Talk:Rapunzel

message: I added a reference to a German film adaption of the story. Is there anyone else familiar with it who would like to add anything? It seems to be obscure, though it was apparantly well-recieved critically.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.214.70 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rapunzel Oder der Zauber der Tränen

message: I removed the phrase "[A fairytale] that is often told to children, in spite of its barely covert eroticism." this comes with the blatant POV that it is necessarily bad to tell stories containing "covert eroticism" to children. 
As it stands now, the article is badly in need of a cleanup, the "plot" and the "interpretations" sections convey mostly the same information with only minor (mostly unnecessary differences. Ignus 02:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course your changes made the unsourced POV that it is an erotic story even worse. I find it odd that even with all the discussion above about unsourced speculation, original research and so forth that several such statements remained in the article. As part of the clean up of the duplicate info and highly speculative conclusions that had no references of any sort, lots of material got taken out during my edits. If the editors who put that information in wants to actually quote sources and say that such and such an author believes such and such, that's fine. DreamGuy 04:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
This article seems highly confused; I've been going through it and the "Themes" section is not entirely relevant/the stories cited there in comparison aren't mentioned anywhere else. And all of the publication history and cultural comparisons in the Lead seem like they should constitute their own section of the article, rather than being listed at the top and easily skipped over. Much of the language used seems choppy, the sentences are awkward, and while the grammar isn't necessarily *wrong*, it's not always easy to decipher. Even something simple like this (editing the language, adding a new section, cleaning up the Lead and Themes section) would go a long way towards making the article more comprehensive.  FeeSand (talk) 23 September 2019
I'm thinking of doing a major clean up of this article by adding a "Development" section that would cover most of the information at the top and a lot of the information included in the "Themes" section that doesn't really convey any themes, as previously noted. I don't think anyone would have an issue with a major clean up, but I wanted to post first in the talk pages in case someone has some concerns. Elgallow (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: As with other entries in this "free encyclopedia", I find it disconcerting to read a version of a copyrighted work, and to find the work plagiarized and in some cases copied outright onto this site. I think the readers should beware that one reason for the "free" nature of the wikipedia is that anyone can copy and/or say anything on any subject, and that most of this material is probably poorly cited, not consistent with a professional analysis of the original, etc... [unsigned but by anon user User:70.113.115.140]
:What copyright? What plagiarism? The story of Rapunzel is in the public domain based upon being too old to be covered by modern copyright laws, so either you are confused or you mean some specific passages that you didn;t bother to mention. Please indicate which sections you believe to be a copyright violation or plagiarism. DreamGuy 20:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the anon meant the What is Rapunzel section I started in Talk and moved to the article? It's more original research than copy, but I did cite two sentences from a seed catalogue. Just in case I've now paraphrased them. I also quoted fragments from another seed catalogue (Etty's), so I paraphrased there too. The rest is my own work (googling and personal experience!) with a contribution from an anon on the name in Austria. And of course the story itself is public domain including the enhlish translation (1884). -Wikibob | Talk 02:28, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
-----
In an article where the phrase "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your golden hair" has been deleted as inessential, it really does seem particularly inane  to be informed now that "Donna Jo Napoli wrote a young adult novel Zel based around a sixteenth-century Swiss Rapunzel." --Wetman 3 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
:Well, yes, that would seem to be the effect of stubbornly intertwining actual fact (most versions of the tale include the line "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your golden hair") and pretentious speculation and opinionation ("The sorceress was not truly wicked, so much as blindly old-fashioned. She believed, as many still do, that the virtues of virginity could be combined with utterly ignorant innocence.") -- Antaeus Feldspar 4 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
Every educated reader is aware that many folk tales incorporate a repeated line, like "Open, sesame", that encapsulates the main theme. To miss it is to miss the boat. Norms of comprehension at one level appear like pretentious speculation at another: it's not always easy to know just how much to explain explicitly without appearing condescending. --Wetman 4 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
:Wetman, I have to ask:  are you aware that you come off as pretentious and insulting when you start sentences with phrases like "Every educated reader is aware that"?  Even people who agree with whatever follows the "that" are likely to feel disgusted at your pompous attempt to dismiss everyone who doesn't agree as 'clearly not an educated reader'.  Is that the effect you want to produce; do you really think that you've done a great job when people who read your words wrinkle their noses in disgust and mutter "What a dickweed; someone who actually could put forth a plausible defense of their view would actually do so, rather than just pompously declaring that anyone who doesn't agree isn't an 'educated reader.'"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 5 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
:Thank you for sharing. I said that norms of comprehension at one level appear like pretentious speculation at another. There just are some things every educated person knows. If I were running for office, I'd not neglect assiduously to cater to ignorance, you may be sure. --Wetman 10:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright allegation

