Talk:Berenstain Bears

Controversy & Criticism
What happened? Up to August 2006, there was a section called "Controversy and Criticism" to which I contributed solid references to articles critical of the Bears' stereotypical gender roles. This section has now been replaced by "Praise and Comment" which now has a smattering of "blog" entries among its sources.

I'm not 100% sure but it appears the deletions were by a user "BerenstainMike". I guess you must be a fan. I don't mind keeping the "Praise & Comment" section because there are one or two good references there. But I went ahead and re-instated the Controvery & Criticism section (which still needs some work formatting the references)

Tweesdad

Someone removed the substantive criticism again, but left the orphaned References section. I don't care much about the criticism, but I put it back. If whoever hates the criticism decides to remove it again, please also remove the appropriate reference entries, thanks. --VAcharon 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to see that there isn't any mention at all of the Berenstain's aggressive feminist agenda in this article. Is that what's in the section that somebody keeps removing? I've read a bunch of these books with my kids, and it seemed that if there was ever an option for one of the children to be in a traditionally male role (a cop, a construction worker, a fireman), it would invariably be the sister bear, with the brother bear in the traditionally female roles. And Papa Bear is always tiresomely a bumbling idiot. Mama Bear is the only adult in the family. It's like one of those loathsome stupid man-clever woman ads. I finally put a moratorium on Berenstain books in my household for this reason. You might at least have a section describing that these highly-praised, wonderfully perfect and immaculate post feminist propaganda works for children are not 100% acceptable to everyone. - A Father who is not a bumbling idiot  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.96.101 (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI Mike Berenstain is the son who is continuing to write the books...   if this is you Mike, and you are reverting text, please remember, this is a Wiki article, not your article. Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * BerenstainMike is the son of the authors... Mike Berenstain. 207.255.118.240 (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The account for was used on one day in 2006 and hasn't been heard from since. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC) ‎

The article has not reported a variety of positive critiques of the Berenstain Bears books from various sources:

"The Berenstains have the extraordinary ability to communicate universal experiences and uplifting messages," -Laurie Norton Moffat, director of the Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Mass.; NY Times, November 30, 2005

"They were able to take the real issues of children's lives and make them entertaining and not preachy," -Ilene Abramson, director of children's services at the Los Angeles Public Library; LA Times, November 30, 2005

"Among the generation of children growing up in the '70s and early '80s, The Berenstain Bears books are spoken of like zen koans, or like biblical allegories." -Aemillia Scott, Flak Magazine Online, November 30, 2005

Since great attention has been paid to negative critiques, it would seem appropriate to also include these positive comments as balance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookeditor9000 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I definitely find the criticism/praise sections to be unbalanced, particularly for a Wiki. Frankly, you can find someone to complain about anything, but is that really the important thing about this book series? FusionDude (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * FusionDude if you find the criticism and praise to be unbalanced, then by all means please do go out and find additional reliably sourced praise for the series. I added what I was able to find back in 2014, perhaps you will be able to find more. As far as your comment about finding someone to complain about anything and whether that is important, Wikipedia articles routinely have sections that report critical and popular reaction to books, movies, TV shows. It's a practice that is accepted by consensus, and it is important to provide information on how well-received a series is, most readers find this information very useful. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mmyers1976 My point is that the first sentence of the "reception" section is more critical than positive. This is, I believe, due to cherry-picking. For example, the reference to the New York Times article has this paragraph:

Over the years, the Berenstains drew criticism for promoting long-outmoded gender roles and overly simple life lessons. But readers who love Bear Country consider it a place not unlike Mr. Rogers’s neighborhood, where a fixed storytelling routine and familiar characters bring comfort to children as they seek to navigate a world that becomes ever more complicated as they grow up.
 * I personally wouldn't consider that a reliably sourced criticism or praise; it's simply journalistic opinion. In fact, the actual citation is balanced to leaning positive.
 * Also, stylistically by leading with criticism and having a very sparse praise section (which may be due to the apathy of authors in digging up reliably sourced praise), the tone of the article is negative. My expectation would be that, barring the revisionism of political correctness, a children's series loved by millions would have an overall positive tone. FusionDude (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Papa Bear as the bumbling idiot makes him lovable while Mama is condescending hypocrite who is so perfect that it is downright insincere and tyrannical. Ninjaflight (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Spelling
I thought it was spelled "Bearenstain". john k 18:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be kind of funny, wouldn't it, a pun with the "bear" inserted into the name? However, the official site, http://www.berenstainbears.com/, spells it "Berenstain". &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 06:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, throughout my childhood, it was always "Berenstein" Bears. At some point in the mid 90's, it looks like they changed it to "Berenstain" with an A. I found some old books with the original spelling, so I know I'm not crazy. Anyone know when/why it was changed? I'm just curious, since I noticed that Stan's recent obituary had the "Berenstain" spelling. Salena  22:27, January 1, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.40.96 (talk • contribs) 01:27, January 9, 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Salena, Can you please take pictures of some old books with the original spelling? Misty MH (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Salena" is not an editor trying to be helpful. They're pranking. First, notice their user name link above is a link to an unrelated article. They were editing through an AT&T connection 14 years ago in Kansas and then disappeared. Next, notice that the next edit, made shortly after this one, supposedly by an(other) anonymous user trying to help is also editing from an AT&T connection in neighboring Missouri a couple of weeks later and then disappeared. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I too, remembered it as Berenstein. Just an anonymous user verifying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.197.36 (talk).


