Talk:Forever... (novel)

Request clarification

 * Does the book actually have explicit images (pictures, diagrams -- visual representations), or is it explicit text, or was the word meant to be "imagery" (something symbolic)?
 * Explicit text, and not all that explicit either. Pretty tame by 2006 standards. The primary objection that most often got this book challenged was the fact that it was depicting a sexual relationship between two teenagers who do not experience guilt, remorse or serious consequences afterwards.

The book does not contain sexually explicit images (or indeed any images). The text, whilst referring to the subject of sex, is not pornographic. Blume uses the possibly unusual tecnique of Michael referring to his penis as "Ralph"; possibly a technique by Blume to avoid frequent use of the word "dick". (I actually added this information to the main article, but it was flagged as vandalism by an over-zealous moderator!). &quot;Jerk, Beefy!&quot; 15:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

i lvoe the way he calles his penis ralph i always wanted to have it inside me 217.36.215.32 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't appropriate for a book review. How old were you when you wrote this? 173.186.37.130 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Project Muse link
The internet link to Project Muse comes up with a restricted access page and a very general description of the article. A better link or better referenced material is needed. Zotdragon 18:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but the scholars who really care about this likely have access to Project Muse. Johns Hopkins University is a major source of often unbiased information. Hey, I noticed you removed quote marks from a quotation -- you shouldn't change quotes in that fashion. --SafeLibraries 23:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, you also removed a "dead link," you know, one of those red ones. The red ones are red for several reasons.  1) They are a warning that the underlying link is dead so people are not lulled into clicking on them.  2) They are an invitation to others to add a page to Wikipedia to something that might be worthwhile.  Therefore, I'm going to revert your edit on this, and while I'm at it, I'll revert your edit that changed quoted material.  I'm sure this is okay by you.  Thanks. --SafeLibraries 12:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not okay by me, don't presume to undertake anything in my name. I removed the dead link because it's been there for far too long. If someone actually wanted to, an article would have been created for the company but no one has bothered (at least as of yet); but it's not a point worth arguing. I didn't remove quote marks from the quotation, I added them. However, if you would like the name of a novel not to be capitalized, that's your choice. I simply find it questionable. My point on the link still stands, referenced material should be open to all Wiki users, not just "scholars." I'm not questioning the reference, just the link. Zotdragon 16:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll assume we have a minor misunderstanding.  Like the dead link you say has been up for "too long" was there for just a day or so.  --SafeLibraries 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

SafeLibraries, Links should be able to be seen by ALL readers, not just " scholars who really care".--BeckiGreen (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
this is missing a redirect from Forever... (novel). 65.95.13.213 (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Forever (novel) → Forever... –
 * The Judy Blume novel is the clear primary topic. Wikkitywack (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that "Forever..." should redirect to the disambiguation page Forever (disambiguation). 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are several albums with this title including the ellipsis. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Agree with 65.95.13.213: Forever... should continue to redirect to the disambiguation page Forever (disambiguation), the same way that If... does. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversy
I think there is a lot more to be said about the controversy surrounding the novel and what the teenage audience has to say about the book. HaddaBeMe (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement
A section about themes can be added. As seen in some of the featured articles, the theme sections have sub-sections for each individual them in the story. A section about the style and genre can be added. A reviews/receptions section can be added. Also it would be interesting to know more about the controversy of the novel. CamMarie (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference List
I plan on editing this page using these sources:

Fallscarlett13 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Outline
Up for review Your instructor has asked me to look at the outlines for changes that you plan to make to this article. It appears that you have yet to create an outline on this talk page, so it's not possible for me to provide feedback. Please bear in mind that I will be happy to help you, but I can't do that if you don't make any effort yourself. Pacing yourself is key to this assignment and since semester is mostly over, you really need to ensure that you're keeping up with project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions to "Criticisms and Controversy"
Just some notes on the recent additions. The content on censorship is a bit too general. The section needs to discuss how censorship specifically relates to the novel, i.e. factual information on its banning, critical reaction to the censorship of the book, etc. The poll on student reactions is interesting, but again, it is general to censorship. One other note - the tone of writing is more similar to a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia article. Remember, you're just trying to summarize what you sources say about the topic. Questions to the reader should be avoided. A bit of a rewrite is needed. The Interior (Talk) 21:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a good suggestion. Also, you need to make sure that your citations are showing up properly. Let me or one of the ambassadors know if you need help with this! Wadewitz (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement!
I was a little hesitant when I saw the Blogger symbol for the first reference. It is a banned book blog named after Fahrenheit 451 and didn’t seem legitimate at first, but their sources checked out. When a website ends in “.org” it seems fairly more reliable, as the deletecensorship.org did, making it seem like an established, known organization. The second resource took me to a page in Japanese with a bunch of links in English. This site did not seem legitimate, seeing as I couldn’t read it and there was no real text in the middle of the page, just links to other pages. My guess is something was just put into Wikipedia wrong, but it made me doubt the validity of anything that came from that reference, even if it was just a mistake. The 3rd source the ALA (American Library Association) with its list of 100 most frequently challenged books was very genuine, along with the fourth source, which was from “The Guardian,” a respected newspaper from the UK that has interesting, well-written articles. The 5th source was written on a site that was less developed than something like “The Guardian” called “The Lion and the Unicorn.” The article was written by a professor at Wayne State University and the access to the page was provided by our university, which I took as its authenticity. It looked like some of the reference links in the article didn't connect (as if they might be done wrong) someone might want to double-check on that!

The article flows very logically and was easy to read, though in the plot summary, some sentences had too many commas, making the structure of them seem halted (like there were too many thoughts shoved into one sentence). I would also split up the list of characters into major and minor characters, for if someone were to just read this, they might think they're all major characters whereas Jamie's crush of David is not very integral to the story. The criticism and controversy section was very well done, giving quotes as good examples and a little funny excerpt from Judy Blume in the end about the name Ralph.

All in all a well-written article with only a few minor suggested changes in both grammar and section management. Katierenee88 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)katierenee88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katierenee88 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

More Suggestions!
The article flows well and logically, but there are a few grammatical errors. Your sentences seem to be comma ridden, so I would suggest breaking them up, even though that causes more citing to be done. I found that most of your sources were credible. A few from our university and The Gaurdian is one I recognized, as well, but be careful with authenticity of the blog site.

In the plot summary, I think you should give more stock to the characters, if at all possible. I don't know if you found a source that could explain how characters were essential to the story. I know, in the Plot Summary, I would like to know about Theo and how he became important and how Katherine's feelings changed about Michael due to their time apart instead of saying "She knew the summer was over."

I didn't like the way you listed the characters. Though it's systematic and logical, the list disrupts the flow of the article and it made me, as a reader, lose interest in it.

Otherwise, the article has a nice flow and looks wonderful. I don't believe there is much to fix! Dreams-in-Shadows (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that it has a nice flow and looks wonderful. It actually reads like a essay, and has little sources for the statements provided. For example the whole Theme section sounds like a essay,as does the Criticism and Controversy section. I am going to start working on this tomorrow and make it read like a Wikipedia article should, and not like some high school kids essay.--BeckiGreen (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forever... (novel). 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/20091225032943/http://www.judyblume.com/margaret.html to http://www.judyblume.com/margaret.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) 02:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Technology
I will like to ask for ways how to do project that is based on cells Thandeka MaKhabazela (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)