池，呼魚，魚即出首，因斤殺之。魚已長丈余，膳其肉，味倍常魚，藏其骨於鬱棲之下。逾日，女至向池，不復見魚矣，乃哭於野，忽有人被發粗衣，自天而降，慰女曰："爾無哭，爾母殺爾魚矣，骨在糞下。爾歸，可取魚骨藏於室，所須第祈之，當隨爾也。"女用其言，金璣衣食隨欲而具。及洞節，母往，令女守庭果。女伺母行遠，亦往，衣翠紡上衣，躡金履。母所生女認之，謂母曰："此甚似姊也。"母亦疑之。女覺，遽反，遂遺一隻履，為洞人所得。母歸，但見女抱庭樹眠，亦不之慮。其洞鄰海島，島中有國名陀汗，兵強，王數十島，水界數千里。洞人遂貨其履於陀汗國，國主得之，命其左右履之，足小者履減一寸。乃令一國婦人履之，竟無一稱者。其輕如毛，履石無聲。陀汗王意其洞人以非道得之，遂禁錮而栲掠之，竟不知所從來。乃以是履棄之於道旁，即遍歷人家捕之，若有女履者，捕之以告。<there seems to be a gap here???>陀汗王怪之，乃搜其室，得葉限，令履之而信。葉限因衣翠紡衣，躡履而進，色若天人也。始具事於王，載魚骨與葉限俱還國。其母及女即為飛石擊死，洞人哀之，埋於石坑，命曰懊女塚。洞人以為祀，求女必應。陀汗王至國，以葉限為上婦。一年，王貪求，祈於魚骨，寶玉無限。逾年，不復應。王乃葬魚骨於海岸，用珠百斛藏之，以金為際。至征卒叛時，將發以贍軍。一夕，為海潮所淪。成式舊家人李士元聽說。士元本邕州洞中人，多記得南中怪事。
--K.C. Tang 08:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Translation, rather free, to be completed: "According to the southerners, in their region, before the Qin and Han dynasties, there was a cave inhabited by the Wu families. The natives call it Cave Wu. The head of the family married twice. The daughter her first wife gave him was called Yexian. Wu was fond of Yexian, who was smart, and skillful at gold panning. After his father's death, Yexian was ill-treated by her stepmother. Her stepmother often ordered her to go to dangerous places to cut wood and draw water. Once Yexian, while drawing water, captured a tiny, golden-eyed fish. She bred the fish in a basin. The fish grew quickly, and outgrew one basin after another. Finally Yexian threw it into a pool, and fed it with the food she saved. The fish only showed itself when Yexian came to see it. Her stepmother soon came to discover the existence of the fish. Yexian and the fish did not know that the woman knew. The woman came up with a trick - she said to Yexian: 'You have been working so hard! Let me renew your coat as your reward.' Then she told Yexian to put off her old coat, and ordered her to draw water at a distant place. When the woman calculated that Yexian had gone for a long distance, she put on Yexian’s coat, hiding a sharp knife underneath her sleeves, and walked towards the pool where the fish dwelled. She called the fish, the fish showed itself, and she killed it with the knife. The woman ate the fish, which had grown to a considerable size, and proved more delicious than usual fishes. She buried the bones of the fish under the soil. Next day, Yexian came to the pool to find that the fish was missing. She wept. All of a sudden someone disheveled and badly-clad descended from heaven, consoling the girl: 'Don’t cry, girl. Your mother killed your fish and buried its bones under the soil. Take the bones and hide them in your room. Pray to them whenever you need something.' The girl did what she was told, and got whatever she wanted by praying to the bones..."--K.C. Tang 08:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: it's amazing, i don't even know there is a translation! but as I said above, the original seems to have some problem: can you understand these sentences? "So he threw it down at the wayside. Then they went everywhere through the all the people's houses and arrested them. If there was a woman's shoe, they arrested them and told the king of T'o-han. He thought it strange, searched the inner-rooms and found Yeh-hsien. He made her put on the shoe, and it was true." they're confusing to me.--K.C. Tang 08:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more appropriate for Wikisource than for this discussion page.Goldfritha 04:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know...I have a Chinese text from "Chinese Cinderella" (Adeline Yen Mah) and I don't know how to post it on wikisource... Maybe a little help from anyone??? Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

text: The proper translation of below:
乃以是履棄之於道旁，即遍歷人家捕之，若有女履者，捕之以告。
Should be:
..The dealer said he just picked that shoe on the side of road and thought it's thrown by someone.So the king asked to search every families.If the another shoe was found,arrest the family and meet the king.Fls81245 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

