Talk:The Giving Tree/Archive 1

Link to book text
I deleted the link to the supposed text of the book, because it's not the actual text, but merely an abridged version - a lot is left out. The Giving Tree is not yet in the public domain. Keldan 13:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

hi
I came across this page today and it was half complete. I made some small changes and added some text. I wanted to move the external links in the article to a sub section but was unsure how to do this. 17.184.103.158 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC) think_balance

Do you know what the 'YL' carved in the side of the tree might stand for other than the obvious 'female's' initials?

Young Love? John 19:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea. I love that. Young Love. Prestonp 05:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Giving Tree.jpg
Image:The Giving Tree.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to "A Boy Named Sue"
Shel Silverstein also wrote a country song about a man who names his son "Sue" and promptly deserts him. In other words, he guaranteed that his son would be strong and self-sustaining (Sue had to fight his way through life because of his name) and then made himself completely unavailable. The exact opposite of "The Giving Tree." Someone ought to publish both in a book to stimulate some discussion. Cranston Lamont 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed this commentary from the article. - Freechild 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I put it back because it does give some insight into the author's thinking. Prestonp 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any outside sources putting forward the "A Boy Named Sue" comparison or the "Mother Nature" interpretation? Both of these appear to be WP:NOR problems right now. --Klork 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now removed (again) the original research tag. The entire notion of research is completely absurd in relation to poetry. Poetry is, by it's nature, open to interpretations. As with other forms of artwork, it will resonate with some and not with others. Your formalism is not necessary nor is it productive. Would you really want a page with little content have less content to appease you? Prestonp 14:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As the person who first added the "Boy Named Sue" section, I'd like to suggest that there is no original research in it; just a simple statement that Mr. Silverstein wrote these two very different stories about parental relationships and responsibilities.  People might be inspired to draw their own conclusions about the importance of this issue to Mr. Silverstein. Cranston Lamont 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the commentary. That Silverstein is making a statement about parenthood at all is an interpretation (i.e. it could be about simple friendship).  This is an interpretation based on an interpretation.  This clearly violates the spirit, if not the letter of WP:NOR:
 * “Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources. Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.  NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies. Since NPOV, V, and NOR complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three”
 * At least with the initial interpretation, you have an actual source. I'm going put in a See Also section with a little blurb.  If you can find a published source that makes your same comparison, feel free to revert my changes.  Despite the contention that this "give[s] some insight into the author's thinking," we cannot really know that until we have a source.--ProfessorFokker 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm removing it. It's completely irrelevant to the article. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

She?
The article goes back and forth between referring to the tree as "it" and "she", sometimes even within the same sentence. Where does this come from? I don't think I recall the book talking of the tree as feminine (though it was quite long ago, maybe I misremember), and it's certainly not a normal English use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.57.36 (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Rights Genie
Booklr.com is the new version www.RightsGenie.com (citation 6) http://twitter.com/#!/joshbrody/status/50696532156100608 Booklr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.243.79 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Different content on "The Giving Tree" and "Giving Tree" redirection page!?
I see vastly different content in the "In popular culture" section, depending on if i go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Tree or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giving_Tree - I can't explain or even understand how this happens, I can hardly believe my eyes actually.

Sorry about the quoting, but here is what I see for the respective pages:

"Michael Jackson had a tree he named the Giving Tree at Neverland Ranch because when he climbed it, he was inspired to write songs. The 2010 short film I'm Here, written and directed by Spike Jonze, is based on The Giving Tree, and the main character is named after Shel Silverstein. The stop-motion animated Adult Swim television series Robot Chicken features a violent parody of The Giving Tree in one of its episodes. CollegeHumor also created a parody, depicting the boy as a very selfish individual, showing no gratitude or sorrow for the tree. Despite this, the tree never retaliates in any way[3]. The MGMT song "Kids" is loosely based on The Giving Tree. [4] xkcd has published a comic based on The Giving Tree. [5]"

on TGT page, compared to

"Michael Jackson had a tree he named the Giving Tree at Neverland Ranch because when he climbed it, he was inspired to write songs. In the 2010 film Blue Valentine, the character Dean, portrayed by Ryan Gosling, has a tattoo of The Giving Tree on his upper left arm. Ryan Gosling actually has this permanently tattooed on his arm. The stop-motion animated Adult Swim television series Robot Chicken features a violent parody of The Giving Tree in one of its episodes. In The Comedy Central show Reno 911, The Giving Tree was in a book drive book and someone defecated in the box, getting on The Giving Tree. The characters Lt. Dangle, Deputy Wiegel and Deputy Garcia debate the ethics of still giving it to children. College Humor also created a parody. This one depicting the boy as a very selfish individual, showing no gratitude or sorrow for the tree. Despite this, the tree never retaliates in any way[3]. The popular MGMT song "Kids" is loosely based on The Giving Tree. [4] In the ABC comedy show The Middle, episode "Taking Back the House", Axl cites The Giving Tree as an example of how parents are supposed to give everything for their children, which Frankie and Mike rebuff. In one Diary of a Wimpy Kid book, Greg mentions the book and how scary Shel Silverstein looks. The movie I'm Here written and directed by Spike Jonze is based on The Giving Tree, and the main character is named after Shel Silverstein. The comedy troupe Second City Network's recurring character, Sassy Gay Friend, visits the Giving Tree and advises her on how to avoid her fate (he eventually introduces her to Boo Radley from the novel To Kill A Mockingbird)[5]. The webcomic xkcd references "The Giving Tree" being given in eBook form by a tree containing a digital storage device of some kind; however, the file is protected by DRM and cannot be read by the characters in the strip.[6]"

on GT redirect page.

How/why is this? I noticed it only because the Michael Jackson line has a link that goes to the redirect page.

--140.166.130.94 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a cache issue. When you follow a redirect, you will often be displayed an outdated version. (Always happens to me with high-activity pages in the Wikipedia namespace.) Many things like this are known, but there's not much hope they will ever get fixed. The developers are kept busy otherwise . --84.75.61.124 (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

xkcd
on xkcd it was on xkcd today 'the giving tree' xkcd is a webcomic and if someone could edit the page to put in that the book was in xkcd today please. because its locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.116.14 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 27 September 2011
 * It's locked because people kept adding it. The fact that a webcomic made a joke about the Giving Tree isn't necessarily worth writing up in an encyclopaedia; if Shel Silverstein's estate releases the work as a public domain ebook as a direct result of the comic, or reacts publicly in some way, then sure, write about it, but "webcomic made a joke" doesn't tell the reader anything useful about Silverstein's book.
 * See also http://xkcd.com/446. --McGeddon (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * However: Is an MGMT song that is "loosely based" on this book any more notable, or an episode of Robot Chicken or some parody on some website? I don't see why it should not make sense to apply an analogue of WP:XKCD to those references also and remove them. (To be clear: With this I'm not at all advocating to re-add the xkcd reference!) The film reference might be slightly more justified because the entire film seems to be based on ‘The Giving Tree’. I don't know about the Michael Jackson reference ... --84.75.61.124 (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed the Robot Chicken and the website, as backed by absolutely no sources showing significance. If someone would remove the vague song too, I would not object, however, there is some kind of a source for it. Abolen (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

George Bush?
Why is the trivia about George Bush's visit to a Florida school in there. It'd be like having a list of trivia of any time a photo in a newspaper has included a specific toy. In fact. I've deleted it. If anyone can come up with a legitamite reason for it to be in there, feel free to re-add it. --Quadraxis 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wasn't this the book the kids were talking to him about on Sept 11? When he sort of just sat there, stunned by the news? I'm not sure, myself, but that does associate the book with an image that has quite a bit of cultural impact. Of course, if I'm thinking of an entirely different book, please disregard. --74.110.191.193 23:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

He was reading "The Pet Goat". He'd be a better man than I if he could read "The Giving Tree" without breaking down in tears. Lonewuf (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Cultural influences
I've restored the section on cultural influences. The influence a work of art has on other artists is quite significant and notable in any encyclopedia article. Influence is one of the core concepts in art history, see Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence for example - it's how art history is done, you look at an artist and their work and determine how influential it was/is with other artists. It is not trivial at all. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This all has been discussed ages ago and refined into WP:IPC: passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. The references you provided don't demonstrate how the book was influenced by its title mentioned in movies and songs. I'm deleting the section, please refrain from restoring it before reaching consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Abolen (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Section restored here:
 * The Giving Tree has influenced other artists and works of art. For example, Michael Jackson named one of the trees at the Neverland Ranch his "Giving Tree", and would sit in it while writing songs. The 2010 short film I'm Here, written and directed by Spike Jonze, is based on The Giving Tree, and the main character Sheldon is named after Shel Silverstein. The MGMT song "Kids" is loosely based on The Giving Tree.

