Talk:Flowers for Algernon

GA Review and suggestions
It appears a second opinion was requested on this article, and I'm offering mine. I think the article needs to be expanded, and the best way to do this is by doing some more research. Specifically, the Themes and Style sections should be expanded and perhaps a Characters section added to discuss the changes the characters exhibit throughout the story. You seem to have print references, which are good, but I would like to see Bookrags replaced with more scholarly journal articles. I wouldn't consider Bookrags a sufficient source for literary analysis. Try a public library and see what you can get there. If you can't find much, visit a college or university library - you may not need to be a student or staff to read there and make photocopies. Ask the librarian for the MLA database of literary critique - that will give you a list of articles relating to the story and novel. You'll have to hunt those down and you may not be able to find them all, but if you find a few, they will be helpful.

So from a GA standpoint, what I'm asking you to do is add more content - a significant amount, so this would make the article inherently unstable. I would de-nominate it and work on it for a while. If you would like my opinion while you're adding, I'll be happy to assist where I can. Good luck. --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking an interest in this. Someone else has made similar comments and I simply don't understand why this is being asked for as part of a GA nom. What it appears you are asking for is enough content to make it comprehensive and therefore FA status. To do this, I agree the themes and reception sections in particular need expanding. I've already done the reasearch and there isn't much more to say about style. I just don't currently have the time to collate that research into the themes and reception sections at the moment.
 * So, I'm happy to admit the article is not "finished". My difficulty is in understanding how the article as it currently stands is not broad in scope within the meaning of the GA criteria. The themes section, for example, mentions the three major themes that come up in the different texts I've read (bookrags not being my primary source, I hasten to add, it's just useful for confirming pot details). The article doesn't go into those themes in detail, but that only means it's not comprehensive. In summary, the article is broad, just not refined, and is therefore GA level (in my view), just not FA level. GDallimore (Talk) 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the joy of Wikipedia peer and project reviews. Many editors have different ideas about what qualifies as a GA, despite the criteria being spelled out (we would think) pretty clearly. Novels are particularly difficult to do because each one is so different. I would look at other GA novels such as Crime and Punishment, Watership Down (that was just passed as GA), Fight Club, and I, the Supreme. If you think I'm wonky - that's ok because I am. But I would ask the particular opinions of User:Scartol, User:WillowW, User:jbmurray, and User:Awadewit. Their specialties are novels - I just wrote one really, reaallly long article about a single novel. If you haven't asked WP:NOVELS and WP:LIT, ask them as well. --Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another bit of info that might be useful in fleshing out the article: is there any more information on what particular aspects of the novel have led to its being challenged in schools? You mention that it was called "filthy and immoral" but there is not much in the description that seems like it would draw that criticism. Dozenthey (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a lot in the Hill reference, which is fortunately an online ref. Makes for an interesting read and covers a lot of ground that will be useful for the reception section as a whole as well as some historic background on the themes, particularly the whole treatment of the disabled thing. GDallimore (Talk) 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The last comment here was made a week ago; is the GAC review still happening? The initial review was never actually made, so I'm confused. Is it on hold? On a side note, I'd like to agree with Moni in that the BookRags refs have got to go; it's not a verifiable source and therefore goes against policy (WP:V) much in the same way that Sparknotes does. If simple plot details need to be cited, then use the novel/short story instead. María ( habla con migo ) 18:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a good question, and I'm not sure how to answer it. It is my opinion that the book is not ready for GA. I advised GDallimore to contact some editors (of which Maria should have been included), and a few edits have been made to the article but not on the scale that I would like to see. However, another editor found it sufficient, so it seems the article is in limbo at this point. --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Aw, I forgive you. :) Technically, a "first" review was never done, so I would consider you the reviewer, Moni.  A passing "I think it's excellent" doesn't necessarily constitute a quality review, so grain of salt, etc.  If you don't think it's ready for GA (and, for what it's worth, I agree), perhaps it shouldn't be promoted at this time.  I notice it's still up for Peer Review at WikiProject Novels; perhaps we can ask some of the illustrious reviewers you mentioned above to make some comments there?  I would certainly contribute a thorough review, as well.  For now, the article is simply not ready and so would require significant time, which GDallimore has already stated they don't have, and energy.  So, to sum up: I suggest withdrawing the nom and getting a group of trustworthy folk to help.  María ( habla  con migo ) 19:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still yet to receive what I view to be a sensible answer as to why it's not GA ready. The reviewer said bits of it are too short, I explained why they are sufficient for GA and the reviewer essesntially said: you don't understand GA, which isn't very polite or helpful.
 * The themes section is a case in point: GA requires the article to be broad in coverage. That's exactly what the section is: broad - mentioning the major themes although not going into them in detail. FA requires it to be comprehensive, which it is not, so it's not FA ready.
 * The suggestion that Sparknotes is not a reliable source is laughable I'm afraid - it's a published book on the topic. It may be straightforward because it's aimed at schoolkids but that doesn't make it unreliable. Bookrags is verifiably accurate for the things it's being used for (confirming details in the book, as well as backing up statements from other sources) and is a necessary (nay, vital) source because it's online and because of the endless edit warring that there has been over Charlie's age and job caused by the fact that the novel and short story are not identical. Lots of school kids come and edit this article having only read the short story, it seems.
 * GDallimore (Talk) 09:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see why you are so combative, GDallimore. In my opinion, the article does not cover all bases yet.  It is neither comprehensive or broad.  Honestly, asserting that one sentence makes for a high quality, encyclopedic account of thematic elements in a novel is just absurd.  Nothing in that one sentence is qualified or explained, and I see this issue throughout the article.  The Sparknotes or Bookrags websites (as well as the so-called "books" that stem from them) are not reliable sources as they have not been written by reliable third-party publications -- see WP:RS.  Any wacko can publish a book; that you can buy it on Amazon.com does not make it notable.  Additional scholarship from reliable publications is what is needed.  Internet sources are not "vital"; I have no idea where you got that from, because it's certainly not guideline or policy.  Plot details can be cited from the book itself, as I stated before, and "other sources" can be cited once they are found.  In short, this article requires more work and I would not condone it being promoted to GA-class at this time.  I've offered my help and Moni has supplied some great ideas, so what do you say to our suggestions?  María ( habla  con migo ) 12:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think your article is GA class and perhaps ready to go on to FAC, you might want to check out the article on The Hobbit and its Featured Article Candidacy. That article is not ready for FA at all, though it has been passed as A class. I understand your initial resistance. I worked like a dog (so I thought) to get To Kill a Mockingbird to GA, to find my work had only begun when I tried to nominate it for FA. I was very resistent to the suggestion that I needed to expand it - the way the article appears now, is twice as long as it was when it passed GA. However, the way the article is now is quite possibly the most comprehensive collection of information on the book, and around 140,000 people read it a month. If you enjoy Flowers for Algernon - and I quite understand if you do because I think it's quite a stirring piece of writing - honor it by devoting as much time and effort to the story that you can. Your respect for this piece of literature should not parallel Sparknotes and Bookrags, it should put those sources to shame. We're here to help you do it.
 * You have two editors' suggestions about what to do. There is no shame in de-nominating it for GA and working on it some more to bring it back later. If you insist that this is as complete as it needs to be, I am inclined to fail the article for lack of comprehensiveness. Let me know what you think. --Moni3 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not being combative to tell you I don't agree with your opinion, Maria, particularly when you seem to be missing the point entirely. Spark is an established study guide. Your suggestion they are not reliable is simply ridiculous. Utlimately, it's a book that is seen to appeal primarily to children and the only sources that discuss it in depth are study guides. To Kill a Mockingbird is therefore a completely false comparison because Algernon simply has not received the same level of literary analysis. Merely because there is no detailed academic study of this book does not mean a good article cannot be made from the sources that are available. If that's your requirement, then you're judging the article by the quality of the third party studies that have been done on it, not the quality of the article itself in using the sources that are available.
 * The Rag web references is vital to prevent edit warring but not to the content of the article, as I explained. Please actually read what I'm saying. Looks like you also need to read GAN. Nowhere is there a requirement for comprehensiveness. You also don't seem to understand that broad, which is the GA requirement, is different from deep.
 * The only suggestions I've had are to expand the article, to which I have repeatedly agreed. That's not the point. The point is, such expanstion is not required for GA status in view of the wording of the GA guidelines. If you really want to fail it, fine. Fail it. But your reasons for failing it have not been explained beyond "this article could be better" which is not a valid or helpful reason. GDallimore (Talk) 13:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is getting us nowhere. I won't debate the reliability of two highly disparaged cliff notes websites, but WP:RS and WP:V makes it clear where true scholarly sources can be found.  This article should be better.  According to MLA there are untapped resources that could potentially be used to improve it, so what's the problem?  Why not begin expanding and updating as per prior suggestions instead of merely arguing?  María ( habla  con migo ) 13:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping the nominator would think again about improving the article. I'm removing the GA nomination instead of failing the article. I hope to see this article at GA again in the future. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible sources

 * Clareson, Thomas D. Understanding Contemporary American Science Fiction: The Formative Period (1926-1970). Columbia, S.C. University of South Carolina, 1992.
 * Found via NetLibrary, pages 231-233 have interesting connections between Flowers and Frankenstein, its place in Science Fiction, etc.
 * Foerstel, Herbert N. Banned in the U.S.A.: A Reference Guide to Book Censorship in Schools and Public Libraries. Westport, Conn. Praeger, 2002.
 * NetLibrary, page 231 on goes into great detail about controversy surrounding the book as well as "selected challenges" it faced.
 * Kelleghan, Fiona. Classics of Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature. Pasadena, Calif. Salem Press, 2002.
 * NetLibrary, pages 216-218 have summary and history of publication.

Searching for more... María ( habla con migo ) 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Monomyth in Daniel Keyes's Flowers for Algernon: Keyes, Campbell, and Plato By: Palumbo, Donald; Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, 2004 Winter; 14 (4 [56]): 427-46. (journal article)
 * Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes By: Small, Robert, Jr.. pp. 249-55 IN: Karolides, Nicholas J. (ed.); Burress, Lee (ed.); Kean, John M. (ed.); Censored Books: Critical Viewpoints. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow; 1993. xxvi, 498 pp. (book article)
 * More Flowers for Algernon By: Williams, Paul; New York Review of Science Fiction, 1989 Apr; 8: 5-6. (journal article)
 * Daniel Keyes, Flowers for Algernon (1966) By: Heuermann, Hartmut. pp. 275-94 IN: Heuermann, Hartmut (ed. & pref.); Der Science-Fiction-Roman in der Angloamerikanischen Literatur: Interpretationen. Düsseldorf: Bagel; 1986. 399 pp. (book article)
 * Hibiki to Ikari to Algernon ni Hanataba o: Giho to Monogatarisei By: Yamakawa, Etsuki. pp. 311-324 IN: Phoenix o Motomete: Eibei Shosetsu no Yukue. Tokyo: Nan'undo; 1982. 460 pp. (book article) (I'll be ok if you forego that one.)

Searching... --Moni3 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks guys/ladies. I see my problem - doubt I'll be able to get hold of any of those without heading to the British Library... Guess I'll just have to give up. GDallimore (Talk) 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
The synopsis of the short story contradicts itself and is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.36.242 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit this encyclopedia, so do correct errors like this when you see them. I see the edit I assume you are referring to has since been reverted. So all is now fine! GDallimore (Talk) 11:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

IQ?
Was Charlie's IQ 68 or 70 in the beginning of the novel? In an earlier entry it is 68, though 70 is used later on. OrangeAipom (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference to 70 later on is just an off-hand remark, whereas the value of 68 early on is the result from an actual test, so I think it's correct to say 68. From the perspective of mental retardation, I think it's important that his IQ is below 70, since that was a boundary for officially being classified "mildly retarded" according to some work just before the short story was published. GDallimore (Talk) 11:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On page 7 of my edition (a Bantam paperback, but numbering is possibly the same in any edition) Charlie says he has an "eye-Q of 68". On page 88 he mentions having an IQ of 185, which was, I think, the peak. --JayHenry (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think 185 was the peak. An IQ of 185 is very high, but there are plenty of "exceptional" people who exceed it.  (E.g. Stephen Hawking's IQ is reputed to be in the 190s.)  An IQ score is a measure of where a person fits within the normal human range -- it would have been meaningless for Charlie.  I assumed that 185 was the score he achieved in the last test he took before the lab stopped trying to measure his IQ.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.142.124 (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Charlie's IQ peak was in the 200's. After the operation, his IQ was supposed to have been tripled, which means it should be somewhere around 204. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.14.110 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Alzheimer's
Did anybody know anything about Alzheimer's disease when the book was written? 68.32.48.59 (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Alzheimer's disease article makes it clear that although research on the disease began in the start of the 20th century, it was not until the 70s that it was realized that dementia in the elderly was not essentially different than dementia in younger folk. So that was discovered after the book was written. --Rpresser 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Another, Undiscussed, Moral to the Story
I am currently re-reading the novel and I noticed that throughout the novel that, aside from alot of the themes which have been covered, there is a strong undertone of how (and including that scene where Charlie realizes his intelligence, induced by an operation, is not permanent and denounces the scientific establishment) the psychiatrists and scientists responsible were not made to meddle in areas that they, as humans, were not supposed to. Does anyone else sense that undertone and if so, shouldn't it be reported as an additional theme in the novel? -- EmilyGreene1984 12:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely agree. I think that there are certain characters in the book (for example, Fanny in the bakery) who have that belief, but I don't think it qualifies as a theme that the author was trying to put across directly. I think it's more likely that the author wanted to mention and explore that sort of opposition because it is obviously present in all sorts of scientific endeavor, especially attempts to change human nature or human abilities.
 * Also, I don't think Charlie himself believes that the experiment was meddling where man shouldn't. The letter to Dr. Nemur that explains his report on the Algernon-Gordon effect specifically covers the ground of how negative results are essential to the expansion of scientific knowledge. If he believed the whole thing should never have happened, he wouldn't have made that point in his letter. --Rpresser 20:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Lawnmower man
The plot of this book has a lot in common with the 1992 Sci-Fi Film "Lawnmower Man". In fact the Wikipedia page on the film references the book. Should we add this to the list of adaptations?

