User:Ericclipkaa/sandbox

Evaluation for Indigenous Peoples' Day (2/18/2020)
Evaluating Content

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?


 * Yes, all information is pertinent to the main topic at hand and no information presented is distracting.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Identify content

gaps.


 * Article actually had pretty up-to-date information regarding Indigenous Peoples' Day, especially concerning local jurisdictions that have legalized/officially recognized the holiday over Columbus Day. For instance, information about the DC City Council's approval to temporarily celebrate the holiday just a few months ago (late 2019) was referenced along with key local players who helped advance the bill.

What else could be improved?


 * While encyclopedias are intended to be brief, more information regarding the historical context as to why the controversy exists would be interesting. Article also appears to have bias as no pro-Columbus opinions are acknowledged.

Review the lead section. Does it follow Wikipedia’s guidelines to provide basic information

and summarizes the entire article?


 * Yes, provides basic key information about topic.

Evaluating Tone

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular

position?


 * As stated above, opposition viewpoint is not addressed making the article appear slightly-biased. More discussion on that would allow it to be more neutral while also providing more in-depth information surrounding the controversy of the holiday.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


 * Under: pro-Columbus (I agree with the concept of Indigenous Peoples' Day but think addressing the opposition would be good).

Evaluating Sources

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?


 * Yes, random selection of links worked. And from what I can see, sources appear to be credible and do support the claims made in the article.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? For example, does the writer use signal phrases to clearly identify the source of the information?


 * Most facts are cited via hyper-link where one could click to check the validity of the source. One or two missing citations. Most sources come from news agencies so are (ideally, looking at you Fox) not biased.

Checking the Talk Page

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?


 * The article is part of 3 WikiProjects, although one is inactive and the article has an overall 'B' rating. Most discussion on the talk page is about logistical issues, although one user did mention that they believe the list of jurisdictions that have recognized the holiday was "tedious" and floated the idea of creating a additional article for this.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?


 * Article mentions Rethinking Columbus reading we discussed in class and overall feels like it has a positive outlook on Indigenous Peoples' Day in general and questions the status quo, as we have done in class as well.

Evaluation for Drama (02/24/2020)
Lead Section


 * Lead section includes a general summary of the work, providing basic information about its contents while also providing a very brief overview of the Wikipedia article as well.

Background


 * Background is concise and provides a short description of the "information and context about how the book came to be." Also provides standing of the book in relation to author's other works. No criticisms or value-judgements made.
 * However, work in relations to others unclear.

Summary


 * Summary is too extensive, describes literally the entire plot instead of picking significant developments and articulating those. Very much detail-oriented.
 * Instead, identify main characters, love interests, musical context, etc. Too much detailed is used in its current form and could be edited to improve this.

Genre and Style


 * Too much emphasis given to 'praise.' This is distracting to audience and should be removed.
 * Discusses illustrations and way in which they work with the text.
 * 3B: In line with the goals of Wikipedia as an encylopedia, the summary of Abate's critique is brief and details some of the major points in her piece. However, the article could further elaborate on some aspects of Abate's critique, including the romanticization of it. I would even suggest including a subsection, as only discussing the intersectionality of race as it pertains to the book for one short paragraph almost speaks to the critiqued made in the first place. For instance, as mentioned before, the white-washing, idealization, and romantization could be further developed in Wikipedia.

Analysis


 * Subsections strengthen and clarify structure of section.

Sources for Prince & Knight Edits
Haack, Daniel, and Stevie Lewis. Prince & Knight. Little Bee Books, 2019.


 * Prince & Knight is a piece of children’s literature which tells the same-sex love story of a prince and knight who work together to protect their kingdom from a dragon, eventually falling in love and marrying. As the base text for my analysis, Prince & Knight allows to make necessary edits to the lead and plot sections, as well as the re-configuration of the page’s content breakdown.

Hauser, Christine. "There’s a Common Thread Tying Together 2019’s ‘Most Challenged’ Books: L.G.B.T.Q. Issues." The New York Times, 21 Apr. 2020


 * NYT article details the continued and frequent challenges that LGBTQ+ literature received by “parents, legislators and religious leaders” who argue the “developmentally appropriate books” are working to “advance a political agenda or sexualixe children.” The text then dives into individual case studies of the top ten challenged books of 2019, including Prince and Knight. The source can be helpful because it provides me proof of an actual challenge to the book that can be used under the “Reception” section of my article, as well as a platform to further expand my research on specific cases of controversy.

American Library Association. “Top 10 Most Challenged Books Lists (2019).” Banned & Challenged Books: Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, 20 Apr. 2020.


 * ALA page includes information on the top ten most challenged books through their Office of Intellectual Freedom. According to the report, Prince & Knight was the fifth most-challenged book of 2019 for featuring, “LGBTQIA+ content… with the potential to cause confusion, curiosity, and gender dysphoria; and for conflicting with a religious viewpoint.” This source is helpful because it indicates the severity to which my selected text has been challenged as well as general reasons for those challenges, again offering information to fill the content gaps discussed in the article evaluation.

Duffy, Nick, et al. “A, You Guessed It, US Pastor Just Said Gay Characters in Children's Books Will Turn You Gay.” PinkNews, 23 Nov. 2019.


 * Website publication takes a deep dive into the Upshur County, West Virginia challenge to Prince & Knight by local religious leaders. The article includes a detailed account of events, including initial challenges with documented quotes and the subsequent responses and outcry by LGBTQ+ and censorship groups. This article is helpful to my project because it provides specific details of the incident and first-hand quotes to go-along, which can be used as supporting evidence in the text of my page edits.

Cowger, Caiden. “Upshur County Library Board Reviewing Controversial Book Promoting Homosexuality to Children.” Mountaineer Journal, 27 Nov. 2019.


 * The following source is a local newspaper article that was published when the story surrounding the challenge to Prince & Knight was still developing. It includes information already detailed in the PinkNews source, but also provides more detailed quotes from local players, with some claims unsubstantiated. This source is helpful because the information that can be drawn from it provides material for my content gap fixes and more direct quotes. As mentioned, be sure to consider how much material is too much for an encyclopedia.

Schmidt, Samantha. “Angry Parents Protest LGBTQ Books in Virginia Classrooms.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 10 Nov. 2019.


 * This Washington Post article provides a general overview, with some commentary on specific points of debate, of a different crisis in the neighboring state of Virginia in Loudoun County. It discusses public outcry after school administrators approved a “diverse classroom libraries” initiative. This source is helpful because it provides another case study of challenges to LGBTQ+ literature to be included in my “Reception” discussion. While the source does not make clear that Prince & Knight was included in the controversy, later research clearly indicates it was (see below).

Van Slooten, Philip. “Loudoun County Schools Debate LGBTQ Books in Classroom Libraries.” Washington Blade: Gay News, Politics, LGBT Rights, 16 Nov. 2019.


 * Building off the WaPost article, this piece provides more specific details regarding the community incident and confirms that Prince & Knight was one of the most contested books by those opposing the diversity initiative. This source will help because, as mentioned, provides specific details relating to the incident and confirms the subject's connection to it. However, its discussion of local school board meeting notes and local press do prompt further opportunities for research.

Battiston, John. “Supporters, Opponents of Loudoun County Public Schools' Diverse Libraries Come out in Force.” Loudoun Times-Mirror, 25 Oct. 2019.


 * This local newspaper piece details specific events and sentiments expressed at a specific board of education meeting where debate over the diversity initiative was held. Like the previous source, this article will be helpful to the Wikipedia project because it provides a local lense with several options for detailed personal testimony. I also noted that an image from the meeting might be used within the margins of the Wikipedia page to provide some corresponding imagery with the text of the new edits to the page.

Wong, Curtis M. “'Prince & Knight' Puts A Gay-Inclusive Twist On Traditional Fairy Tales.” HuffPost, 17 May 2018.


 * This HuffPost article discusses the GLADD partnership and author’s purpose in writing which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article. I included this source in hopes that the information given would be able to clarify what I perceived to be confusion on the page, as well as sentences that bothered both Dr. Fuisz and I (as she mentioned in her comments in the article evaluation).

Haack, Daniel. “Press.”  DanielHaack.com.


 * This is the personal website of the author of Prince & Knight. Under its ‘Press’ section, the author confirms the original publication date of the book (May 1, 2018) as well as a French edition published by Scholastic Canada and Japanese edition published by Oakla Publishing. This information is helpful because it can be used as evidence for international adaptations, despite no information on its reception abroad. Would have to re-structure information during edits.

Rudolph, Dana. “GLAAD and Bonnier Publishing USA Partner to Increase and Elevate LGBTQ Kids' Books.” Mombian, 17 May 2018.


 * This is a book review by the founder of Mombian, one of the largest lesbian-centered blogs in the nation. The review is helpful and can be used for my ‘Style & Genre’ section because it provides commentary on the illustrations of the book and identifies it as a piece of children’s literature.

Proposed Changes: Prince & Knight
Prince & Knight is a children's picture book authored by Daniel Haack and illustrated by Stevie Lewis. Prince & Knight tells the story of a young prince who falls in love with a knight after the two work together to battle a dragon threatening the kingdom. At the conclusion of the book, the two wed (Haack & Lewis [1]).

Prince & Knight was originally published in English by Little Bee Books in 2018 and is the inaugural effort of a partnership between Bonnier Publishing USA and media advocacy group GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). The partnership “is aimed at ‘integrating and elevating positive LGBTQ representation in children’s literature’” (HuffPost [8]). The book has also been published for Canadian and Japanese audiences with several companion books following its release (Haack, DanielHack.com [9]).

The book has received both praise and opposition due to the nature of its content, winning various awards and contracting several challenges from social conservatives across the United States who challenge the piece of children’s literature on the basis of appropriateness and morality given its intended audience.

Contents


 * 1) Plot
 * 2) Publication & Background
 * 3) Style & Genre
 * 4) Reception
 * 5) Awards
 * 6) Censorship Challenges
 * 7) Controversy in Upshur County, West Virginia
 * 8) Controversy in Loudoun County, Virginia
 * 9) References

Plot[ edit]
Once upon a time, a prince is in line to take his kingdom's throne, so his parents — the king and queen — decide he must first find a bride to help him rule. The three travel to nearby kingdoms to meet a variety of potential princess suitors, but the prince does not find what he is looking for in the princesses the trio meet.

While away, the prince receives news that a dragon is attacking his kingdom. The prince rushes back to battle the monster when a knight arrives to assist. Working together, the knight uses his shield to blind the dragon which allows the prince to successfully tie and trap the beast. However, in doing so, the prince loses his balance and falls. The knight rushes on horseback and catches the prince in his arms.

The two thank the other for saving their lives and fall in love. Their marriage is fully supported by the community, who cheer along at the couple's wedding, and the prince’s parents (Haack & Lewis [1]).

Publication & Background[ edit]
Prince & Knight was first released in hardcover on May 1, 2018, as the lead title in a partnership between Bonnier Publishing USA and GLAAD. The launch received significant press attention from several news publications, including A Plus, the Chicago Tribune, Gay Times, NewNowNext, PinkNews, PopSugar, The TODAY Show and  TheWrap.

In interviews with GLAAD and HuffPost, Haack has noted that he was inspired to write Prince & Knight after seeing a dearth of LGBTQ+ representation in children's media, especially those featuring human characters. In crafting the narrative, he specifically thought "it would be fun to play around with the Prince Charming and Knight in shining armor" archetypes” and wanted to show kids that gay people “are just as capable of being the brave heroes, and are just as worthy as anyone of being in love.”

GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis, commenting on the nature of the Bonnier Publishing/GLAAD partnership and importance of queer-representation in literature, said, “[Books] are a natural progression to encourage awareness, kindness, and acceptance at an early age” and that “it’s so important that my two kids and others like them see their families reflected in the media” (HuffPost [8]).

In addition to the original hardcover copy, French (Le Prince Et Le Chevalier) and Japanese (王子と騎士) editions were published by Scholastic Canada and Oakla Publishing, respectively (Haack, DanielHack.com [9]). A special paperback edition was released in 2019 by Scholastic Corporation for its in-school Scholastic Book Club, and a board book version is scheduled for release in 2020. A companion book, Maiden & Princess, co-authored by Haack and Isabel Galupo, was released in April 2019.

Style & Genre[ edit]
According to Haack’s personal website, the publication description characterizes Prince & Knight as “a children’s picture book” (Haack, DanielHack.com [9]) for ages 4-8 (Kirkus Review, 29) that combines text with full-page illustrations by Stevie Lewis.

As noted by Mombian founder Dana Rudoulph, Prince & Knight echoes the name and plot of King & King. Rudoulph argues that opposed to the “frenetic” and “off-kilter” illustrations in King & King, those of Prince & Knight “have a charming, Disney-like quality to them” (Rudolph [10]). Additionally, Booklist, in a review of the piece, states the duo of Haack and Lewis have “constructed a colorful and entertaining tale exploring sexuality, acceptance, and young love” (Haack, DanielHack.com [9]).

Awards and Industry Reviews[ edit]
Prince & Knight has received positive industry reviews since its release. Kirkus Reviews gave it a starred review, calling it "victorious" and the "premier queer-friendly fairy tale for this age set." The School Library Journal said, "This is an illuminating fairy tale for young readers...A great addition to any library or classroom." Similarly, the Chicago Tribune wrote that "newcomer Daniel Haack has penned a much-needed LGBT fairy tale [that] hits just the right notes; it’s at once matter-of-fact and alive to the magic of true love." Bookish noted "Haack has written a beautifully inclusive fairy tale made all the more special by Stevie Lewis’s magical illustrations."

Prince & Knight was named to the American Library Association's 2019 Rainbow List Top Ten. It was also a Goodreads Choice Award nominee for Best Picture Book and was named a best children's book of 2018 by Amazon, Kirkus Reviews, PopSugar and the Chicago Tribune.

Censorship Challenges[ edit]
According to the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, Prince & Knight was the fifth most challenged book of 2019 (ALA).

Deborah Caldwell Stone, executive director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom, says, “Our concern [as an organization] is the fact that many of the books are age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate books intended for young people”  but are challenged because “they allegedly advance a political agenda or sexualize children” (NYT). According to findings from the ALA, the challenges came from parents, legislators, and religious leaders (NYT) (ALA).

Controversy in Upshur County, West Virginia
The Upshur County Public Library in West Virginia removed Prince & Knight from its shelves after Josh Layfield, a Calvary Chapel Mountain Highlands pastor (PinkNews), met with library officials to voice his opposition to the book (NYT).

In a since-deleted Facebook post, Layfield said:

“This book is a deliberate attempt to indoctrinate young children, especially boys, into the LGBTQA lifestyle. This book is deliberately appealing to their imagination, creativity, and their innocence… Children’s books, which are promoted by the state and put into circulation by taxpayer funds, should remain innocent. Unfortunately, this is an intentional leading of children into sin” (Cowger, Mountaineer).

Layfield’s comments and the decision to pull the book from library shelves prompted responses from local and national LGBTQ+ and censorship advocates (PinkNews, Mountaineer)

Sarah Kate Ellis, GLAAD President and CEO, said in a statement:

“The decision to remove Prince & Knight from the shelves of the Upshur County Public Library is an act of discrimination, plain and simple,” and “inclusive children’s books do not ‘indoctrinate’ but do allow LGBTQ families and their children the chance to see themselves reflected in the world.” (PinkNews)

Additionally, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom, and West Virginia Library Association have all urged Upshur County to return the book to circulation (PinkNews). In a letter to board members, the WVLA stated:

“One parent’s — or community member’s — belief that a book is inappropriate for their family should not be grounds for restricting that title when the book may be a treasured favorite for other children and families” (PinkNews).

According to the New York Times and the ALA’s field report, Prince & Knight “was temporarily removed from the library, but later returned.” (NYT, ALA)

Controversy in Loudoun County, Virginia
In Loudon County, Virginia, the local school district faced several challenges to pieces of literature that were instated as a component of a “diverse classroom libraries” initiative for elementary and high school classrooms (WaPo).

Most challenges centered on the LGBTQ+ pieces of literature, despite constituting only five percent of designated texts for the program (WaPo). Specifically, Heather has Two Mommies, My Princess Boy, and Prince & Knight received the most requests for reconsideration by parents and citizens, according to internal district documents, with Prince & Knight having been moved to the school counseling office while under reconsideration (Blade).

Both those opposed and in support of the inclusion of the LGBTQ+ texts in the diversity initiative voiced their positions during a lengthy six-hour board of education meeting to discuss the controversy (Loudon-Times Mirror). Byron Cross, a physical education teacher in the district, said that all books that “could potentially confuse a child of who they are biologically,” should be removed (WaPo). Another parent in attendance stated during the public comment, “I cannot stomach reading written porn, but my child can?” (WaPo)

The increase in media attention that resulted as the growing controversy grew prompted intervention by the National Coalition Against Censorship, who argued in an op-ed for the local newspaper:

“All parents have the right to influence their own child’s education. Equally true: No parent has the right to dictate the education of all children based on their own personal beliefs.” (Loudoun-Times Mirror)