text: How on earth can that be considered a version of Cinderella? It's so drastically different that the similarities can just be happenstance.109.56.248.242 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. If a story has a not just one or two motifs in in common with another story, but a whole cluster of motifs in common: the cruel stepmother, for example, kindness to animals rewarded, the magic helper, the lost shoe, the dress, and so on, then they are considered as belonging to the same group, the Cinderella group, in this case. If you read some of the works cited in the footnotes, the criteria for classifying the tales are explained. As for how or where these similarities originated, by chance not, that is another question, which sometimes can be answered and sometimes not. Mballen (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chinese Text 

message: The lede says:
:the animated film from Walt Disney Productions, (see Cinderella (1950 film)) has become the standard contemporary version despite the fact that it somewhat sanitises the original plotline.
The "despite" is loaded.  Why is it "despite" and not, say, "because of"?  Is there any reason to believe that this "sanitising" was an obstacle to its being the standard version?  Goldfritha 04:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Out it goes.  Goldfritha 22:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard version

message: These two sections contain duplicate information.  Either the variations should all be put in the plot section, or -- probably better -- all the variations should be dealt with separately.  Goldfritha 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once upon a time, there was a separate section.  But with editors refusing to avoid putting stuff in the "synopsis" section there was no reason to segegrate some of it.  (I collapsed the two some time after that.)  Goldfritha 00:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Goldfirtha, the Variations is just too confusing.  I added a brief summary of the plot (using Perrault's version which is the most common in English speaking countries), and will work on deleting duplicate information in the variations.Cbradshaw 07:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot vs. variations

message: "The poor girl bore it patiently, but she dared not tell her father, who would have scolded her; his wife controlled him entirely."  In all of the versions of this story I have read, the father is dead, and it was not until his death that the true nature of the stepmother and stepsisters became known (they had inherited the old man's money).  It seems implausible that the situation could have existed while he was alive.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check the link at the end of the story, this is a summary of Perrault's version.  That line is almost verbatim.  Doubtless, other retellings change that because it's hard to take.  But this version, as said at the top, is from Perrault. Cbradshaw (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This is an Implausible Version of the Tale

message: Cinderella is mentioned in ST VI Undiscovered Country if I recall. Chekov said it was a Russian story. Is there any truth to this? An error, an intentional mistake? JohnathanZX4 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian Origins?

message: i think it is a scandal how this article tries to make "Cinderella" a global thing, mentioning the Grimm Brothers only in a few words. Bravo Wikipedians! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.163.37.82 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  scandal 

message: I have seen a number of cartoons (beyond the short list) that feature some kind of adapration.  The only one that really sticks out is an Alvin and the Chipmunks cartoon, where the entire episode was on the Chipettes, namely the red one who didn't do her fair share of the chores, and then enacted a Cinderella story in her mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.176.131.108 (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television Adaptations 

message: Who has the Cinderella version by the ancient Roman writer Aelian? Unfortunately, there appears to be no translation online. Source: Aelian's "Varia historia", XIII, 33. I would appreciate it if someone could post his version. Regards Gun Powder Ma 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aelian told two Cinderella stories. The first was Aspasia of Phocaea; Historical Miscellany (XII.1): Aspasia was a Greek girl who's mother dies at birth, she is brought up by her father, she was disfigured but Aphrodite gives her the gift of beauty, she attends a dance given by Cyrus the Younger with three other girls who didn't have noble characters, Cyrus is bewitched by Aspasia's beauty and her kindness, he offers her a necklace fit for a Queen, but Aspasia instead offers the necklace to the King's mother instead. Cinderella Story in Antiquity Aelian writes: "This woman was unreservedly admired both for her physical beauty and even more for her nobility of character." The aesthetic of that beauty can be gained from Aelian's description of her as having blond hair, large eyes, an aquiline nose, and small ears, as well as pretty ankles, fair skin, and a pleasant voice." Aspasia of Miletus Aelian then retold a slightly different version of Strabos Rhodopis story in the next book "Varia historia", XIII, 33. He is the only ancient historian to have included two Cinderella characters in a single work. (Angar432 (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Roman version of Aelian (2nd-3rd centuries AD) 

message: I reverted a deletion of text by Seraphimblade.  I understand why he deleted the text, but it seems to me there is some valuable information there—the relationship between fair tales and human psychology is a subject that has been thoroughly studied.  Can we edit/find citations for this material, rather than scrap the whole load of it?  Fixer1234 04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that some of it already had referecnes.  Goldfritha 00:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Discussion" section. 