Rmac1961 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed lawnmower man and tens of other purported "adaptations" of the book from this article a few months ago. There are numerous reasons for this.
 * We need a reliable source saying it's an adaptation before we can call it an adaptation. A blog post or a personal opinion is not a reliable source.
 * Calling it an adaptation without such a source opens up the makers of LM (or whatever other story) to a suit from Daniel Keyes for adapting his work without permission.
 * Highlighting similar stories (as opposed to authorised adaptations) sounds like trivia and trivia is best avoided in an encyclopedic article.
 * The trivia problem might be resolved by finding a reliable source discussing the similarities so that we can put more than merely a list of similar stories in the article and actually comment on them. For example, if we find enough sources talking about other films, books, music etc that was inspired by Flowers for Algernon, then that could be used to expand the "inspiration" section of this article. Of course, if you can find such reliable sources, you could probably start a new article, Potrayal of mental disabilities in film and literature (for example) and link both this article and the LM article to that one from the see also section.
 * The fact that LM references this article is largely irrelevant - that may be a problem that needs fixing in that article rather than a flaw in this one. GDallimore (Talk) 09:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Charley's Death?
I did not put this in the article, but it is strongly implied that Charley is aware of his own death and is telling everyone in his final entry not to worry. The book's title also makes sense in his final line, which is also his last wish: "If anywun is reeding this pleeze put some flowers on Algernon's grave in the bak yard". This means that Charley knows whatever happens to Algernon is going to happen to him. USN1977 (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be a slight implication in the short story, but it's certainly not a strong implication in the novel where Charlie specifically decides to move back to the home - which would be silly if he thought he was about to die. Ultimately, if there are any sources that discuss this apparent implication then they could be used to expand the themes section: theme of fear of death, perhaps, or how the novel has been interpreted? GDallimore (Talk) 10:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