message: I wanted to point you all in the direction of Rampion, which has a tradtional use in european herbology to STOP MISCARRIAGE. which is why the fairy gave the husband the herb. but said: if she has a child, I get it.
Jordan 5 October 2005
:That's a good thought! This is an aspect that should be worked into an edit with a quote from an herbal.
I've just removed a line claiming that cravings in pregnancy are a natural response to lack of vitamins; this is a theory that is largely discredited, such cravings being attributed largely to the customs of the society.  At the very least, if it were replaced it would have to be made clear that this isn't a simple fact, but a theory (and references other than a folklore work given). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for this claim that this has been discredited? Goldfritha 02:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Which movie?  Powers T 13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Rampion

message: I have added the bit about Tolkien's The Silmarillion in the the Adaptations section.  Being still pretty new to editing here, I'm unsure of how to satisfy the "citation needed" note that someone added.  I guess I could just be lazy and leave it for others, but it would be better if I learned how to format the citation properly.  I'm looking over the page intended to help with this and I'll give it a try.  Patience appreciated.  Trying not to waste anyone's time.
:To get rid of it, you need to add a reference.  There are several references scattered about the article in "ref" tags.  In this reference, you must give a source for the suggestion.  Goldfritha 16:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help thinking that the obvious doesn't need to be proven.--2001:A61:209F:FA01:BDFC:92DD:C62C:E809 (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Tolkien

message: "Rapunzle and the witch are also featured in the award winning play Into the Woods!" This is in a very awkward and inappropriate place, following the synopsis. It is already mentioned in the Adaptations area and does not need to be there. I will delete it. 75.109.148.221 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't know I wasn't logged on. That was me. Sailorknightwing (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Into The Woods!

message: Why is the synopsis written in the past tense? Didn't you learn in school that synopses and plot summaries should be written in the tense called the "eternal present"?--71.202.144.50 (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: What about the film called "Brother's Grimm"?
There was a film titled this where 2 brothers pretended 2 being bounty hunters of the supernatural, however all of the supernaturals scaring the towns were actually acts they created themselves. It was a plot to gain money. But one day they're  hired for a job against a REAL supernatural haunting that they discover involves a tower in the forest enchanted by a female inside who's body is nearly decayed with extremely long white hair. When looking in the mirror, however, the women appears young and her hair is black and she is seen moving around. Her spirit is the main cause of the whole situation and I assume that this is a very different but definite varient of Rapunzel herself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.176.208 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Brother's Grimm

message: Hopefully, I formatted the entry right. I even provided a reference. It's a humorous reference, but a real one nonetheless. :)
K8cpa (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Cultural reference 

message: There are children's picture book adaptations. For instance, Rapunzel, retold by Alison Sage, illustrated by Sarah Gibb, (Chicago: Albert Whitman, 2011), .
I don't know whether we frequently, occasionally, or never cover such things on main pages. Not routinely, of course, because illustrators aren't as important as Cinema Directors and Screen Actors. --P64 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture book adaptations 

message: "The encounters between the prince and the maiden in the tower are described in quite bawdy language."
From versions about 4 years ago, it seems that came from "The Hard Facts of the Grimms' Fairy Tales"... And is supposed to be about Petrosinella... but I haven't seen anything that's particularly bawdy in the translations I've seen, although, they all seem to be the same translation...
SomeDude! (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The encounters between the prince and the maiden in the tower are described in quite bawdy language." 

message: At the moment the name "Friedrich Schulz" at the top links to the wrong person. At the moment it redirects people to Friedrich Schulz, the German Wehrmacht general from World War 2. I'd do it myself but I'm not the best with editing links.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant O'Brien (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friedrich Schulz link 

message: I'll replace 'that' with 'who' in "A film adaptation by The Walt Disney Company was released late in 2014 ... to distance herself from the Witch that raised her."  Please advise any discomfort. Cheers. H Bruce Campbell (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple grammar refinement 

message: Rapunzel is a young girl that has got long hair 92.21.88.89 (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapunzel