Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird/Archive 4

Calpurnia Tate
It's astonishing that this article makes almost no mention of Calpurnia Tate, the Finches' housekeeper and a central moral force in the novel. The few references to her, as an illustration of "the entertaining methods used to drive the plot," and (outrageously) as "an updated version of the 'contented slave' motif," are almost worse than no mention at all. I can't offer anything but original research on the topic, but somebody with time and access to a good library can surely find some learned commentary on her role. I should think that particular attention should be paid to the way racial division affects Cal's relationship with the Finch family, and to the way in which her stern but loving upbringing of the Finch children (whose natural mother died when Scout was an infant and Jem a very small boy) both reinforces the Segregation code (e.g., she tells Scout that Jem is almost old enough to start being called "Mr. Jem") and transcends it. Jdcrutch (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I did what I could to get every source available on this book as I wrote the article. You'll note Claudia Johnson's comments that not a lot of scholarly analysis has been written about TKaM, but I did my absolute hardest to find it all. Calpurnia, unfortunately, is not a major focus of what has been written. There are some passages in this article I absolutely disagreed with, but neutrality and comprehensiveness demanded I include them. I'd be happy to discuss what the sources say about Calpurnia, but only what is cited by scholars can be included. --Moni3 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC documentary
In case my edit isn't accepted - there is a 1 hour BBC4 documentary with Andrew Smith called 'To Kill a Mockingbird Turns 50' available to view on the iPlayer for a week here. I watched it last night - it has interviews with Harper Lee' sister (still practising law at 98!) and Michael Brown and Joy Williams Brown, among others. Thank you. 81.156.126.36 (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Circular narrative
I couldn't find any mention in the article of the way the story has no clear beginning and end, but is sort of circular. I don't know if there's a term for that...I came here looking to find that technique to see if any other books had used it - where you could turn from the last page to the first page with no break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.237.183 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's a name for that technique. I did, however, find a reference to its use on SparkNotes.  Not sure if that's a reliable source or not.  Also, I don't know if this is noteworthy enough to be included in this article, which is already extremely long.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Augurar (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

50th anniversary of publication
Today (11 July 2010) is the 50th anniversary of the publication of To Kill a Mockingbird. There have been a number of news articles about this event that may be worth reference in the article. Scott Simon's NPR interview with author James McBride may be especially worth reviewing regarding the continuing relevance of the book. --Dan Dassow (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I added three paragraphs yesterday. Any more...and still, this...is in danger of violating WP:Recentism. --Moni3 (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern objections to the book (Challenges and Bans section)
The article states that starting at about the 1970s, people objected to the book on the grounds that "the treatment of racism in Maycomb was not condemned harshly enough". However, the block quote suggests that the objections were to the use of racist terms in the book. Could this be clarified somehow? Also, I feel that the Isaac Saney quote is kind of going off on a tangent, because it addresses the media reaction to challenges to the book, rather than addressing the challenges themselves. Augurar (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. The objections began in the 1970s that Lee, and by extension, Atticus, did not do more to condemn racism in Maycomb. By Lee's use of "nigger" as vernacular in the dialogue, that was evidence for some parents that it was promoting racism, or at least not exhibiting how unacceptable it is. --Moni3 (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a sentence along the lines of what you just said in the article might be helpful to explain that further. When reading that section the first time, it was unclear to me.  (It remains somewhat unclear to me still.  Do people just object out of principle to any use of that word in any context, or do they think Lee should have altered the dialogue to be less realistic?) Augurar (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Isaac Saney was reacting to the pretty harsh media response to the Canadian cases in the 1990s. I think it's relevant and I don't quite understand what your objection is. Can you explain it more? --Moni3 (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With regards to Isaac Saney, as you say, he's reacting to the media response. I don't see how that is relevant to the topic, because he's not criticizing the book itself or even rebutting a response to the criticism, but talking about another issue entirely (the media's objections to censorship in general).  For me, this is about as useful as a quote saying, "On the other hand, some sources say that Isaac Saney is a doofus."  Even though it might be a perfectly valid quote, it is irrelevant to the topic of the section, namely, challenges and bans of the book.  He does imply that the book supports racism and/or fascism, but he doesn't elaborate on that claim in the quote, merely assumes it tacitly.  Maybe you could choose a different quote from the same source that addresses the book itself, or at least discusses the arguments and not the arguers? Augurar (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote in introduction
This quote needs to be amended in some way so that it won't confuse readers: "In the twentieth century, To Kill a Mockingbird is probably the most widely read book dealing with race in America, and its protagonist, Atticus Finch, the most enduring fictional image of racial heroism."