message: This work appears to be an adaptation.  Moving it.  Goldfritha 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shirley Climo

message: Hi. I noticed in the article that it said One can argue that this is undoubtedly one of the greatest stories in the history of story-telling times. I don't think anyone can prove that, so does that statement belong in the article? Blackcat52 19:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Statement ? 

message: I've removed the discussion section for a rethink.
: Cinderella - Project Gutenberg etext 19993.jpg Caption was "The Fairy Godmother appears to Cinderella, illustrated in a 1927 story anthology"
	 
: The Cinderella tale is sometimes portrayed as a "rags-to-riches" tale. However, in fact, it is a "riches-to-rags-to-riches" tale; Cinderella, being the daughter of a rich merchant, is at first driven from her rightful patrimony, and the course of the fairy tale restores her to it. (ref Jane Yolen, p 33, Touch Magic )
: The tale has been interpreted as a psychological "splitting": by having both a dead mother and the all good benefactor, any feelings of resentment can be put onto the evil stepmother. (ref Maria Tatar, p 29, The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales, )
:  The idea that "Cinderella" embodies myth elements was explored in The Uses of Enchantment (1989) by Bruno Bettelheim, who made many connections to the principles of Freudian psychology.
: As Freudian analyses have come to be viewed as less scientific, Fact tag date=February 2007) mythographers have turned to trying to disentangle different cultural elements from different versions of the Cinderella tale. (Fact tag date=February 2007) Each social group, in re-telling "Cinderella", has emphasized or suppressed individual elements and has given them interpretations that are especially relevant within each society. Mythography return to Cinderella for hints of the social ethos embodied in it, and the familiar story proves to be a useful case example for young students beginning to understand how myth works. Thus serious uses come from what appears on the surface to be a trivial wish-fulfilment narrative.
: Earlier, less self-consciously instructive Cinderellas have more revealing mythic content. (Fact tag date=April 2007)
: The term Cinderella has originated from its storybook beginnings to become the name for a variety of female personalities. Some girls are described as a Cinderella if they are meek and immediately submissive to stern orders. Others are called Cinderella if they tend to complain quietly. For example, a girl from a wealthy household who has been ordered to wash the dishes as a fulfilment of her once-a-month chores would be deemed a Cinderella; a fallen princess who has finally met with tough reality. (Fact tag date=April 2007)
: Cinderella, along with the more general "princess", are shorthand for a particular approach to wedding and Western wedding attire, especially the white dress. (Fact tag date=April 2007) A bride with the Cinderella mindset believes that the dress and the occasion exist in order that she may be transformed for the day into a beautiful princess. Detractors of such princess brides argue that the wedding is not solely about the bride; nevertheless, many wedding gown retailers appeal, directly or indirectly, to the Cinderella ideal.
: The Cinderella story is much criticised for what many perceive to be a negative, traditionalistic approach to women. (ref Linda M. Scott, Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism p 165 ) From the point of view of these critics Cinderella is oppressed, and does nothing about it; a magical event takes her to a powerful prince who is so taken with her appearance that he chooses her as his consort (it is assumed that she will accede), decorative, but existing only as an adjunct to him. They believe that she has no personality or character of her own; she is simply pretty and good-natured and mindlessly obedient, and advances because of this. Little girls in Western society are told the story: they can infer that if they are obedient and take care of their appearance they will live Happily Ever After. In J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows we learn that children brought up in wizarding households are totally ignorant of the Cinderella story. Presumably this is because witches are independent and strong-minded women, and do not want their daughters believing the way to solve their problems is to marry the right man.''
: On the other hand, others claim that the story should be taken on its own merit, to them Cinderella is not meant to be read into and critiqued as some complex academic social manifesto, but to be enjoyed as a fairy tale and its simple powerful message that good can come to decent people.
: Going even further, many do not see Cinderella's personality or actions in a negative light. Simply that she has come under criticism because more confrontational headstrong heroines have become perceived as the new ideal of what a women is expected to be in Disney and American culture in general. To them, Cinderella has many admirable qualities, taking a more calm and discreet approach in fulfilling her wishes, and chooses to be kind even to those who mistreat her.  Fact tag date=April 2007) In Perrault's own moral, he notes it is not enough to be pretty, but graciousness is what earned Cinderella her happy ending. He goes on to say that her intelligence, kindness, good breeding were not enough alone to assist Cinderella; the Godmother assisted her and the Prince was won over by her because of her graciousness. The reader is to take this lesson when applying the tale.
There's some good stuff here, but there are problems. Here's how I see it:
* The title of the section, "Discussion", invites people to add their own opinions
* I think there's evidence that some people have done just that, dressing them up in weasel words like "others claim...", "many do not see...", "the Cinderella mindset...", "each social group...has...", "Some girls are described as...", "what many perceive..." and so on.
* There are some longstanding demands for citation that haven't been addressed either by removing the unsourced statement or providing a source.
On the other hand some statements in the early paragraphs are well sourced and refer to actual, concrete, commentary on the matter.  There is more that could be added.  Angela Carter's comments are nowhere to be seen in this section.  For instance, she covered Cinderella in considerable depth in Ashputtle.  And that's only one feminist commentator among many who have approached the story (if I dug deep enough in my bookshelves I'm sure I'd find commentaries by Susan Griffin and Andrea Dworkin).
But the point is that if we cover interpretations we do so properly, with sources and not vague handwaving. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion section