 * I was certain it was Berenstein, but I don't have any books to prove it. It looks to have been recorded in Amazon but this could have been data entry errors I guess. — Coelacan | talk 04:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If this were really the case I'd find it odd that not a single original item with the alternate spelling is seen on the aftermarket or as collectable. In fact, ebay is awash in items purported in the item listing title to be the alternate spelling (stEin) with pictures clearly showing it to be the accepted spelling (stAin). It's a fantastic example of mistaken perception that suggests Salena needs to take another look at those books. ForestMars (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * i've looked into the "original" prints of the books from the 80s. and ALL of them say Berenstain. i KNOW it was Berenstein growing up. i know people who pulled out their original ones they grew with and they have no idea why it says Berenstain.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.45.76 (talk • contribs) 18:21, August 7, 2015‎
 * Let's try a thought experiment. I'm alone in my office. No one else has been here since I cam in this evening. I go to pick up my keys from on top of the filing cabinet and they aren't there. I know I put them there. I always put them there. Instead, they're in my pocket. Possible explanations:
 * 1) Aliens transported the keys from the filing cabinet to my pocket.
 * 2) This reality is one of countless parallel realities. In this one, my keys briefly came to life an snuck into my pocket.
 * 3) The universe was destroyed by a space god who later felt bad about it and reconstructed it to look exactly like it did before it was destroyed. Said god made one mistake: the location of my keys.
 * 
 * 999) I was momentarily distracted by something in my mail (or whatever) while coming in the door and absent-mindedly put the keys in my pocket. Having put my keys on the filing cabinet so many times, my brain filled in the gaps and had me incorrectly remember putting the keys on the filing cabinet.
 * Which theory is most likely correct?
 * Back to our authors. Which is more likely correct:
 * 1) Blah, blah, blah aliens/multiverse/space god.
 * 99) Barely literate young kids misunderstand an uncommon name, don't see the name for a few decades, begin to assume the name fits the common ______stein pattern.
 * You are free to believe whatever you'd like. We report what reliable sources say. All reliable sources say the name is, was and always will be Berenstain. Yes, all of the sources were corrupted by the aliens/multiverse/spacegod. Too bad. Suck it up and move on. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Or those of us who remember them as the Berenstein Bears do so because we still have one or more copies with original spelling, and at some point for some reason someone changed the spelling of the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.30.38.42 (talk • contribs) 12:42, September 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * They also changed every record of the name in U.S. trademark and court records, tax records and at the Library of Congress. You need more than "someone changed the spelling". You need an international conspiracy, spacegods, multiple universes or, gee, people with imperfect memories forgetting a minor detail from their childhoods.
 * We've had a few IP addresses claim various things. One took a photo from someone's blog and photoshopped it as "proof". No one else has shown anc alleged originals. Given the monumental claims bouncing around here, a book with an "original" spelling would certainly be worth some decent money and get a lot of attention. Take your "original" to a respected journalist and take your place in history...
 * The parsimonious answer here remains that people simply misremember a detail from their pre-literate childhood and a few will do whatever it takes to deny their mistake. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought it was Bearenstein so I guess I had a double Mandela effect 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:E9A2:AB76:BF8:BF16 (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that the article at least mention something along the lines of "the spelling is widely misremembered" and link that to another article which can discuss the psychological causes at play, the genuine distress people experience when they discover their memories aren't correct (or their tendency to believe rifts in spacetime theories instead!), the person who photoshopped the picture of the covers on the gray carpets in an attempt to point out what it's like to have Alzheimer's, etc. I don't think this should just be silenced, leaving people to wonder what's true. I only found out about this phenomenon a few weeks ago when I searched Google for "berenstein" idly to learn more about them, and was greeted with a page full of references to some conspiracy theory, which completely threw me for a loop. It took me a few days to really determine that Berenstain was the correct spelling and I myself had been misremembering! The sources I found from that Google search made me think initially that the name had been changed and wackos had decided aliens were involved, but for a couple of days I was telling my wife "apparently they changed their name and nut jobs think there's a conspiracy behind it." I'm an intelligent and generally well informed person--seems to me lots of others like me would benefit from a clear laying-out of the facts. Should I go ahead and create a new page on this topic, called e.g. "Berenstain Bears (conspiracy theory)" or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.171.64.166 (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What facts? It's called Berenstain Bears. Some people misremembered the name from their childhood. That's all the facts. --86.129.34.0 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It used to be spelled with an E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:f02a:aa00:d589:a45a:29d2:d1be (talk • contribs) 23:08, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
 * Not big on reading, I guess. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

novel
They have novel formatting? I thought it was all picture book format. Scorpionman 22:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, they've written a couple of Berenstain Bears novels. I've read some of them myself, all of them from either 1995 or 1996. They still have pictures in them, though, but they usually come up every two page-spreads or so. I'm not sure if Jan & Stan are still writing them, though. - Nintendo Maximus

missing book
One of my favorite books when I was a kid was "The Berenstain Bears and the Spooky Old Tree." It does not appear to be listed here... I remember it featured only Brother and Sister Bear, and they were exploring the interior of a mammoth tree which combined equal parts cave (bats, dripping water, etc) and haunted house (there were staircases and evil-looking paintings in the interior) I remember the repeated tagline, "Do they dare (insert action here)?" and on the next page, "They dare!" Tmorrisey 21:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I added this one. Found it at Powell's. — Coelacan | talk 03:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cedar Point
There is no longer a themed section of Berenstain Bears at Cedar Point, much to my dismay. They have converted it to a Peanuts cartoon theme, although one can still see remnants of the unique Berenstain Bears-style architecture. If your curious, there was an indoor and outdoor section. Inside, there was a whole library of all the Berenstain Bears books, some woods (denoted by plastic trees and colored carpeting), a lab and other things I don't quite remember. The lab had this really cool bicycle that would power a lightbulb, lightning globes/plasma spheres, etc. Outside they had a sandpit, a little train, and a replica of the Berenstain Bears's home! I'm not the only one bitter about it turning into a Peanuts gift shop... --Macrowiz 15:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The same is true of Dorney Park in PA, although they're owned by the same company. --Joewithajay 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazon.com Reviews
I removed the Amazon.com reviews for several reasons:


 * 1) These reviews are informal rantings made by beings with names such as JamieX-Treme, and so that doesn't make a source of any consequence, nor could you base any facts on them since they are open to considerable dispute
 * 2) They unessesarily made the article %50 longer, and much harder to read

unfortunately that leaves the religion controversy unsourced. Bantosh 9:32, 19 June 2006

Examples of critical user reviews from Amazon.com:


 * "I was a fan of the Berenstain Bears as a kid and as I grew up I respected the way they could address difficult issues in an open minded, positive, and non-biased manner. Thus, I was surprised when I read this title. Expecting maybe a look at world religions or some such, I was disappointed to find it only looked at Christianity."- Zappaphile


 * "I love all of The Berenstein Bear books. I've been reading them since I've been a kid. I'm now 20 years old and I still read the books. But this one offends me. I love Jan & Stan Berenstain, but why did they have to bring 'God' into the series? I am an atheist, and hearing/reading the word 'God' makes me sick! I'm sick of people being obsessed with all these mythical gods and stuck up in religion! I crave the day that religion and the belief in gods is completely destroyed from people's minds. Bringing 'God' into my favorite children's book series is an absolute disgrace."-JamieX-Treme


 * "I'm 24 years old and have always liked the Berenstain Bears books because they are fun and tackle serious issues in a very human way. "The Big Question," however, left me wondering if this book was meant to urge kids to become Christian. While I'm not always so quick to jump onto the "conspiracy" bandwagon, it seems that this story could have been handled much differently. Unlike the other books, it appeals to only one audience-- Christian. I am Jewish and agnostic. I know some Jews, Christians, Muslims, Wiccans/Pagans, Buddists, atheists, and agnostics. What bothers me is that Mama answers Sister's question as if she KNOWS the answer. Why not tell sister that this is a tough question? There are many religions, many beliefs, and we have to respect all of these beliefs and that, ultimately, nobody really knows the answer? Why not tell her that many believe in one or many gods, and others don't believe in a god at all? Maybe then Mama could have said that she believes in God, and then taken the family to church (or wherever) to teach Sister about one of many ways of looking at the world, instead of insinuating that Christianity has all the answers?"-"Animation Junkie"

Examples of positive user reviews from Amazon.com:


 * "This Book is one of my favorites out of the Berestain Bear Collection. The book deals with the question how did we come to be, who created us ? The writers give their view by taking the family to church and show what they learn. This book is a rare collection and it gives me great pleasure to know that my kids can read a book like this. Coming from a strong Christain home I can say this book hits a spot on our family book case."-A Reader


 * "This book is another hit to add with the Berenstain Bear Collection. I thank God that there are still books out there that still teach kids a lesson and entertains them at the same time. These books are truley a good way to get your kids motivatived to read, instead of watching TV. So I give this book and all the other Berenstain Bear books 5 Stars."-A reader

Example of a Neutral Review from Amazon.com:


 * "I grew up with the Berenstain Bears, reading them and having them read to me both as a connection with the outside world and a symbol of morality. While I enjoyed their handling of bullying, Racism, and School Problems, I find myself not that satisfied with this interpretation of 'what is out there'.

I'm a Humanist. Unlike the Richard Dawkinses out there, I don't believe in the eradication of Religion entirely, but in tolerating it as an alternative and mostly good view. Like The Bears themselves and their Grandparents in this book, my less immediate Family were and still are deeply faithful Methodists, and like the bears they were more in favour of using Religion as a connection between different people rather than a seperation between different faiths.

Richard Dawkins and some similarly-minded reviewers on this very page fall into the trap of believing that Religion is only one thing, and in their idea it is a force that makes people kill other people for a holy wars. Yet look into the stories of Buddhism and the traditions of Judeaism, spend one morning in a methodist Church and an afternoon in a Mosque, and you can see that the Average true believer couldn't care less who doesn't worship the way they do - all that matters to them Religion-Wise is Pleasing God, and the biggest rule of all Religions is: 'Do Unto Others as youw ould have them Do Unto You'...

...All I'm saying is that though I deeply respect all of the Berenstain family, it might be wise to revise their introduction to Religion. Children, when books are read to them, are 'Clean Slates' - their ideas are new and only vaguely affected by outside influence. Unlike TV & Gaming machines, a Book can give them an informed opinion of a subject - so we have to be careful not to give them one view, but let them choose from several." - Alex 'Gecko' Nuan.

Happy Meal Books?
I own a book, "The Berenstein Bears and the Busy Beavers" or something like that. They were given away in a kid's meal or some promotion. It is not mentioned and I know that 3 other books are mentioned on the back cover of the book. Anyone know about these and why they aren't listed? 162.83.123.76 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Listcruft?
This page seems very listy... is this really necessary? Timbatron 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

someone recently put in that papa bear is "gay"...

this must be someone's malicious act12.36.123.2 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to find that post. It is no longer available. Ninjaflight (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Chronology of the Books?
I wish someone would please list the books in chronological order as they were published, or maybe put the year they were first published at the end of each title. Like they do for other authors. Whoever out there knows the dates, please try. I would like to know which were the books from the 70s and 80s, regardless of their format. The article only makes clear that The Big Honey Hunt was the first. I would find it very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.47.31.5 (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Berenstain Bears and the Big Question
Has there ever any controversy over the fact that this book promotes religion to young children? 70.179.52.204 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Over the past 5 years about seven of the Bears' books have been overtly Christian. Although there has been some discussion on the internet, I would not call it a "controversy."  Personally it has caused some annoyance; my child got hooked on the books and will grab anything with the Bears on the cover.  We are not a Christian family, and it's hard to explain why I won't read those but WILL read "The Messy Room."  There is one "The Berenstain Bears Do Their Best" which is a complete blindside.  --Bridgecross (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