The Jackson source doesn't even draw a connection with the book so it's out. The MGMT source is very weak connection, out. The Spike Jonez however is quite strong, the entire work is based on the book which clearly had a strong influence on Jonez, who is himself quite important. This is not a trivial passing mention. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Information about how the book influenced the movie should go to the movie's article (and it's already there). In this article, mentioned be the facts which influenced the book itself (or its public perception, or its notability of whatever). From your references I don't see how the notability of the Top 100 Picture Book was influenced by a Sundance indie. Abolen (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Information is not limited to one article, all articles on Wikipedia are standalone and often repeat information across different articles. The question is if this information is appropriate in this article. I don't understand your last sentence, your seem to be trying to establish the notability of this article - this is not an AfD, we don't need to establish notability of the article with this fact, that's not the point of it. We are showing an influence the book has had on other works of art, which is normal in any article about a work of art, to show how one work has influenced other works of art. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"In popular culture rehash"
There are many who say referencing minutiae on each mention of The Giving Tree is unworthy of an encyclopedia, but I ask why it would not be.

Other Wikipedia articles go deeply into popular culture mentions (for example Abaddon in popular culture), and I fail to see where archiving every mention of The Giving Tree, especially if citing why that mention occurred, would do a service to understanding the overall themes of the work.

I'm just about ready to go through every version of this page and reinstate every popular culture mention. Then, if one is familiar with the mention, perhaps expanding on why is occurred would help strengthen the validity of its presence and the section as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seishin17 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Giving Tree. 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/20130201190330/http://www.nea.org/grants/13110.htm to http://www.nea.org/grants/13110.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512035637/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/002-the-giving-tree-a-symposium-43 to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/002-the-giving-tree-a-symposium-43

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) 18:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Student Editing Plans
Hello fellow Wikipedia editors! I am a student who has been assigned the task of editing this article for a Technical Editing course. In the upcoming weeks I will attempt to carry out the following tasks:

1. Verify sources and summarize areas that heavily rely on quotations

3. Neutralize biased language and weasel words

4. Consider reorganization and deletion of redundant info

5. Find sources for claims from "some authors" and "some people"

6. Look into rewrite and neutralization of author's photo section

If you have any suggestions regarding these changes, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowhitworth796 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Interpretations section
Hello all, I have been editing the Interpretations section, as this contained a lot of weasel words and bias. Here are some issues that I would like to point out and discuss:

transportation
Hi I was wondering if you knew this. That metis need to have snowshoes.

Environmental Interpretations
I reworded and reorganized the first few stances presented in this section to eliminate bias and clarify points of view on the subject. I also deleted the second half of the section. First of all, the second half presents an argument that is not supported by any sources when it states "The condition of the tree depicts how humans are constantly taking from the environment until there is nothing left to enjoy, neither beauty nor bounty"- seems like original research/essay style writing to me.

Second, after carefully examining the source for the claim "By the last drawing (in which the old man sits on the stump) it is clear that the boy has used the tree up completely and there is only one use left, which is to be a seat for the old man. The man seems to have little appreciation or remorse for how he has abused the tree" I feel that the source provided (an opinion blog) mentions an environmental interpretation briefly but focuses more on the parent/son relationship interpretation, so I don't feel that this is a good source for this section. I think additional sources are needed here.

Friendship Interpretation
The article heavily relies on a blog post as evidence for this section and in other places in the article. I think that more citations are needed to support this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowhitworth796 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please review my changes and revise as needed.

Commentary
For shame! This is one of the greatest children's books ever and the page is half-completed at best! JD79 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just came across this page and I added to it a bit. It's hard because the book itself, like any good work or art, is subject to intrepretation. The encyclopdia's neutrality rules and all make it difficult to really view pour much of your own views into it. In which case, we are left with a rather simple tale. Prestonp 06:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. If the tree is so nice to the boy, why wouldn't he use a different tree to make the boat, rather than cannibalizing his friend?74.67.228.2 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

this book was on xkcd and i dont know why my post was deleated? and could you make it say on the page about the givng tree please? and dont delete this please. i wrote it edit: ok i am sorry if it was in the wrong section, i am put it under Commentary so it is in the right place now. thank you
 * Wikipedia is not a place for random trivia. Please look at WP:XKCD. Abolen (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is. It could be put in the "In Popular Culture" Section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.29.106 (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel the section about the authors appearance is pointless and should be removes and I also think the "interpretations" section needs more explanation. Ladybug25861 (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)