message: Firstly, I am French and French is my first language. I am dwelling on this point to avoid in advance any dispute of my understanding of that wonderful language. Most French kids (well, I at least) were told the story of Cendrillon while growing up. And our parents almost always unmistakably insisted that Cinderella's slippers were made of "vair" (which is the fur of a small animal similar to squirrels) and not of "verre" (i.e. glass). In fact, this is the ONLY instance in modern French where this very old word appears. This word is in fact so old, that it has long vanished from the common French vocabulary. It is well-known that the word was already obsolete when Perrault wrote his tale. Nevertheless, people insisted that the slippers were made of fur. Yet, Perrault's original version uses the word "verre". So... what happened? It's rather simple. Decades after Perrault wrote his version of the tale, several French intellectuals decided that glass slippers made no sense, thus assuming that Perrault had made a spelling error (for those of you who don't know French, the words "vair" and "verre" sound exactly the same in French), they changed Perrault's original wording. And so the error was born. If all one cares to know is the original word chosen by the author, then one need not look further: the slippers were crafted out of glass, whether or not this seems realistic. Beyond that, however, it is now widely believed that Perrault made NO error and that he did indeed intend to use the word "verre". Many reasons substantiate this reasoning. First off, the word "vair" was no longer used in Perrault's contemporary times. His readers would have most likely not understood the word "vair" any more than todays French kids do. Next, why should Perrault have made a spelling error? He was, after all, a confirmed writer and an educated scholar. There is absolutely no reason to a priori assume that he would fall into such a basic spelling trap. Finally, and more importantly, Perrault was writing a *fairy tale*, not a newspaper article. His imagination had pumpkins turn into horse carriages, mice into men, so why not common shoes into glass slippers? Especially since glass slippers are in perfect agreement with the story line stating that Cinderella is the *only* girl whom the slippers should fit. Plain fur slippers could easily be fitted to adapt to the feet of many girls. But glass slippers could only be crafted for a unique pair of feet. 
In conclusion, Perrault never wrote nor meant to bring fur slippers in his tale. He wrote, spelled, and meant "verre". The subsequent change to "vair" is nothing more than an imposed correction invented by some intellectuals who were lacking the necessary imagination to fully understand and appreciate this wonderful tale.
I hope my English is fluent enough to be read and understood by native anglophones. If not, please accept my apologies. I normally do not "pollute" the English Wikipedia with my bad English. I just felt compelled to share with you the above information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.93.5 (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glass or fur : the ultimate answer 

message: 1. Added fact tag to "medieval Indo-Malay" version, as I'm not sure that "Anne de Fernandez" sounds medievally Indo-Malay in origin.  Truthfully, each version of the story needs a reliable source documenting its historicity.
2. Moved the Aarne-Thompson classification to the plot section; it seemed to have less to do with "Origins and history" and more with what type of plot the story features.
3. Moved the Garner adaptation from "Origins and history" to the "Adaptations" section, where it belongs.  Is his version "original"?  Sure, but not in the sense of being the "origins" of the classic tale.
Probably more to come... Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits, changes, cleanup 

message: I reverted a recent edit to the plot section which greatly expanded the moral of the story.  The reasoning behind this is that the moral comes from the cited source, which does not include the material I reverted.  A source should be cited for anything as subjective as the "moral" of a story. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: quite right.  I adapted the whole plot summary from Perrault's tale, and it really should not be changed unless someone goes back to the original tale.  Thanks, good work!Cbradshaw (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision to plot section 