GetReligion, the blog that reviews religious news stories has an entry for this controversy: http://www.getreligion.org/2010/10/new-yorker-fears-berenstain-bears/ in which they castigate the New Yorker's blog entry http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2010/10/the-berenstain-bears-get-an-app-and-find-god.html where the originator's son, Mike, explicitly says that he's moved the series in a Christian direction.
 * Over the years, my parents and I often heard from Christian families how much they appreciate the values-based themes of our books. By dealing with religion through the fun and laughter of the Berenstain Bears, we hope to nurture these families in their goal of raising children secure in their faith.

Jerryfern (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I was coming here to ask the same question, I was surprised by the latest Bears books my son brought home from the library, from the explicitly Christian "Living Lights" series. It was a real shock to me, and I'm surprised to see no mention of it here! Maybe I'll see if I can find an independent/neutral POV source and add to the "history" section? Mrs smartygirl (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

:Category:Fictional Jews
There isn't any mention in the article that the Berenstain Bears are meant to be Jewish, although they have been added to :Category:Fictional Jews. Even though Stan & Jan say the bears are modeled after themselves, no mention is made that the authors are Jewish, either. - Gilliam (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, unless someone points out otherwise, this category should be removed. Dustman15 (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Amen, I mean they celebrate Christmas for crying out loud! (see "meet santa bear") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.127.41 (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you accept the recently published titles specifically targeted at Christian audiences as canon, they are Christian, or perhaps more specifically Quaker from what I've read elsewhere. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, though Stan Berenstain was Jewish, Jan Berenstain was Episcopalian, and apparently that is how they raised their son, who now writes the stories. And according to the Jewish Telegraph, they are not Jewish. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record...
...I'd like to state that I was a HUGE fan of the Berenstain Bears as a kid, I still like them, and if I had a kid, I'd be happy for them to read the books. My persistent defense of the parts of the article that discuss criticism of the series is not because I have any kind of vendetta against the franchise; it's because, as far as I can see, there's no argument that this isn't significant, notable content. The Krauthammer piece was widely quoted as part of Stan Berenstain's obituary, for heaven's sake. And, oh my GOD, is it more interesting than a "Praise" section consisting of a few random quotes about how flippin' awesome the Berenstain Bears are. At least, I think so.

I would actually like to include more content in praise of the Bears, but I've had difficulty finding adequate sources. As I see it, the sources for the negative criticism are significant pieces, by significant writers, in significant publications. I don't want to tack on to the end, "Oh, and here's a quote by some random person in some tiny newspaper who includes the Berenstain Bears on a list of books that will make your kid less nervous about his first day of school." I would like to find commentary or accolades about the books that approaches the same level of notability as the current sources, and that happens to be positive rather than negative, as opposed to putting something in just because it's positive.

I don't think it's casting the Berenstain Bears in an unduly negative light if, amidst all the talk here about how massively successful and beloved the franchise is, we recognize that some people don't like it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Positive articles in standard journals come up in searches, for instance, the Guardian and the Washington Post. See below:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/feb/28/jan-berenstain

"The pair worked on more than 200 of the books about a family of pleasingly homely and disarmingly simple bears, which have been breakthrough titles for generations of emerging readers. The style was set in their first title, The Big Honey Hunt (1962): simple storytelling with a strong narrative core and a certain amount of familiarity and predictability, written in easy verse making good use of repetition, rhyme and rhythm. The stories were matched with vigorous cartoonish illustrations. With a nod of knowing sophistication between the storyteller and the reader, the books were witty and stylish rather than babyish."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/thank-you-jan-berenstain-for-the-bears/2012/02/27/gIQAsqnkeR_blog.html

Alison Petri

"They weren’t fashion-forward or avant-garde, but they scarcely needed to be. And there was a startling amount of warmth and life, in both the drawings and the descriptions. The honey looked delicious. The morals were simple to digest, with just enough sugar to help the medicine slide down. And they hold up well — never so in style that they went out of fashion. Timeless, timely, and kind-hearted, like all the best literature."

Bookeditor9000 (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been on a wikibreak for the last few months and am just now seeing the above. The Petri piece from the Washington Post was already quoted in the article. The Guardian obituary was not; there's not much there, but if someone wanted to add a sentence from that obituary to the article, I'd probably be fine with that. Another editor has just revised the article to add mention of awards the books have won and make it a bit more balanced, so that may assuage some concerns. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The statement, "While enjoying decades of popularity, the series has been criticized for its perceived saccharine tone and formulaic storytelling." in the introductory section appears redundant since these criticisms are detailed in the Criticism section. For this reason, it also appears to be an editorial comment--espousing and supporting these critiques as the view of the Wikipedia authors rather than opinions from sources neutrally reported. This impression is heightened by the fact that the intro does not balance the reference to negative opinion with positive ones which are also detailed later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookeditor9000 (talk • contribs) 12:26, February 20, 2014‎

You said it Book editor. Ninjaflight (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing Wiki Ingredient
I feel this article has a huge hole in it. How did Stan and Jan divide their tasks, and collaborate? Was one the illustrator, one the writer? How did they develop storylines together? Perhaps Mike knows and can shed some light. I can't find the info in any of the related Wiki articles. Personally, I think a good Encyclopedia should dig into this. Let's not get too wrought up with the criticism, which most people don't care about. Let's tell the story here. Tx Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The article says: "Over the next several decades, Stan and Jan collaborated on hundreds of books from their home studio outside Philadelphia.[1][5] After developing a storyline together, one of them (usually Stan) would develop a first draft, which the other would then refine into a 1100-word manuscript. They also worked together on the illustrations." If you find a reliable source with more detail, you're free to add that detail or post the source here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "worked for the military as a medical illustrator" which appears early in the article to describe Stan Berenstain's activity during WWII would seem to imply that he was a civilian contractor working for the military. This is contradicted by obituaries stating that he was in the army during this period and worked as a medical illustrator while in the service: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/books/30berenstain.html 68.238.243.98 (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Continuation by Mike Berenstain
Mike Berenstain 1951– (at LCCatalog) and editors continue the series.