GDallimore, Charlie states that he opts for the Warren State Home because he is aware that everyone around him "feels sorry" for him, and doesn't want to live with their pity. While I agree that Keyes in no way explicitly states Charlie will die as a result of his post-operational atrophy, it is fair to say that the novel contains implicit foreboding (Charlie's proportional growth:time discovery, Algernon's death, Algernon's cerebral decay in autopsy). With regards to the final line, whilst a death wish makes for a powerful ending, ostensibly Charlie makes this request because should he be under the care of the Warren State Home, he'd no longer enjoy access Algernon's garden grave as easily. I'd add that Charlie's physical death would not significantly alter the novel's emotional impact, as the pain of loss remains irrespectively. An issue that I feel is underdiscussed is whether Charlie was truly a person before the operation. Keyes shows us that Charlie takes great pains to demonstrate to Nemur et al that he had a past and that retardation didn't preclude him from humanity; further, Charlie's search for his family is his last-ditch attempt at "proving" that he was real. Nevertheless, when Charlie begins to intuit that he is at war with adolescent, moronic Charlie over who gets to inhabit the body, a duality of self is established, with the genius Charlie avowing that he won't give up the body without a fight. When Charlie finally reverts to his mentally handicapped original self, the question (as I view it) to ask is: has Charlie gone full circle, has he "recovered" his body from a nascent but different Charlie who could only exist at a certain level of intelligence, or has Charlie managed to retain residual traits of the genius self that serve to transform the moronic Charlie? This last point: although his intelligence is as underdeveloped as in the early novel, Charlie appears to have insights into the nature of intelligence that were beyond him initially (Charlie's awareness that even though he wrote the earlier entries in the book, he can't tell that they're his). I read this novel when I was 11 and I loved it; I read it again under completely different circumstances, and it's left a mark now. Please excuse my lack of dexterity with Wikipedia, I'm not really into this. latinoeuropa —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Hi. The point is that any and all such interpretation requires a reliable source. The plot summary is just that - a summary of the plot as set out in the book, with no personal interpretation. Adding stuff about an implicit death wish would be WP:Original research unless a reliable source can be found which discusses this intepretation. GDallimore (Talk) 09:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't an important implication of Algernon's death that Charlie will revert not to his previous state but be in fact worse off? That he may die? This is not explicitly mentioned in the article.--Jrm2007 (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The key word there is "implication". It's not explicit and therefore discussion of this point needs to be based on reliable sources dissecting the themes of the book: something I have had a hard time finding. GDallimore (Talk) 20:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference by Tina Fey during November 3, 2008 interview on Fresh Air
Tina Fey reference Flowers during her interview by Terry Gross on the November 3, 2008 edition of Fresh Air. It is made quickly, at approximately 6:45 minutes in the interview. I had not heard of this short or novel before, and did not quite understand the reference.==:'(==

This story has a really sad, and depressing ending.--Jumpman Jordan (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

66.193.84.3 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Oscar Wilde?
One of the acts of Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest is entitled "Flowers for Algernon". Is this a coincidence? If not, perhaps the article should mention it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably is since the character in the book was named after Algernon Swinburne. GDallimore (Talk) 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Egoboo For Algernon
I have twice removed reference to egobo (or something) for Algernon. This is fan-fiction, as the source makes clear, and therefore not remotely worthy of note. GDallimore (Talk) 13:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you are refering to Egoboo For Algernon by Terry Carr. As you may notice it is written by an author notable enough to have an article. // Liftarn (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But the story isn't notable enough to even be mentioned in his list of works, it seems! It doesn't matter who wrote it, it's fan-fiction, published in a fanzine and not remotely noteworthy in itself. GDallimore (Talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As it's a short story it is included in the compilations and not mentioned as an individual work. It is probably more notable than an album that as far as I can tell made no impact whatsoever. // Liftarn (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove the reference to the album, I won't complain; it has been unreferenced for years and I've only left it untouched because it clearly took some inspiration from the book given the title AND the album has its own article so is prima facie notable. As for your statement that the album isn't notable, but this fan-fic is, that's just your opinion and perhaps shows your ignorance of Japanese pop music. Talking facts, not opinions: the story is fan writing, only published in a fanzine. These facts show that it's not remotely worthy of note unless you can provide facts, not opinions, that it is noteworthy. GDallimore (Talk) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps I don't know much about jpop so I'll leave it alone and I guess you don't know enough about science fiction to delete the reference to Egoboo For Algernon. And for your information it has also been printed in anthologies such as The Incompleat Terry Carr (1972). Talking facts: It is a work by a notable author and it was not only published in a fanzine (altough it was probably first published there). // Liftarn (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Incompleat Terry Carr is a fanzine anthology therefore the problem with it is still that it has only ever been published in fazines. All you have to do is provide a reliable source suggesting that Egoboo is noteworthy. Surely that isn't asking for much. I'm not going to bother to reply to your irrelevant insult about my knowledge of sci-fi. I never said I knew anything about j-pop either, but the album has its own article so is prima facie noteworthy unless or until it is deleted. GDallimore (Talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are too focused on the media where the short story was first published. As I have already stated it is written by a notable author, it undeniably is inspired by Flowers for Algernon and it has been published "properly". I don't think it's a good idea to add an article for every short story a writer has published so your parallel with the record falls. // Liftarn (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one drawing parallels with the album, you are. You said, if there's a dodgy album in this list, this story should be included as well. I pointed out that there is a very good reason to include the album because it has its own article. This story not only doesn't have its own article, it isn't even mentioned in the article about the author. If it's noteworthy, find a single source for it. It doesn't need to be notworthy enough for its own article (although there are plenty of noteworthy short stories out there), but one source is all that's needed mentioning the connection between the story and FforA. I don't see how being published in a fan-produced fanzine anthology is a "proper" publicaion, either.GDallimore (Talk) 15:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is unlikley (and would be rather stupid) to have an article for a short story. However this does not prevent us from mentioning it in the article. If it was a work by some unknown person it would not merit inclusin, but Terry Carr was a notable author. // Liftarn (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not stupid to have an article for a short story: Hugo Award Best Short Story. GDallimore (Talk) 22:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And even if it weren't, I not asking for an article before I'm happy that this is appropriate for inclusion. I'm just asking for a single reliable source independent of the story which mentions it. GDallimore (Talk) 22:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, what about David Langford? Is he reliable? // Liftarn (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The person is irrelevant. The publication is what matters, in my view. For example, I wouldn't cite the http://www.badscience.net blog directly, but I would cite Ben Goldacre's opinion pieces that get published in the Guardian. GDallimore (Talk) 19:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find something published at the semiprozine level, say something in Locus (magazine) or a similar level, then I'd be more than happy. GDallimore (Talk) 19:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just done some searching. Hadn't realised ansible was so well noted. Gets ranked as a semiprozine by the hugo nominators so I guess that's good enough for me if you want to add it in with a suitable citation. GDallimore (Talk) 19:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the original citation I used when adding it should do. Note the text at the bottom. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Yes, the comments at the bottom are the only reason I added it. On second thoughts, I think I was wrong to do so. It's not a significant mention and it's only in a collection of links on the website not any sort of article of detailed review in ansible. But I can't be bothered any more. The more I search, the less notable this seems, so if anyone else watching this article wants to remove it, feel free. GDallimore (Talk) 22:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added a reference to science fiction fandom as it fits better than fan fiction. I really can't be bothered any more either. Given the age of the story further research would have to be done on paper rather than online. // Liftarn (talk)