message: I read somewhere that article leads should essentially summarize the body of an article.  I expanded the lead here to include a brief summary of the plot and a mention of its continuing influence on popular culture.  I believe that all information I added is supported by the remainder of the article; still, a little voice in my head is whispering that I'm flirting with original research or at least unsourced claims.  Please check and see if my revision can be improved. Thanks! Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 14:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  expanded article lead 

message: I received another message from another user telling me that they have removed my last edit because it contained incorrect information. FYI, I was not signed in at the time, so it's an anonymous edit.
I'm sorry, I don't understand how I added any information, let alone incorrect information. It was a style edit, and labeled as such.
The reason for the first part of the change is that the fairy godmother is generally portrayed as WARNING C. not to stay past midnight, not FORCING her (otherwise she wouldn't almost miss the deadline, and the subsequent slipper-losing and happy-ending wouldn't happen). Thus it seemed likely that the sentence originally read "The fairy godmother *B*ade Cinderella return..." not "*M*ade Cinderella return..." I did not want to change it to that since "bade" is archaic, so I found what I thought was an appropriate substitute.
As to the changing of "broken" to "wear off", I was under the impression that the purpose of the plot summary was to give a quick, but accurate, overview of the story. It seems to me that there is a difference between a spell being ended by force (like another spell), and a spell ending due to the passage of time. The former spell would normally be said to have been broken, while the latter would be said to have worn off.  
I would appreciate other users' input on this matter. I don't want to fight over this, but I really don't think that I did anything wrong, and, if not, I would like to reinstate my edit.
- Peach (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My last edit, which was rescinded 

message: Why does Cinderella still have her glass slipers after 12?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.167.92 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The clock strikes 12? 

message: More detail should be added about Maquire's book, since it isn't the common Cinderella story at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.230.44 (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gregory Maguire

message: The one with Brandy is a remake. There was one in the 80s or 90s. I remember Cinderella having a squeaky voice & a Cinderella look to her & the Prince was Latino. Exact same songs too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rodgers & Hammerstein's Cinderella 

message: Another line of thought on the Cinderella story is one that is elaborated on in a New York Times magazine article (but that is not a unique line of thinking to this article). The title is What's Wrong with Cinderella?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/magazine/24princess.t.html
Some of the ideas elaborated on in this article are 
:it's connection with Disney Princess culture
:it's affect on children - "Some psychologists say that until permanency sets in kids embrace whatever stereotypes our culture presents," 
:mental health issues are raised with Cinderella and the princess persona for girls
From same author: 
http://information-book.com/cinderella-ate-my-daughter-dispatches-from-the-front-lines-of-the-new-girlie-girl-culture/
Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture
Quote - "Pink and pretty or predatory and hardened, sexualized girlhood influences our daughters from infancy onward, telling them that how a girl looks matters more than who she is."
Am Removing this link at the request of BlackCab. Natural (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately a conflict of interest here, Scott. You appear to be citing a document you wrote yourself on your own website. You were warned about promoting your business when you first started editing Wikipedia. BlackCab (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not promoting a website, I'm promoting the idea stated here. The site page has different links on the subject. The secondary source you objected to was removed earlier.Natural (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite honestly this article needs a lot of work, but plenty of good scholarly sources exist to be used. Certainly Bruno Bettelheim's work might also be relevant here as well.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified threading and restored comments and user sig removed after a subsequent reply. --Mirokado (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the Cinderella Story for Children

message: How did he write a book in 1634 when he died in 1632?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.123.254 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the wikipedia page on Basile, "He is chiefly remembered for writing the collection of Neapolitan fairy tales titled Lo cunto de li cunti overo lo trattenemiento de peccerille (Neapolitan for "The Tale of Tales, or Entertainment for Little Ones"), also known as Il Pentamerone published posthumously in two volumes by his sister Adriana in Naples, Italy in 1634 and 1636 under the pseudonym Gian Alesio Abbatutis." Nightkey (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giambattista Basile 

message: One possible addition to the list of books is Sunny Ella, by Sally Zybert, which is a dark adult take in which Ella, suffering from harsh abuse by her stepfamily, snaps mentally. I will not add this myself due to a WP:COI, as I prepared this book for publication. Information on this book can be found at the Combustoica website. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book reworking 

message: The infobox contains a AKA list full of translations.  This would be better off elsewhere. JIMp talk·cont 12:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AKA 