See Talk:List of Berenstain Bears books

--P64 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Opinions" section
This section has an appearance of being biased against the series. It's possible this is unintentional, but the combination of the opening sentence of the section calling the books "syrupy", "unsatisfying", etc., the statement that "The Berenstain Bears series has been called" all these negative things, without balancing it with praise the series has garnered seems to lend undue weight to the negative criticism. I believe that this can easily be fixed by writing a new opening sentence acknowledging that the series has received both praise and criticism. A further refinement would be to separate the praise and criticism into subsections. Generally praise is presented first, and criticism next. Also, the section should be called "reception", not "opinions" in keeping with MOS. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the changes I suggested above, with the exception of the order of Praise and Criticism. I kept criticism before praise for purposes of clarity. Placing the criticism section containing the Krauthammer condemnation first allows the reader of the article to understand what the Washington Post's Petri is talking about when she says Krauthammer "got it wrong." Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you read the section above titled "For the record..." (which I should have given a more descriptive title, but at the time I was just tired of feeling like a Berenstain-hating ogre every time someone deleted the criticisms and I put them back in). In a nutshell, when I wrote the criticism section, I tried to be as balanced as possible but I had a very hard time finding notable praise of the books in reliable sources. Your revised version doesn't really add any "notable praise of the books in reliable sources"; it adds a promotional page from the books' publisher. That being said, I'm willing to take Scholastic's word for it that the books really have won those awards, and I agree with mentioning those awards in the article. So I'm fine with accepting your edits. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I didn't see that section of the Talk page. I did see the "Controversy and Criticism" section at the top, and it seemed a bit outdated so I just started my own section, probably should have scanned further. I totally understand, don't think you were hating on the Berenstain Bears, the criticisms are out there, they should be included, and like you I haven't found a tremendous amount of praising sources that are at the same level as the critical ones. Hopefully this little bit of restructuring and a balanced introductory sentence will soften the blow for the Bear lovers and they won't feel the need to be defensive and delete the criticism. I also added some more citations on the awards the Berenstains have recieved so no one has to take Scholastic's word for anything. Happy Friday! Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

People have criticized the Bible and Shakespeare, too. Ninjaflight (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Name Change from Berenstein Bears to Berenstain Bears
The original name of the book series was "Berenstein Bears" not "Berenstain Bears" but it appears that the name was changed at a certain point in time and really no announcement of this change. I know for a fact it was originally the "Berenstein Bears" (you can find books with the original spelling) and other editors and people apparently notice this too, see: "Spelling" at the #2 talk section on this page. It appears they changed the name for some unbeknownst reason and never really mentioned why they changed it too -- does anyone know why and when this name change occurred? Also, why no mention of a name change in the article? A popular book series changing their name should definitely be included in the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * woodbetweenworlds.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-berenstein-bears-we-are-living-in.html

It makes no sense, -stein is a Jewish name suffix while -stain has no history of usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.173.112 (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It might not "make sense" and various people may "know for a fact" otherwise, but the repeated claims the name was originally "Berenstein" is lacking a key ingredient: evidence.
 * Every book cover I see online and my niece's hand-me-down copies from the 1970s spells it with the "a". Also on board for the spelling with "no history of usage" (other, apparently, than the current case) are Jan Berenstain's obituaries, Syracuse University's collected papers, WorldCat for Jan, WorldCat for Stan, WoldCat for Mike, Library of Congress for Jan[lccn.loc.gov/n79131972] and Library of Congress for Stan[lccn.loc.gov/n79131972]. There are various name changes mentioned "Stanley and Janice" to "Stan and Jan" (suggested by Geisel/Seuss), middle names added and dropped, Jan from here maiden "Grant" to "Berenstain", "Michael" to "Mike" and such. None of the sources document "Berenstein".
 * Yes, Stan was Jewish. Jan was Episcopalian. There is nothing here to suggest the name was ever spelled with the "e". There is no evidence the Bears were ever supposed to be Jewish. If anyone is positive their childhood copies had the "e" spelling, dig them out, take a photo, upload the photo and change the discussion. Otherwise, all available evidence suggests you've simply misremembered. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I can remember noticing that everyone was pronouncing the title as if it were spelled "Berenstein," but that the cover of the books actually read "Berenstain," some time in the late 1970s, or very early 1980s. The confusion in more recent times is exacerbated, because when people refer to it today, they invariably refer to it the way they pronounced it at the time ie., "Berenstein." But it was always officially spelled as "Berenstain." I remember having this discussion approximately 35 years ago, and people who suppose they remember it having been spelled "Berenstein," are simply mistaken. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of the changing of the spelling of the name/books, the pronounciation makes it seem like some sort of weird unexplainable change that has no physical evidence of what exactly happened took place. Let me also mention that there is no recording of the so-called change anywhere in our records or in any information about books and their titles. Why didn't anyone associate the word "stain" out of Berenstain? Key question: Why did so many of us wonder if we should pronounce the end of Berenstain steen or stine? Also, why did this happen to people with good memory/spelling/pronounciation skills?