Real world implications - "remembering who you were" for mentally disabled, brain injury/Alzheimer's treatment
I'm throwing this idea out there for anyone who wants to run with it and see if there is indeed any published research/criticism that meets Wikipedia's citation standards: is there any research on whether the point in the book about Charley at the end, that "despite regressing to his former self, he still remembers that he was once a genius" actually occurs in real life in brain injury patients (or Alzheimer's)? Currently this would be in the "reverse" direction of Charley (regression, without any "memory of improvement) - as there are very few workable treatments for brain injury or Alzheimer's that can produce major improvements, with the possible (some would say probable) exception of HBOT - although major improvements is undeniable in a few anecdotes - which implies that something may be going on biologically in many if not all patients treated, but of course proves nothing. Rockswold 2010 ("A prospective, randomized clinical trial to compare the effect of hyperbaric to normobaric hyperoxia on cerebral metabolism, intracranial pressure, and oxygen toxicity in severe traumatic brain injury." J Neurosurg. 2010 ) suggests that significant biological changes occur, at least if HBO treatment is applied early enough.

A very few anecdotes of late improvement (Neubauer 2005, case studies, not in peer reviewed journal) raise the possibility of increased awareness of the state of brain injury and mental disability itself, as do other anecdotes. This question may come up in reference to the field of nootropics as well, and in the (possibly questionable) field of biological/metabolic treatment and "recovery" from autism. Until someone runs a very very large case series on all parents pursuing this treatment - indeed until someone figures out *how* to run such a series on a protocol that by its nature cannot be controlled as it depends on changes in the protocol based on results - whether such recovery happens remains an open question as far as mainstream literature. However, there are several claimed anecdotes of children who have recovered, and have given their own impressions of their own recovery.

If stem-cell or other biologic/cellular therapy for brain injury become available in the future, this may further will become a "real question" (primary soure] Ning Zhang, Honghai Yanb and Xuejun Wen. “Tissue-engineering approaches for axonal guidance.” Brain Res Rev 2005. 49(1): 48-64; [secondary source] “Gel heal injured brain and bone.” (secondary source) Eric Bland 2009. at http://news.discovery.com/tech/brain-injury-gel.html (accessed November 3, 2010)).

Is anyone else aware of whether this has been explored in a scholarly criticism, that might add something to the article?