message: How could Seneca have written something called "'On the Pumpkinification of Claudius', playing on a pun for the word for deification and the word for pumpkin" when pumpkins are native to North America?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.167.174 (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure on this, but the word "pumpkin" originates from the Greek pepon (πέπων)which means "large melon." So if that statement is true, and I have no idea if it is, it's probably not referring to a pumpkin as we know it (the ones that originated in NA) but simply a large melon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.208.153 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Seneca

message: Is this an error? The article's author "Tony Blaire" links to the politician's page.
Please correct it. UnconsciousInferno (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it was some recent vandalism that I just reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Oops, I see. Sorry for not realising it was vandalism myself. I assumed it was a different Tony Blaire that was not linked properly; didn't realise someone had messed with the text. UnconsciousInferno (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TONY BLAIRE published Cindrella?! 

message: I think it is a bit odd, not to say misleading, to include some Eastern Asian versions (Vietnamese, Korean and Philippine) without mentioning their age. It is not clear whether they first occurred long ago or are modern adaptions, something I regard as highly relevant. ✎ HannesP · talk 23:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, it's not a good practice to mix chronologinal data with undated data. It's confusing and can easily mislead the reader, which goes against the basic purpose of an encyclopedia. Dates need to be added or it should be removed IMHO. One other possibility might be to separate these undated versions of the story into a new section called "Variations in different countries" or "Variations of the Cinderella theme". This would keep the information on the Vietnamese, Korean and Philippino versions but separate it from the history/origins section, so as to not give any unintended hints on the dates of these versions. Abvgd (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. In fact, it is not even clear that these are all versions of the same work/folklore and not just examples of similar tropes recurring throughout the world.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Eastern Asian versions 

message: The article refers to "the Welsh gypsy version" but I'm unclear at what is Welsh about this at all. The reference at http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/roma/gft/gft127.htm appears to be a quote from Gypsy Folk Tales, by Francis Hindes Groome, [1899] and the only location mentioned at all is Oxford, which is not in Wales. I suppose it could be a version specific to British gypsies but I think, under the circumstances, I'd identify this as a Roma version and not a Welsh gypsy. Posting the question here first in case there's an additional reference that I've missed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSylvia (talk • contribs) 13:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh Gypsy? 

message: In my opinion, last section, called "Cinderella Theme", should be the first one, and under a different name, such as "Origins". Cinderella is a tale older than dirt, present throughout the history of Eurasia. Versions in Spanish and French are arranged in a chronological order.
* https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cendrillon
* https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenicienta
Engranaje (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of sections 

message: There's a (likely false) epitaph in Franciscus Swertius' Epitaphia joco-seria latina, gallica, italica, hispanica, lusicanica, belgica (1623:21):
VIRIDELLAE Puellae
In lapide est titulus VIRIDELLA, sed ipsa sepulcro
Devirui: heu tumulus nomina falsa gerit.
Tabuit in cineres VIRIDELLA, colorque decorque
Nullus adest, heu quid nomina vana iuvant?
Quin potius CINERELLA legar, CINERELLA sepulcro
Inscribar, periit nam viror atque vigor.
Nec titulo est VIRIDELLA, nec est VIRIDELLA sepulcro
Nomen, forma, vigor, denique nil superest.
For the girl VIRIDELLA (=green, youthful little girl)
On the stone is the title VIRIDELLA, but I myself have lost my greenness in the tomb: alas, the tomb bears a false name.
VIRIDELLA wasted way into ashes, there is no color or beauty left, alas what good are empty names?
Why should I not be read as CINERELLA, I should be inscribed as CINERELLA on the tomb, for greenness and vigor have perished.
Nor is VIRIDELLA fit for a title, nor is VIRIDELLA a name for a tomb: form, vigor, finally nothing is left.
This predates the other mentions of the name on the page and gives the earliest mention of the name that I've seen.
98.180.17.52 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinerella 

message: The first is written in the present tense, as is the norm for fiction, the other two in the past. One capitalizes Prince, another doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot style inconsistencies 

message: A "myth" element of unjust oppression?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C001:FFB0:B504:54C1:DF5F:5E53 (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: Forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong, but would the old testament story of Joseph not be the earliest example of a Cinderella character? Significantly predating Rhodopis.
Anonymous, other than a fact of Joseph being male and not bedding the Pharaoh, there is the matter of what you mean by predating. Rhodopis lived in the 6th century BC. The Book of Genesis is considered to have been written during the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century BC or at (the latest) the 5th century BC. It is unclear which of the two rags to riches stories is the earlier one. Dimadick (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Earliest example?