The author (or publisher not sure how that works) printed at least 300 copies of the Berenstain Bears books in 23 other languages. It makes me wonder if these other people have had the same problem. I really think we should have some brilliant minds discuss this and come up with a way to test all of this data. There is also more data unaccounted for (like the people who never read the books or have never seen the name)

Also note that Stan Berenstain's father had the same spelling in his last name, his name is Harry Berenstain. I plan on trying to review his family tree when I get the time. I also seen that someone mentioned that Stan is Jewish. If this is in fact true, Stein is very common in Jewish names.

There is also the possibility of unrecorded misprints. There haven't been any turned in yet, and no photographs of them have been found either (other than photoshopped ones)

My personal opinion: To me, it is more unlikely that so many people (especially the ones who are good at memory/spelling/pronounciation) are making a mistake of this magnitude, especially in all three fields at once, but that is just an opinion. I find it highly unlikely, but I never threw it out as a possibility. Perhaps we did make a mistake. I understand that the human memory is anything but perfect, but is it really possible for so many of us to have the exact same "false" memory? Also, did we simply remember it that way just because somebody else suggested it? I do realize that maybe most of the people who made this so called "mistake" may also not have good memory/spelling/pronounciation skills. Thank you for reading through this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymoususer620 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * {This response was to an earlier version of the above comment, prior to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berenstain_Bears&curid=2052193&diff=632090631&oldid=631964581 this revision.)
 * At the moment, ebay has a listing for a 1962 first edition of their first book: "The Big Honey Hunt" by Stanley and Janice Berenstain. The last name is Berenstain. All available evidence -- other than vague memories from childhood -- says it always has been. "Play it again, Sam." is not in Casablanca. Darth Vader never said, "Luke, I am your father." Kirk never said, "Beam me up, Scotty". Carl Sagan never said "billions and billions", except to say that he never said it. Human memory is not perfect. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit your comments once someone has responded to them. Doing so can change the meaning of the response in ways the editor did not intend. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Edited-The statement about Berenstain Bears name being changed simply is not true. You will not find a single book called "The Berenstein Bears". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.46.244 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, seems to be a nonissue to me, all evidence points to "Berenstain" always being the spelling of the books because it was the spelling of the family name from before the first book. Most likely just a misunderstanding caused by the popularity of Leonard Bernstein at the same time the Berenstain books were gaining popularity. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have photographic evidence of the Berenstein Bears books having existed. I found these in my attic. Here is the picture. http://imgur.com/dmAGrmL Can we please get a section about the name change? I don't know why people are so resistant to talking about the mysterious name change.104.200.154.3 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted yet another anonymous SPA IP's change to my comment. They argued that I can't spell "came", based on my typo, that it was audacious to say that young children are "barely literate" and that, much to my surprise, I am a guy. Therefore, my argument that EVERY reliable source says it's "Berenstain" is wrong. Their counter argument is "It's Berenstein." Compelling evidence there.
 * Now we have "photographic evidence". It's a photo of books they "found in (their) attic". Here is the photo they found on the Internet and edited, as it appeared in April 2012, reading "Berenstain". Until you provide independent reliable sources for your theory, this is resolved. Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The link SummerPhD provided is broken; [I found dsrandois.tumblr.com/berenstein this page] instead, although I don't have any evidence it is authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.171.64.166 (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the specific page they meant after a little digging. Berenstain, clear as day. Finbob83 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I only became aware today that 'Berenstein' had been changed to 'Berenstain' Bears.

I worked on the TV cartoons at Hanna Barbera in 1985 and it was 'Berenstein Bears' then.