216.9.143.231 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Jim Witte (non-wikipedian)

Challenge to the above, especially exclusion of films influenced by
I get a lot of use out of wikipedia, so I am disappointed by the tone throughout this Talk page. It seems to me the standards for Novels should be comparable to the rest of wikipedia, but I get the feeling that some of those posting are treating prose as a rarefied domain.

re: stories that followed this one, especially on film. Flowers for Algernon was groundbreaking, if not the first story of its kind. It gave a boost to the science fiction genre, helping to expand the mainstream perception of what the genre could do. Cliff Robertson won an Oscar for this role, a very rare instance of an s.f. film winning a non-technical Oscar. I don't see the problem with noting that certain films have used a similar plot; Keyes's story was particularly influential (and to say this could promote a lawsuit seems over-the-top). In addition to Lawnmower Man (1992), other films with similar stories include The Outer Limits "The Sixth Finger" (broadcast a few years after the story's publication, and before the movie Charly) and Molly (1999), and the based-on-truth Awakenings (1990). Most people seeing any of these films would be reminded of Keyes's work, or vice versa: all of them mine drama and poignancy from a central character who becomes more intelligent or aware, then regresses. The article doesn't have to list every example; it could note that the story broke ground and mention a few of the major stories/films that followed. ProfessorAndro (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia standards across all articles require reliable sources. It's that simple. GDallimore (Talk) 16:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually "The Sixth Finger" is based on "The Man Who Evolved" by Edmond Hamilton, first published in 1931, pre-dating Keyes' work by over 2 decades.  Leonardo da Vinci Talk  02:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of some "adaptations"
Several of the items appearing in the list of Adaptations were not adaptations, but either were works that were connected to Flowers only via the use of a similar plot device or which were parodies of the original work. None of them were sourced (except for the Star Trek one, which was sourced only to IMDB, and even that non-reliable source made no mention of any linkage between the television episode and Flowers for Algernon). I also moved the item about the modern-dance piece from the Adaptations section to the Inspirations section. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed they are not adaptations per se, but they do seem to belong under Inspirations so I placed them there, also added NewsRadio. Didn't have any better sources to add. Puppykhan (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Puppykhan doesn't seem to be with us anymore, but I'll comment on his actions here anyway. The discussion above (under the "Lawnmower Man" section) remains as relevant today as it was eight years ago.  We really do need to be sourcing these "inspired by" statements.  Having said that, I'll concede that if a television episode has a similar plot line and has the title "Flowers for ...", then we can wait awhile for a source to appear.  However, this doesn't apply to the Simpsons and Star Trek episodes.  I've added a source for the Simpsons (in which the scriptwriter explicitly links the episode to "Flowers").  But there is no such source for the Star Trek episode; even the IMDB cite doesn't make the connection.  So I've removed it.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Place of employment
@User:Zero Serenity, @User:Fefu, @User:LowLevel73, @User:LtNOWIS, @User:GDallimore Hello, all. I've pinged you because, over the years, each of you have weighed in on the question of whether Gordon worked in a factory or a bakery. I recognize that this is a minor point, but the article keeps going through the occasional "improvement" of having the place of employment changed from one to the other. In all likelihood, the confusion exists because the place of employment varies according to the particular version of the work (i.e., short story, novel, movie, television presentation, etc.). I think the best way to put a stop to these "improvements" is to place a statement in the flush language at the start of the "Synopsis" section, stating that some details in the story vary according to the version and then explicitly stating that the place of employment is one of those details. But before I do that, I want to get my facts straight. Would each of you be so kind as to weigh in on precisely which version you were looking to, and what that version actually said about the place of employment? I'll get the ball rolling by saying that the version that I own is the English-language short story and that it has Gordon working at the Donnegan Plastic Box Company. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the short story its a factory and in the movie its a bakery. I go with the original version. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 03:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flowers for Algernon. 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/20110605082209/http://www.sfwa.org/awards/archive/pastwin.htm to http://www.sfwa.org/awards/archive/pastwin.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151006051106/http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/fashion-and-entertainment/hollywood-exclusive/a-talk-with-the-simpsons-al-jean-on-the-show-s-25th-anniversary-season.html to http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/fashion-and-entertainment/hollywood-exclusive/a-talk-with-the-simpsons-al-jean-on-the-show-s-25th-anniversary-season.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) 21:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Where he works in the story vs. novel and adaptation.
In the novel and adaptation he worked at "Donner's Bakery" but in the short story, which I have a copy in front of me says he worked at "Donnegan's Plastic Box Company" but the article for the short story still says he works at a bakery. Although it's minor I think it's something that should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Movie Fan (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)