message: Under: "Plot variations and alternative tellings"
"Although many variants of Cinderella feature the wicked stepmother, the defining trait of type 510A is a female persecutor:[...]"
The '510A' has a hyperlink to the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antti_Aarne (which is just a stub and doesn't talk about character trait types.
I suggest linking the '510A' to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarne%E2%80%93Thompson_classification_systems instead.
(Later, under "Folkloristics", The words, "The Aarne–Thompson system classifies Cinderella as type 510A, "the persecuted heroine"", 'Aarne-Thompson" links to the second wikipedia article as mentioned above.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.89.10 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Type 510A 

message: It is misleading for the first sentence to have the alternative title of "Cinderella" as "The Little Glass Slipper", as in the original, Cinderella never wore a glass slipper but fur slippers  - glass slippers was a mistranslation. Vorbee (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a folk tale. There is no "original version." Her name is not "Cinderella" in most versions either; she is also known as "Aschenputtel," "Cenerentola," "Cendrillion," etc. Only English versions call her "Cinderella." In the oldest known recorded version (the Greek story of Rhodopis), the shoe is not a slipper at all, but a leather sandal. In many versions, the token used to identify her is not even a shoe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Glass slipper or fur slipper

message: Why is the translations section relevant? Nearly all classic fairy tales have been translated into all languages. Carnival Honey (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not really relevant. I honestly was not really sure why we had it to begin with and it was uncited anyway, so I have now removed it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: a big thankyou to  for removing something that is not relevant to this article. i have "Cinderella" on my watchlist (but had not actually read this article!), and saw the apparent wholesale removal of translations, "why would a list of notable translations be removed" i initially thought, not realising it was just a list of the name in various languages, but on seeing what has actually been removed wholeheartedly agree with this course of action. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: I think everyone can agree that having an adaptation section is extremely crucial to the context of the cinderella Wikipedia page. I propose recreating the adaptation section with credible sources so that the adaptation section remains valid and isn't deleted once again (See previous comments on why the adaptation section was entirely removed) I will be working on this in my sandbox in order to improve it before adding it back to the page. If anyone would like to join or has any suggestions feel free to reply.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddomi1 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:   Let's recreate the Adaptation section  

message: A new user added Cinderalla online audiobook with graphics this to the external links. It's not formatted well, and I doubt its encyclopedic value, reverting once. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video? 

message: Hello, Francis Schonken. What is wrong with the recent edit? PiercingEyes (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You said nothing like that. Quote 1: "partial revert: reduced height worked, other changes not". Quote 2: "per previous revert, take to talk page if you think differently". What does? The 210 resolution on one of the galleries? I explained it causes one of the images to look glitchy (and on the most common resolution there is). If that is the sole issue, then could you kindly return the other changes? PiercingEyes (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, indeed, they didn't work for my screen, sorry for abbreviating that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no abbreviation by any sort of definition of it and what is "they"? Is it the 210? Can you return the other changes besides it in that case? PiercingEyes (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "They" refers to "other changes" (in the first quote or your first reply above). "Abbreviation" intended to mean short, somewhat cryptic, formulation, which now has been fully clarified. I hope. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But most of the changes concerned things that didn't affect looks. Year dates from Commons and there was a misplaced image in the ending section even though it depicts the beginning. So by "they" you must mean the resolution for the looks is the sole thing you've talked about. There was zero indication of your meaning. There was no short form of anything. There was just the "other changes not". Can you then return the changes not concerning looks, which is what you're concerned about? PiercingEyes (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor Wikidata nor Commons are a reliable source. The article is in dire need of references. Any content that is introduced without complying to the WP:V policy would best be WP:CHALLENGEd for this article, which over time seems to have acted as a magnet for poorly sourced and unsourced cruft, on multiple occasions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a standard that simple image descriptions such as titles, creation dates and creators taken from Commons generally don't need to be sourced in the article they are used in because you can just click on the image to see the source of the image itself. Sure, there are images without clear sources on Commons, but it's generally against the rules, so it must be fixed on their end, not ours. PiercingEyes (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My standard is WP:V. If an image is unsourced in Commons, and the content of the description can't be straightforwardly checked, then the content should not be in Wikipedia. I just deleted an image: the image caption in Wikipedia did not come from Commons, and did not match was was said about the image in the publication from which it was (apparently) harvested. So, no, such image should not return without a sound reference for its caption's content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: On that image at Commons there is a link to the book itself, available for full viewing. The book says illustrated by Hermann Vogel on the inner cover on page 6. It estimates 1910 for the book on the Internet Archive page, but I was even able to find an academic publication of German fairytale illustrations that clarifies the year to be 1894. Fairy Grandmothers: Images of Storytelling Events in Nineteenth-Century Germany. How did you manage to think it's not Vogel? What were you looking at? In any case things like these should be solved first on Commons. PiercingEyes (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because another artist is mentioned on the page where this image is shown. And, BTW, the image's style is completely different from the style of the (uncoloured) pencil drawings on the other pages; and your (apparent) interpretation that the image is from the beginning of the story appears to be original research, this is not indicated in the actual publication, nor would I know where to place this image in the beginning of the story line – it obviously does not belong there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you're looking at. No other artist is mentioned anywhere. Are you thinking of the Grimm brothers? The ones who wrote the stories? The image is from page 90 of that Internet Archive scan of the book. Go there, look at it in full color. Then there is the academic source for the illustrator of the book and the date. PiercingEyes (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