J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.31.172 (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nano - I actually like the fact that people are a crediting this to the Mandela effect. This could also mean that the 12 deciples of Jesus were under the same influence therefore discrediting the new testament or any religious book for that fact. Don't subject things biasly - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.69.192 (talk • contribs) 10:01, August 14, 2015‎
 * Anonymous SPA IP editor: This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article topic. Improvements to the article require reliable sources. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(SOMETHING CHANGED THEY WERE BERENSTEIN BUT NOW THEY NEVER WERE) many other things have also changed from the past and were not recorded in the original way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.110.210 (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While this is no doubt true, we all signed a blood oath swearing we would not discuss this, right after we disembarked from the space ark that saved us from the collapse of the original Earth. PLEASE stick with the oath and drop it. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Names in LC Catalog
FYI LCCN gives year of record creation as first two digits until 99=1999, first four digits thereafter. Evidently the authority records for Stan and Jan were created only in 1979, Mike in 1980. The earliest LCCat record for work as by "Stan" or "Jan" is 1964 for The Bike Lesson (1964) --the second B Bears book, i think. The only later records for work as by "Stanley" or "Janice" are from 1967 and 1978--for 1971 publication, their names given in square brackets. --P64 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * : 1951 LCCatalog record for Berenstains' Baby Book (1951) by Stanley and Janice --earliest in catalog for either author
 * 62015115: 1962 LCCat record for The Big Honey Hunt (1962) by Stanley and Janice
 * See also and, above.
 * The Library of Congress authority record for son Michael/Mike Berenstain --which now makes "Mike" primary and "Michael" variant-- was created in 1980 (first two numerical digits of ). There are five earlier LCCat records for his works, all as by "Michael", including earliest 1975 for 1976 publication and earliest as writer 1977 . The earliest with "Berenstain bear" titles are bear scouts books published 1995, eg  --96pp. and presumably the "novels" discussed above. Catalog records for his works show "Michael" exclusively through 1999 (picture books, and aparently the last Bear Scouts); exclusively "Mike" thereafter, earliest 2003 . --P64 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Berenstain is not German Jews, they are Ukrainian Jews. Ninjaflight (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting protection
I'm not going to pick a side on the Berenstain or Berenstein fiasco, but regardless, I think this article should be somewhat protected. Just looking through the edit history in the past month shows multiple cases of individuals changing every instance of the word Berenstain to Berenstein. Unless people want the vandalism to continue, I would suggest some sort of protection. Snax28 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Snax28
 * I couldn't find mention of this weird little controversy in the article. Perhaps a mention of it would help resolve the confusion? Everyking (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned a few times in this Talk, but not in the article. Even if it was included, I still think people would go changing it. Snax28 (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Snax28
 * I found an article I remembered reading about this some time back. It could be useful if someone wants to add a few lines about the whole thing. Everyking (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is occasional editing of the article based on (A) people misremembering a proper noun's spelling from childhood or (B) the existence of an entirely separate universe which is identical in every way to this one except that the people who can't clearly remember details from childhood aren't yapping about it.* That said, the edits aren't frequent enough to merit page protection. As to adding content to ward off the edits, we would need discussion of this in a reliable source that is discussing the Berenstain Bears not the supposed effect. Otherwise, the supposed effect is simply not significant to the Berenstain Bears, the subject of this article. As an example: A source discussing Futurama will likely mention Richard Nixon's head. Richard Nixon's head, therefore, is mentioned in Futurama. A source on Richard Nixon is unlikely to mention Futurama. Richard Nixon does not mention Futurama. (Similarly, Gerald Ford does discuss SNL because the New York Times quotes Ford discussing SNL.) *In a cooler version of this universe someone noticed the spelling as an adult, mentioned it to a friend at lunch, applied Occam's razor, shrugged their shoulders and went back to discussing Game of Thrones. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It does happen quite a lot though that someone changes it to "-stein". I'd rather not add text about the Mandela effect, I think it would detract from the article, which is supposed to be about the franchise, not people's delusions about the spellin. If protection is not appropriate, what about creating a template that would go on the top of the page advising would-be editors that "Berenstain" has in fact been verified as the correct spelling and they should not change it, any changes to the spelling of the surname will be immediately reverted? Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a suggested template:

Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Two problems: 1) I highly doubt the parade of drive-by IPs are going to care much what we say. (Clearly, this is not about the fail ability of human memory, this is obvious confirmation of a wildly-misinterpreted bleeding-edge speculation on the implications of quantum uncertainty, after all.) 2) I know of no precedence for such templating and strongly suspect drawing attention to one of Wikipedia's structural issues as part of the encyclopedia would be unlikely to garner much support.
 * IMO, the occasional reverts are a fairly minor issue. If you disagree, feel free to request protection or bring up your template idea at the Village Pump (or any other venue you feel is appropriate). - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "drawing attention to one of Wikipedia's structural issues as part of the encyclopedia", articles have cleanup templates, templates when a merger has been suggested, etc., these would all seem to be just as much drawing attention to Wikipedia's structural issues inside articlespace as my suggestion, perhaps even moreso. I don't see a whole lot of difference. Just because something hasn't been done before is not necessarily a reason not to do it now; most if not all of Wikipedia's standard practices were at one point innovations. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles have templates that say (in various more specific ways): "This article is not perfect. Here's something you can do to make it better." Your suggestion says: "Don't make this article worse by doing this one thing we are specifying because we have decided it is wrong." Why would we decide an issue is poorly documented enough to not discuss it, but enough of a pain to discuss it?

- Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think your mock template is quite apropos to the situation, it's apples and oranges, there is a difference between people trying to put poorly sourced/unsourced fringe/conspiracy theories into an article which is covered by WP:V, and this situation where I'd venture to say that probably 75% of the people who come here honestly think they are fixing a spelling error, and it's a persistent problem. I also don't think the spelling on the Berenstains' name is simply confirmed by "some random editor", it's a matter of fact and public record, as well as consensus here on the project. Finally, your objection to my proposal still seems to be based only on it not having been done before, and for that I would cite WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE. I just learned about editnotices, which seem a much better solution than my proposal. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pending changes had been applied, but still meant the changes needed to be reviewed. The page has been semi-protected several times since 2012 and this editing to -stein without sourcing seems never-ending and appears to be trolling. I have applied indef semi-protect. Sourcing about the name confusion would probably be useful. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This interview with Mike Berenstain may be useful: http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/arts/its-berenstain-like-coffee-stain-or-jello-stain-one-berenstain-bears-author-rejects-parallel-universe-theory. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the first meaningfully reliable source I've yet seen on this. IMO, it might merit a brief mention here and/or at Stan and Jan Berenstain. This still leaves an odd dozen or so Berenstain articles exposed. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which: - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don’t know why haters hate. Ninjaflight (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Editnotice request created
I put in a request for an editnotice for this article. For those unfamiliar with editnotices (as I was until today), an editnotice is only displayed when someone clicks on the "edit" tab, and informs them of a common incorrect edit before they make it. This will of course not deter the determined vandals and conspiracy theorists, but should reduce the number of good-faith editors who think they are correcting a misspelling. If you are interested in giving input on the exact wording of the editnotice, you may do so here: Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Berenstain Bears Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: Editnotice request has been approved and editnotice is now activated to be seen by anyone attempting to edit the article. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Off topic chat
Spelling