The protagonist of the novel is clearly not Atticus, it is Scout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobtheseventh (talk • contribs) 01:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not need to be amended. It is a quote from a legal scholar who considers Atticus the protagonist. A novel does not need to have a single protagonist or even a major one. Other sources consider Scout the protagonist. Others still Jem. --Moni3 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if this is true, there should still be a statement to some effect clarifying the quote. Atticus Finch may be considered a protagonist by some scholars (though the majority would say that Scout is the protagonist by the more deliberate definition of the word). To those reading the article for clarification, seeing the statement to the effect "Atticus Finch is the protagonist" is a misleading and unclear statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobtheseventh (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How is it unclear? How do you know the majority of scholars consider Scout the protagonist? The majority of written material on the novel has been completed by legal experts, not literary analysts. In featured articles, no original research is allowed. All opinions and assertions must be cited to a reliable source. I have not found a source that is authoritative enough to state that Scout is the primary antagonist, or Atticus, or Jem. I have found individual essays that discuss Scout, Atticus, and Jem and their roles in the book, but no overarching source that states unequivocally that Scout is the protagonist. You're requesting something be inserted that does not exist, and in my experience researching the article, it is unverifiable. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't found any authoritative source to declare a protagonist, how can Atticus be declared as such? According the research I did on the book in college, the greater majority of scholars saw Scout as the main character/protagonist. I can understand why legal scholars would see Atticus as the primary protagonist, but that is obviously because that is how they're studying - with a focus on Atticus. All I'm saying is that, at the very least, some clarification is needed to demonstrate that Atticus isn't necessarily the protagonist. If you look at the definition of protagonist on wikipedia and look at the plot of the book, you might see where I'm coming from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobtheseventh (talk • contribs) 02:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you see where I'm coming from? If you made this edit it is unsupportable. It is clearly not incorrect because a legal scholar states that he thinks Atticus is the protagonist. No authority I came across--and they're all cited in the References section--says Scout is the only or primary protagonist. If you know of one that discusses all or a good cross section of analysis about the book that you came across when you studied the novel, let me know and I'll be happy to check it out. The quote in question, One critic explains the novel's impact by writing, "In the twentieth century, To Kill a Mockingbird is probably the most widely read book dealing with race in America, and its protagonist, Atticus Finch, the most enduring fictional image of racial heroism. makes it clear that a single critic is voicing his opinion about the novel's importance and Atticus' role in it. I understand what the definition of a protagonist is. I cannot create information that does not exist, however. I cannot cite something that has not been written. If it has not been written it cannot be included. --Moni3 (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I did make that edit - I've never edited anything on wikipedia before, so I was unsure how to go about it. It was phrased badly and done wrong. However, if you're basing a representation of the novel on legal critics, then it will always be a flawed representation. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a library or an online repository right now, so I can't find a reliable (non-spark notes) source at the moment. I would say that the presentation of that quote as the only definition of protagonist presents a problem of understanding for anyone that comes upon this article. I'll see what I can do about finding you some literary sources and I would suggest (once they are tracked down) separating the legalese from the literary-ese (so to speak). A legal analysis of a great book like To Kill a Mockingbird hurts this English major's heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobtheseventh (talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is possible to amend the lead slightly: it's already a long article and with the prolific information that has been printed about it recently the article cannot bloat too much. However, The narrator's father, Atticus Finch, has served as a moral hero for many readers, as a model of integrity for lawyers, and the novel receives more attention from legal experts than literary critics. One such expert asserts, "In the twentieth century, To Kill a Mockingbird is probably the most widely read book dealing with race in America, and its protagonist, Atticus Finch, the most enduring fictional image of racial heroism." That emphasizes the fact that a legal expert makes the assertion that Atticus is the protagonist. I'm afraid if you're looking to change out the quote with something that says Scout is the protagonist...I haven't found anything that says she is above all other characters.


 * This book is unique in many ways. It's often disregarded as serious literature and it has been relatively ignored by academics compared to other 20th century novels with lesser impact. It's undeniable that legal writings put a lot of weight on the sum of all information written about it. I had to find a balance between what little has been published about Mockingbird by literary academics and the whole lot of stuff by legal experts. I'm not sure I can agree that representations of the novel by legal experts are flawed. They simply are what they are. As it has been mostly unexamined by literary scholars, well, I guess the folks who have the most sense to examine it and write about it get more credit than they might for another book.


 * Don't worry about mistakes in edits. I ignore every edit I made for the first 6 months I was here. I'll deny them all, whistling casually. But since this is a featured article, the standards have to be very high for all material included. --Moni3 (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand perfectly! Thanks for letting me put in my two cents. I'll see what I can do for ya in the literary circle.Bobtheseventh (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding my two cents: not much to be found in the literary scholarship, but a surprising number of articles in legal journals. The best bet might be to have a look at the fairly newly released Student's encyclopedia of American literary characters, Volume 1 to see how the editors define the characters in TKAM. Clearly Scout is the narrator, as this article indicates. Without sources supporting otherwise, it has to remain as is per WP:V. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Moni3
I would like to know why Moni3 has an apparent monopoly on the content of, and contributions to, this article. I recently made a few grammatical corrections to the article, and they were immediately reversed by Moni3 with the unqualified comment, "material flows better in previous version." The question is, "material flows better according to which standard--or whose." I clicked on the "View history" hyperlink and saw that the vast majority of the entries were contributions, or reversals of others' contributions, by Moni3. I have recently developed an interest in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and Harper Lee, and I feel strongly that my contributions are as valid as anyone else's. I would like to know Wikipedia's position on the editing of this article.

209.239.16.184 (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Jdlankin


 * I don't own the article, but I wrote it. It's a collaborative encyclopedia, and that sounds super until the reality is that as articles become featured editors continue to tweak constantly, move, shift, and rearrange, and without one or a few editors looking to make sure the article is cohesive, the quality degrades. I've made over 450 edits to the article since 2007.


 * So tell me what was offensive or unclear about the writing that compelled you to change it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can claim to have written the article when it was originally written three years before you started contributing to it. Under your premise, why should someone else not be able to make substantial changes and then claim that he or she wrote it? The operative word in your response is "collaborative." Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and that means that many people contribute to it. Are you a Wikipedia staff editor? Otherwise, if you want to maintain complete control over an article, may I suggest you publish it in a non-interactive medium such as in print or on your own Web site?

As to my changes, in my opinion, there are too many fragments, e.g. "Born in 1926,". There are more fragments in the first paragraph of the article than in the first page of TKaM. You also haven't answered my question, "Material flows better to which standard--or whose?"

209.239.16.184 (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Jdlankin


 * It's true the article was created long before I became a member of Wikipedia. In August 2007 I suggested on the talk page (here in the archives) that the article should be restructured and improved. This is what it looked like around the time I began rewriting it. You can read through the archives to see the various discussions about how to improve the article and it went through many edits from various Wikipedians to be the best it can be. The article, therefore, is the result of the efforts of several editors making suggestions and copy editing. Material flows better to meet the standard of writing for featured articles. Whose standard is, as you appropriately pointed out, a collaboration of several editors, including me. The issue of fragmenting, as you call it, was not my input, but another editor's who assisted in copy editing the article. You can see that here. I thought it flowed better by drawing the reader in to continue through the article. It has not yet seemed to earn criticism from the time it was added over two years ago. I obviously still think it flows well.


 * Was this the edit you made as Jdlankin?


 * I am not a staff member and I am not paid for editing Wikipedia. I don't have complete control over the article. I don't overturn every edit to the article--sometimes other editors do, and other times the edits remain because slight changes are an improvement. There are some things in it however, such as the first edition points, that I don't understand why they're there and wish they would be removed. But other editors seemed to think it was a good idea to include them, and although I objected there they stay. --Moni3 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Radley is not an absent parent.
This article states that Mrs. Radley died before "Boo" Radley was confined to the house. This is not correct. She doesn't die until Chapter 8 of the book. Boo was confined to the house well before Jem & Scout were born, yet when she dies, Jem & Scout think that "Boo" killed her.

65.189.10.138 (talk)Deborah N. —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC).
 * So it is. You're right and I'm embarrassed, but I fixed it. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes fail
I did not think this was ever a good idea for this article, esp. in light of the massive amounts of anon IP vandalism it got before it was partially protected. It's probably not a stellar move for me to remove pending changes and replace partial protection since I'm fairly deeply involved in the article, so I'm going to leave that up to someone I hope has some sense. Note my objective statement there...

School's back in session. IP edits similar to what has been made over the past few days will not abate for another 10 months. --Moni3 (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This wasn't working. I stuck this page on my watchlist a month or so ago due to the BBC special, and nothing actually useful has come in from PC, and a whole lot of nonsense. My name may be in the history some due to removing said nonsense, but I'm not involved here at all.  Reapplied semi-protection, PC was nothing but a time-sink here, and Moni3's reasoning why this would continue to be the case is valid.  If there's one thing we've learned from this trial, the more visible the page, the less good PC actually does.  Courcelles 04:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I always lose this link
Banned and/or Challenged Books from the Radcliffe Publishing Course Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century American Library Association Banned Books week September 28, 2010. --Moni3 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 149.55.30.100, 4 November 2010
The social note should include the correlation of the novels plot and the passing of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.

The significance of a convection by jury trial and not a simple lynching is imperative. An implied plot line of this great novel reflects the class split of hard working law abiding white citizens and poor blacks. The cocaine epidemic at this time was forced on blacks as whites moved on to more social "herbals of the time". A court conviction in the case would have made it easier for the prominent whites of the South to resist social change and the civil rights Acts which follow.

This novel could be seen as the begining of "The War on Drugs".

Fron the Harrison Tax Act Wiki Article: The drafters, of the Harrison narcotice Tax Act, played on fears of “drug-crazed, sex-mad negroes” and made references to Negroes under the influence of drugs murdering whites, degenerate Mexicans smoking marijuana, and “Chinamen” seducing white women with drugs.[11][12] Dr. Hamilton Wright, testified at a hearing for the Harrison Act. Wright alleged that drugs made blacks uncontrollable, gave them superhuman powers and caused them to rebel against white authority. Dr. Christopher Koch of the State Pharmacy Board of Pennsylvania testified that "Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain".[2]

Before the Act was passed, on February 8, 1914 The New York Times published an article entitled "Negro Cocaine 'Fiends' Are New Southern Menace:Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower-Class Blacks" by Edward Huntington Williams which reported that Southern sheriffs had increased the caliber of their weapons from .32 to .38 to bring down Negroes under the effect of cocaine.[2][5][7]

149.55.30.100 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The first step in this consideration is a source linking To Kill a Mockingbird to, and I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what addition you're asking for: cocaine use? A link between jury trials and lynchings? the Harrison Tax Act? It's not clear. In what you provided, however, TKaM is not linked to this issues. --Moni3 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please phrase edit requests in the form of "Please change X to Y." I'm not clear what exactly you want adjusted here. Once you've done this, feel free to relist it.  elektrik SHOOS  04:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

RECOMMEND REWRITE OF ONE SENTENCE UNDER PLOT SUMMARY
After being carried home, Jem realizes the mysterious man who helped them is Boo Radley.

Should read: After Jem was carried home, Scout realizes the mysterious man who helped them is Boo Radley.

Source: To Kill A Mocking Bird by Harper Lee, chapter 28, pages 301-302 and chapter 29, page 310, Harper Perennial Modern Classics edition published 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoaces79 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, with slight adjustments. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 124.185.82.1, 8 January 2011
edit semi-protected

Please correct "form poor white trash" to "from poor white trash" in the green text box to the right side of sub-section 5.2 Class.

124.185.82.1 (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. That was my typo. Thanks for catching it. Done. --Moni3 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

3rd paragraph needs examples and citations
The paragraph in question:

As a Southern Gothic novel and a Bildungsroman, the primary themes of To Kill a Mockingbird involve racial injustice and the destruction of innocence. Scholars have noted that Lee also addresses issues of class, courage, compassion, and gender roles in the American Deep South. The book is widely taught in schools in English-speaking countries with lessons that emphasize tolerance and decry prejudice. Despite its themes, To Kill a Mockingbird has been subject to campaigns for removal from public classrooms, often challenged for its use of racial epithets. Scholars also note the black characters in the novel are not fully explored, and some black readers receive it ambivalently, although it has an often profound effect for many white readers.


 * Which scholars have noted...? (2nd sentence)
 * Where and when were "campaigns for removal" active?
 * Who has challenged the book for its use of racial epithets?
 * Which scholars "note the black characters in the novel are not fully explored"?

Also, the last part of the last sentence is controversial, filled with weasel words ("some black readers... many white readers") and is written in a manner that is impossible to verify - it should be attributed to a "scholar" who has made this assertion rather than stated as fact. ("and some black readers receive it ambivalently, although it has an often profound effect for many white readers.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xarian (talk • contribs) 19:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead is a summary of the issues presented in the article. Your examples in bullets are discussed and cited in the body of the text. There are cited sections for the themes of class, courage and compassion, and gender roles. The scholars are named and cited. The Social commentary section addresses the campaigns to get the novel removed from classrooms, the disparate receptions for white and black readers, treatment of black characters, and the novel's impact on race relations. Please read the entire article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because something is cited later doesn't mean it doesn't need to be cited when it is first mentioned as well. If the references are already given, and you know from which sources you get the material, then it should be easy to add the superscripts.


 * If the source is not readily available as early as possible, you run the risk of people removing it as unsourced, and, by policy, they are technically correct. — trlkly 12:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they're not correct in removing anything from the lead that is not cited, but is cited in the body of the article. See WP:LEAD. These are not quotes or statistics Xarian is requesting be cited. They are broad concepts that are discussed by multiple scholars and citing them in the lead would be quite ridiculous and wholly unnecessary. The lead summarizes the concepts in the article. The body is where everything is cited. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

english speaking world
a rather broad generalisation that as the english-speakign world is much bigger, i dint find an adequate cite to encompass the "widely-read" statement in the lead.(Lihaas (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).


 * I am going to remove this tag again and assume you are not a native English speaker who grew up in a country where English is the first language, such as the U.S., Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australia, or New Zealand. If you were, you would know how mind-bogglingly ridiculous this tag is. Seriously. The worst clarification tag I have ever seen on Wikipedia.


 * A 2008 survey of secondary books read by students between grades 9–12 in the U.S. indicates the novel is the most widely read book in these grades.[86]


 * You should note, if you read the article, discussion about the book being banned in schools in Canada. The source written by R. A. Dave, "Harper Lee's Tragic Vision" was published in Indian Studies in American Fiction. This cited source and this one about the book are published in Scotland. Sources I could not use for the length of the article discuss its impact in South Africa.


 * In no way is this a dubious fact. Per the WP:CITE policies, facts should be cited only when they are controversial. This is not controversial in ANY WAY. --Moni3 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then lets have a section talking about its international use. If the lead says so then it should summarise the article and you indicate it does have an international impact beyond readership. Then we can add more sourced there.(Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).


 * Let's not. Source material about TKaM is focused in three areas: legal commentary, literary analysis, and teaching guides for grades 8-12 and their age equivalents in other countries. For a work of fiction, the article focuses appropriately on the literary elements while also explaining the impact the book has had in education and law. You're proposing to create an entire section for an article that is already quite lengthy (but appropriately so) to justify what? That you don't believe it is taught widely in English speaking countries? I can't even imagine why you would question this. Would the section be written to satisfy your curiosity? The article already has a Reception section and more information about its impact is included in the Social commentary section. Have you actually read the article or just the lead? --Moni3 (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Facts have to be cited. If someone challenges your assertion, it is by definition controversial, and you need a citation. If you don't provide it, then the information can and should be removed. Even a Good article requires all statements to be cited, and this is a Featured article.


 * Also, asserting that someone who disagrees with you and challenges something you've written must not have read the article or will never be satisfied by a proper source is not civil, and is probably part of the reason that some people are claiming you are violating WP:OWN. To avoid this, please treat everyone like they have the right to their opinion, and discuss rather than assert what goes in the article.


 * — trlkly 13:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips here, trlkly. You were wrong about the citations in the lead the first time, and you're wrong about this one. It's already discussed and cited in the body article.


 * As for the tips on civility, do this: write an article, preferably one that the entire English-speaking world has some input about, take it to FAC going through that process, see it appear on the main page, and repeatedly respond to various editors who had no input in the construction of the article and have clearly not accessed the sources, telling them that their suggestions are not favorable in any way. Do this for three years. Then write 19 other FAs and do it for all those articles, too. You call this uncivil. I think being uncivil is calling you an assface. I'm no longer responding to the editors I've never seen post here who provide poor suggestions with some air of authority, by gently attempting to direct them to the best writing practices on Wikipedia. I'm rather mystified by where this authority comes from. Ask questions. Why did you write the article this way? Why not this? Pose your suggestions with "Have you considered this?" instead of "Do this! It is the only way!"  Helpful tips for everyone. ---Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation Error
Reference number 87 contains a 'dead link.' I believe the article cited was this one: http://www.renlearn.com/aboutus/pressreleases/2008/ReadingHabitsReport.pdf

I understand this is a minor issue, but could somebody please fix it? (I would do it myself, but I am not yet eligible to edit protected articles.) It's important to keep references up-to-date in order to maintain Wikipedia's credibility, I think. --Elliothooper (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:EditionPoints
Template:EditionPoints has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 March 2012
Please add the following text at the end of the "Biographical background and publication" section:

Harper Lee was awarded the 2005 inaugural ATTY Award by the Spector Gadon & Rosen, PC Foundation, for positive depictions of an attorney in a novel, film, play, or TV show. That award was inspired by the American Film Institute survey that attorney Atticus Finch, the central character in Harper Lee's heralded classic To Kill a Mockingbird, was considered the greatest hero in American cinematic history. http://www.lawsgr.com/Home/Spector-Gadon-Rosen-P.C.-Foundation/ Author Harper Lee accepted  the 2005 inaugural ATTY Award “with deep gratitude.” “Since Atticus Finch is an attorney, we felt that his selection as the greatest hero of cinematic history was a significant moment in American cultural history for our profession,” said Paul R. Rosen, president of the Foundation, “and we seized on it as the building block of a tradition. Harper Lee, author of the Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel which became the Academy-Award-winning film, was the perfect choice for the inaugural award.” 198.139.110.9 (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with a much shorter version of this info in this article, but this is too much about Atticus for this article. The Atticus Finch article may be a consideration. --Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It would have to be considerably reduced in my opinion, before it could even be considered for inclusion. This does not belong to the article.  I doubt that it has too much value elsewhere.  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 198.139.110.9, on second look now that I can see the link (apologies--I responded with my phone previously), the sourcing website goes to a law firm, which I understand created the award. However, I want to avoid any potential conflicts of interest here, so I don't want to include this source to verify this fact because it may appear to be promotional material for this law firm. It's also self-published, which is deprecated at Wikipedia. We would need a verifiable source with 3rd party editorial oversight, like a newspaper or journal. --Moni3 (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not propaganda
And that's a surprise. That's what makes it lovable. At least not the kind of propaganda you'd expect. --194.44.219.225 (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

text box colour - Wiki process  - article ownership
Hi - small point, but the text box colour is too deep or intense to be easily legible. If you reduce the colour by 40-50%, it will still draw the eye, but support the text better. It is beyond me to affect the change as a demonstration, so I'll leave it to you.

I noticed some discussion which brought up the subject of major editors who "wrote" the article, exercising what I would say looks like "ownership syndrome" to me, which is discouraged by Wikipedia standards.

I feel this article is generally very well conceived and written, but there are some weak sentences and repeats etc., as in everything, and I would encourage you to step back and let people modify the work. It won't reflect your style as much, but it will be better. The phrase "time to let go" comes to mind. The article is pretty academic, and the general editors will friendly it down a bit, without harming the ideas and content.

My two cents, - you've done a great job, befitting a great book, now let the Wiki process take over. Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Book Drum profile
I was disappointed to see that the External Link to the Book Drum profile of TKAM was swiftly deleted by Moni3 on the grounds that it was "unclear what this link adds to knowledge about the book". If that is true, why are so many US teachers using Book Drum's profile to inspire and inform students studying the book? The profile offers a page-by-page companion of pictures, maps and videos that illustrate the book far beyond anything that a single page on Wikipedia can do. You could of course look up catawba worms on Wikipedia, as well as "Oliver Optic,Victor Appleton and Edgar Rice Burroughs" and Nehi Cola. You could probably find a picture of a chiffarobe too. But most readers aren't going to bother. The beauty of Book Drum is that someone else has brought all these things together for the sole purpose of illustrating To Kill a Mockingbird. It's a fantastic educational tool, which definitely deserves a mention on this page. And if you think the Book Drum profile could be better, or needs correcting, you can add to it just like Wikipedia. So, Moni3, I invite you to take a closer look at the Book Drum profile and add it back in! http://www.bookdrum.com/books/to-kill-a-mockingbird/9780099419785/index.html Mat Teja (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds rather like a sales promotion to me. Certainly can add nothing of value to this article.  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Mat Teja, what does the profile--the link you included--add to a reader's knowledge of the book? External links should provide something to readers that the article cannot or does not. See the criteria at WP:ELNO.
 * Furthermore, it appears as if the Book Drum site is user-generated, like Wikipedia. User-generated sources and external links are not allowed unless the site owner/writer is an authority in the subject. On first clicks it appears as if the review/summary at Book Drum was written by an 18-year-old. Is this the case?
 * If I'm mistaken, please clarify. --Moni3 (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I didn't know about the bar on user-generated sites (which Book Drum is). I find that a bizarrely hypocritical rule given Wikipedia's very nature, but fine - if that's set in stone then I won't argue further.
 * As to the 18-year old, she created the original profile, but as you can see from the bookmark credits others have since added considerably to it, included a professional researcher.
 * What more does it add? So much more, as I tried to explain above.  It's not just a summary - there are pages and pages of information about the book and its subjects here. Look at http://www.bookdrum.com/books/to-kill-a-mockingbird/9780099419785/bookmarks-1-25.html or http://www.bookdrum.com/books/to-kill-a-mockingbird/9780099419785/bookmarks-151-175.html for examples of how the names, plants, foods, songs and objects of TKAM are explained and illustrated for a modern audience.
 * I'll leave it at that. Thanks for engaging, Moni3. Mat Teja (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree it sounds rather silly to have a user-generated site like Wikipedia disallow other user-generated sites. However, it makes more sense to see it in the way that Wikipedia should be a collection of summarized published knowledge. The heart of Wikipedia's five pillars is verifiability. It's difficult to verify how accurate information is when folks add whatever they like (although this is still a rampant problem here). Using a user-generated site like imdb.com or YouTube as a source just removes that by one degree.
 * At any rate, let me know if you have any more questions. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's good, thanks. I appreciate your taking the time.  Incidentally, I see you wrote the page on Tipping the Velvet.  You really should check out the awesome Book Drum profile (http://www.bookdrum.com/books/tipping-the-velvet/9781844080113/index.html) which Sarah Waters herself praised (http://www.bookdrum.com/about-us.html).  Does that count towards verifiability??  Keep up the good work Mat Teja (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Two cents here, external links in the article should "add to the knowledge of the subject", but adding a link at the bottom is also helpful for those who use the web to explore a topic. Who are we to judge an external link's pedigree as "knowledge". If the external site has a major interest in the subject, I don't believe anyone should delete it without cause to believe the site is malicious or dishonest. Let's go with a lighter finger on the trigger maybe? The point of Wiki is to widen our knowledge base, and bring it more to the control of people. A University press or mainstream newspaper is not the only source of knowledge. tx for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyshiverstick (talk • contribs) 00:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Awkward
This phrase: "some black readers receive it ambivalently, although it has an often profound effect on many white readers" seems to me to be rather awkward, vague, and weasel-wordy. I suggest just removing it. There are better ways to speak of its impact and reception. QuizzicalBee (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please provide a suggestion to replace it that summarizes the points made in the Social commentary section. I don't see an issue with the way it's worded. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I will make suggestions. Currently the sentence has weasel words like "some" and "many" with no sources to back it up.

I also reverted Moni3's reversions of my changes, since my changes corrected several factual errors and awkward phrases, and it was not cool of you to mass revert ALL the changes without addressing ANYTHING that I changed, just saying it wasn't useful. That is a violation of wikipedia editing policies. Exactly what problems did you have besides simply not finding those changes to be useful? I will explain the details of those changes and my rationale

1) Truman Capote was called a "soon to be famous writer". That's an awkward description for a young child, as it sounds like he became famous only shortly after befriending Harper Lee and "soon" is also very vague.

2) the word "uninterrupted" is used to describe how Harper Lee wrote. That is a word that implies writing without stopping. It's more felicitous to say that she could write full-time.

3) The entry was plain wrong when it says that the narrator is 6 year old child Scout. The narrator is an adult speaking about events taking place when she was ages 6 through 8, and so I changed it to reflect that.

4) It said "Jem and Scout befriend a boy named Dill who visits Maycomb to stay with his aunt for the summer." That implies one summer, when actually they are friends over the course of three summers that are described, so I changed "the summer" to "each summer"

5) I added Boo Radley's full name.

6) It says "This danger is averted when Scout, Jem, and Dill shame the mob into dispersing by forcing them to view the situation from Atticus' and Tom's points of view." this is not a really accurate description of the events. Scout starts talking to Mr. Cunningham and asking about his legal issues and mentions his son Walter. I changed it reflect what actually was described in the book.

7) The fact that Mayella was beaten was enormously important to the plot yet was not mentioned, so I mentioned it.

8) It is factually incorrect to say that Dolphus Raymond was married, when it specifically states that he wasn't married to the woman with whom he lived and had children with. Interracial marriage was illegal in Alabama at that time so I corrected this factual error. QuizzicalBee (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a featured article, as can be seen at the top of this page. An extraordinary amount of work has gone into writing and honing this article, starting in 2007, which can be seen on the talk page, and it has furthermore gone through two FACs. As such, there is a certain level of consensus from several editors knowledgeable not only in Wikipedia, but literature and excellent articles, who have had a hand in shaping the way the article reads. It would be very helpful if you could bring your issues to the talk page before making changes to an FA, or at the least, follow WP:BRD, so that you can gain a perspective on why the issues in the article read the way they do. Reverting me--now I have to explain why I reverted when this could have been avoided if you merely asked why things are the way they are. After writing the article in a long process, it's tedious to have to do this frequently when editors are not aware of how any why the article was constructed.


 * "Some" and "many" is a non-issue, particularly for a lead that summarizes cited material from specific sources. These are not weasel words in this context. The lead is a summary and as such, can summarize, which is what "some" and "many" does.
 * "Soon-to-be-famous" and "uninterrupted" are issues of style, and frankly, there's no reason to change them. And "famous" and "highly respected" are interchangeable in an encyclopedia article where brevity is the same priority as accuracy and excellent writing. Drop words. As for "uninterrupted"...this word is completely fine and you are doing an excellent job grasping for straws with this one.
 * There is no reason to include Boo Radley's full name in the plot summary. There is no reason for the reader to know his full name. The plot summary should only explain the bare essentials of the novel, and highlight any issues that scholars and critics write about extensively.
 * The entry is not "plain wrong" (in bold, no less). Including tangential details that are covered in other sections, such as "who is ages six through eight during the events recounted in the novel" is ungainly and does not tell the reader anything about the plot. The plot summary must get across that the Scout is six when the novel begins. She is a child and most of the story is told through a child's eyes. That she is six, seven, then eight...no one needs to know this kind of detail in an encyclopedic plot summary. She is a child, six years old when the story begins. I sincerely hope you read the rest of the article, particularly the first paragraph of the Style section that discusses the divergent child/adult narration that Lee employed. The previous version read it as "The narrator, six-year-old Scout Finch...", getting that point across with brevity. If it takes as much wording to say that the narration is done both by Scout as an adult and as a child, that throws a wrench into very fine wording, making it stumble. I've changed this to get right to the point.
 * "This danger is averted when Scout, Jem, and Dill shame the mob into dispersing by forcing them to view the situation from Atticus' and Tom's points of view" this change is very problematic. Atticus later states just as much as this sentence says ("Hmp. maybe we need a police force of children...you children last night made Walter Cunningham stand in my shoes for a minute. That was enough." -- chapter 16, p. 179 in my copy) "making them conscious of the humanity of all involved" is such a general description that it does not describe anything, and it introduces analysis into the plot summary where it doesn't belong.
 * Similarly, there should be no implications included in the plot summary, only characters and action that takes place in the book. Implications of Mayella's abuse should be cited by a source, and this is done in the Gender section. A source should state how "enormously important" her alleged abuse is, and the plot summary is not the place to do this. Furthermore, we don't get to decide what is enormously important. Only the sources do this.
 * Similarly, "Interspersed with these descriptions of children's daily life, and recounted with a child's simplistic understanding, Scout explains" is interpretation of the events and is fully explained in the Style section, cited to reliable sources. It does not belong in the plot.


 * I've reverted the issues I've discussed above. I would appreciate a discussion instead of reverting if you still find problems with this. --Moni3 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: -"some black readers receive it ambivalently, although it has an often profound effect on many white readers" is just crappy wording. The same effect can be obtained with just one ambivalent modifier rather than two ("often" and "many"), to whit: "...although it often has a profound effect on white readers". -"Soon-to-be-famous" and "uninterrupted" are NOT issues of style but factually incorrect usages of those words. To claim that this is a valid stylistic choice should make any English teacher cringe. To defend them by saying that brevity supports their inclusion is a red herring, as accurate words take up no more space than inaccurate words. In general, based on the comments on this page and Moni3's condescending attitude to others, it seems like Moni3 has assumed an ownership of this article beyond what I've ever seen on Wikipedia before...71.200.52.28 (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)RCC


 * No comment on the substance of your post at present, but since you mentioned incorrect usages . . . when you say "to whit", do you mean "to wit" or do you mean "To-whit! To-who!"? Rivertorch (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Small corrections
I made a number of small corrections to wording and punctuation such as changing "her father beat her badly" to "her father beat her." It crossed my mind when I read the first sentence that "he beat her badly" could mean he did a bad job of beating her. In any case, "beating" in this sense implies extensive injury. I got the message when I made the changes that this article is semi-protected. I don't have explicit permission to add changes but I am hoping that these will be accepted.Risssa (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot
The plot is wrong, the town drunk never testified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.80.65 (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Top Mystery Novel in 1995 list
The genre section does not mention that the Mystery Writers of America listed this book at #60 on their list of Top 100 Mystery Novels of All Time published in 1995. Is this worth adding to the entry?

I am not in the group, and do not know why this wonderful novel was voted to position #60 on that list. Do others know why?

The list can be found in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time, at the Westport Connecticut library site, and listed on the blog Past Offences

It is also in the printed editions of references listed in the references of The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time.

Prairieplant (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

copyright and royalty fraud
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22409195 --Espoo (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that this morning! Do you think it may come to nothing and we should wait per WP:RECENT or go ahead and give it a brief mention? If the latter, I suppose it needs to be handled rather carefully since there are BLP concerns. Rivertorch (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It got significant play in the NYTimes as well. It's likely to prove durable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
"David Kipen of the National Endowment of the Arts, who supervised The Big Read, states..." This links to a page on a BBC survey called The Big Read. The program Kipen supervised should link to www.neabigread.org.TheBigRead (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. Linking to the BBC's Big Read was certainly an error. We don't normally link to external organizations inline, and as this is a Featured Article I'm unwilling to break that rule, but I have corrected it to link to One City One Book, which mentions the NEA's Big Read. --Stfg (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Who, exactly, is the protagonist?
In the second paragraph, the quote by the critic describes Atticus as the protagonist. However, in the wiki article on the TKAM characters, it says that Scout is the protagonist, which is also my thinking. What's the deal? Is there some disagreement on the subject? 98.71.51.53 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that this topic has already been discussed back in 2010. 74.178.171.42 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)