text: No personal attacks please, thanks. The image seems, to me, rather the sisters returning from the ball, and finding Cinderella as if she hadn't moved (which is rather towards the end than towards the beginning of the story), but unless a source can confirm which it is, neither your nor my explanation should be taken for granted in Wikipedia's main space. And again, the book from which the image was apparently taken gives the name of another artist at the bottom of the page where the image is visible in that book. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on, now you start immediately wikilawyering. Is it not objective to state you have received a warning for disruptive editing in the last hour? Or that you also have a long history of blocks for edit warring, the longest of a full year? And my claim is that it belongs in the beginning of the section, which is about the villains of the story. It's not even close to the conclusion. The style of the image is identical to Vogel's work now that I have looked at them enough. At the bottom of the page is the name of a color-printing company from Stuttgart. PiercingEyes (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all things "objective" are necessarily "relevant", or even germane, to a discussion – if no sound argument remains, attacking the opponent is but too predictable. Let's agree to disagree, I'm comfortable with that. I've given reasonable arguments, and still think the article has, comparatively, too many images, so picking the less soundly sourced ones to WP:CHALLENGE is by no means a useless job. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're just trying to be disruptive on purpose. I'll add it back as all the reasons you have given (finally after trying to dodge giving a reason too) have been proven false and if you start reverting again I'm listing you at the edit war noticeboard for the how manieth time you've been there. PiercingEyes (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't try to get the upper hand in a reasonable discussion by useless threats. At this point there's no consensus, maybe someone else wants to chime in, and we'll see where it goes from there. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems now you're now coming to bother me on my talk page too, all the while edit warring on  a new, third article. Forget it, a resolute troll would probably hound me forever if banned because of me. Wikipedia can't do anything about these people, so the only way is to give up. Okay, you win, just don't bother me. Keep your Vogel image. I yield. PiercingEyes (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: No Cinderfella under parody?
172.251.69.173 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinderfella!? 

message: Why in the plot section for Basile's version the name "Zezolla" is always followed by the parenthetical "(tonnie)"? What does that mean? And why repeating it every single time? Also, the "beloved governess". Beloved by whom? And after Cinderella's father marries her, she "brings forward six daughters of her own". What does this mean? Did she give birth to them? Or did she already have them from a previous marriage? Isn't there a better expression to explain this point than "bring forward"? Kumagoro-42 (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused by the plot of Basile's version 

message: This article claims, in the Ancient versions section, that the story of Rhodopis is "European". It then goes on to say that the story was first recorded by Strabo in his book Geographica (book 17, 33): "When she was bathing, an eagle snatched one of her sandals from her maid and carried it to Memphis; ..."
When looking at the source material, it is very clear that Strabo is describing about "Aegypt" and naming cities and landmarks within "Aegypt". The editor here conveniently left out the first clause of the referenced sentence: "They tell the fabulous story that, when she was bathing, an eagle snatched one of her sandals from her maid and carried it to Memphis;..."
The "They" in this text that was so conveniently discarded is an obvious reference to the "Aegyptians". Claiming that because a European documented another culture's stories the stories are suddenly representative of European culture or that they have a European source is rather disingenuous.
Just because archaeologist Howard Carter discovered King Tutankhamun's tomb, it does not mean King Tutankhamun is suddenly British.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehuti69 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disingenuous