It "was" Berenstein Bears. I took survey of it. I used to own the whole child's hard-back collection of the Berenstein Bears and it was one of my favorites growing up. My parents know they didn't misinterpret the title and all of my neighbors know as well. Even the young mother I gave the series to, knows it wasn't Berenstain....how do you get "stein" from "STAIN" ???? You guys might not want to admit it, however, I also remember vividly, "mirror mirror on the wall, who's the farest of them all." I used to quote Disney movies as a child..it was my thing. Now it's "Magic mirror on the wall..." also Forrest Gump! "mamma always told me life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what youre gonna get."...now it's "Life WAS like a box of chocolates"...that doesn't even make sense!!!!!???????? It could just be a huge hoax on America, a screwy joke by FOX or MGM or Disney... but you gotta admit it's different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.138.169 (talk • contribs) 11:23, June 12, 2016‎
 * This talk page is for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for discussion about some global conspiracy between three large corporations using um, I guess it's MAGIC to make subtle changes to the history of the world as the world's most expensive, extensive and pointless practical joke. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Categories
I see that this page has been placed in categories like "novels adapted into plays" and "novels adapted into video games". This article is about the Berenstain Bears franchise, which includes all the iterations. These categories are misleading, they should be appended to the individual works within the franchise, not to the franchise itself. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Berenstain Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://intranet.cis.drexel.edu:8080/home/about/press/article/?articleid=274
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808131016/http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/3aa/3aa462.htm to http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/3aa/3aa462.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331065333/http://www.nrm.org/2009/10/the-berenstain-bears-celebrate-the-art-of-stan-and-jan-berenstain/ to http://www.nrm.org/2009/10/the-berenstain-bears-celebrate-the-art-of-stan-and-jan-berenstain/
 * Added tag to http://www.ldcm.org/images/1002_berenstain_bears.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021185718/http://www.playbill.com:80/news/article/155740-Berenstain-Bears-LIVE-Will-Transfer-to-Off-Broadways-Marjorie-S-Deane-for-Open-Ended-Run to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/155740-Berenstain-Bears-LIVE-Will-Transfer-to-Off-Broadways-Marjorie-S-Deane-for-Open-Ended-Run
 * Added tag to http://www.reporternews.com/news/2012/jan/20/berenstain-bears-illustrator-views-hendrick-of/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Possibility question: Will Berenstain Bears comes to Universal theme parks?
Hello,

Here's my possibility question: What would you think Universal Parks & Resorts would license Berenstain Bears and use it to appear at their parks, as Universal's own attractions based on the series, in the future?

commented by Wiki-Ikiw (talk), February 21, 2017, 8:49 pm —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berenstain Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515223808/http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Berenstain__Jan.html to http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Berenstain__Jan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hyperlink correction
I'd make the change myself if the article weren't semi-protected, but could we correct the Mandela effect link to False_memory#Commonly_held_false_memories? I'm sure the link worked in the past, but it doesn't now.2A02:C7D:8A3D:DF00:B86A:4D6A:A9D6:8661 (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅-- Auric   talk  15:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Antismoking
"Antismoking" is spelled exactly like this, without any hyphens or spaces. This is just like antibacterial, antibiotic, anticommunist, anticrime, antidote, antifascist, antigovernment, antimatter, antimonarchy, antimissile, antiparticle, antiradar, antiradiation, antiscientific, antisocial, antistatic, antisubmarine, antitank, antitax, antiviolence, antiviral, and antiwar. These words do not have or need any hyphens. To include them is simply antiscientific. This is in contrast with anti-American, anti-British, anti-Catholic, anti-Japanese, anti-Nazi, anti-Soviet, and anti-State, where proper nouns and adjectives are involved.24.121.195.165 (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Stan Berenstain Army Service
There is a possibly misleading statement in this article--that during World War II Stan Berenstain "worked for the Army as a medical illustrator". This is ambiguous and could be taken to mean he was not actually in the Army but was a civilian contractor. Many sources make it clear that Stan Berenstain was drafted and actually served in the US Army for three years during the war. He was assigned to a medical unit at Camp Atterbury, Indiana where, because of his art training, he worked as a medical illustrator. Source: http://www.indianamilitary.org/Camp%20Atterbury/SpecialPeople/Berenstain/Berenstain.htm This may seem like a fine distinction. But out of respect for all military veterans, especially those who served during wartime, this is something that deserves to be clarified.

BerenstaincommentatorBerenstaincommentator (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Critics who complain about the series
A critic complain that these stories have no sentiments. They wonder where the warmth and the spirit of discovery and imagination in Bear Country is or the subtlety and plain old joy in them? How can the Bears? No offense but I always over analyzed things. I believe Bear Country is not a free country. It is like asking dictatorship to have imagination or plain old joy? Any bear that does that will be put in prison or be like what happened to Dumbo's mother for protecting her calf from human bullies. Take Papa. He does make fine furniture that people like such as chairs. He is limited to capitialism and to the cancel culture. He cannot make Chinese wedding ward robes for the pandas because it is racist, insensitive, and unheard of. Something even less more creative or wonder ness might get Papa in a strait jacket.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023
Description: Link 91 is broken or outdated. There is also a typo from the quote inside link 91, as well as a misattribution that should be removed.

Changes:

Change link 91 from:

http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/its-berenstain-like-coffee-stain-or-jello-stain-one-berenstain-bears-author-rejects-parallel-universe-theory

To:

https://nationalpost.com/entertainment/its-berenstain-like-coffee-stain-or-jello-stain-one-berenstain-bears-author-rejects-parallel-universe-theory

Change dependant text in 'Name Confusion' from:

'According to Mike Berenstain, confusion over the name has existed since his father's childhood, when a teacher told him there was no such name as "Berenstain" and the correct spelling was "Bernstein," adding that she didn't approve of people who "changed their names."'

To:

'According to Mike Berenstain, confusion over the name has existed since his father's childhood, when a teacher told him there was no such name as "Berenstain" and the correct spelling was "Berenstein."' Volume-county (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ GiovanniSidwell (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)