Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird/Archive 2

message: Many times in the book it mentions Scout wanting to marry Jem, is this incestrous or just pure childishness. (i.e Scout says here and jem want to have a snow baby, " If I marry Jem that emans I'll be second coousins with Dill", and many times Scout doesn;t like being away from Jem and would cry whenever he told her to go away.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.92.85 (talk • contribs) .
:Normal childish behaviour = "incest" is your personal interpretation that doesn't belong in the article. See Wikipedia:No original research. -- Stbalbach 14:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dill is not Scout's cousin, Bob did not have sexual relations with Mayella, and Scout was only a child. Where did you get these ideas? bibliomaniac15 00:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Scout is Dill's cousin - I'm pretty sure of this as it is mentioned in the book several times. Furthermore, Bob Ewell did have sexual relations with Mayella. This is demonstrated when Tom Robinson says that Mayella said she has "never kissed a grown man before" and that she "says what her papa do to her don't count." Also, the fact that Bob Ewell was prepared to beat and 'possibly rape'(it is not concluded) Mayella for kissing and hugging Tom implies that he has done it before - he certainly has the character and history of being drunk and violent (Mayella nods at Atticus's question that Bob is not tolerable when he has been drinking). Scout does not seriously consider incest - she is simply trying to work out how somebody could have a double first cousin (as the Cunninghams are incestuous), so it is a cute childish episode of humour in the book. Scout crying when Jem tells her to go away is understandable - she's a young girl and being shouted at by your older brother (especially when you get on well with him) is not a nice thing. Scout and Dill do agree to be married and Dill says "Let's get us a baby", but again this is a cute childish episode which shows their innocence and purity - they haven't got the foggiest what they're on about. I have read this book and analysed it thoroughly in the past, so I should hope I know what I am on about! Hope this clears things up. Shrub of power 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure the mistake that has been made is the fact that Dill came to Maycomb to live with his aunt Miss Rachel Haveryard. The book covers this in the first couple pages. Thus to return to the initial question posed, there is no incest, just children being children. b_cubed 15:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scout Incest? 

message: I thought that Atticus said Heck Tate was trying to protect his son, not Boo, by saying Mr. Ewell accidentally stabbed himself.
Also, this article doesn't thouroughly explain the title and how it relates to the book.
:the common interpretation is that because Boo wouldn't want to expose himself in the court and all that, the incident was hushed and it seems that Boo really was the one who killed, though it's between the lines no doubt. Amoruso 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boo killed Mr. Ewell? 

message: Why is it that the summary is the same on sparknotes.com? Who copied this from sparknotes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SuperGerbil (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sparknotes 

message: After much thought I have reassigned Mockingbird's genre to Southern Gothic. The original assignment to Historical novel was false, and the modifiers "Social, racial and judicial Issues" neither recognized literary genres nor completely accurate.
Genre-like classifications that I would have liked to used but rejected because they are not currently found in the literary genre hierarchy: coming-of-age story, family drama (but not a saga), courtroom drama (but definitely not a thriller; also, I have reservations about putting legal or political labels on the book because a lot of reviewers over-emphasize this aspect due to domination of the film by the Robinson trial).
While the setting and the Boo Radley character fit the genre, and Mockingbird is claimed as an example on Southern Gothic, I still don't feel Southern Gothic is a perfect fit. It's just the closest thing I could find among acknowledged genres.
--Meyer 11:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a perfect fit because until it was published it was unlike anything ever written. It still defies categorization. Moni3 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurs to me that part of the problem may be that we wikipedists are more obsessed with categorization that many authors are. While some set out to write a mystery novel or a science fiction novel, etc., many others, perhaps like Harper Lee, just sit down to write a story without regard to literary genre. Part of me thinks Novel is the best "genre" for Mockingbird. --Meyer 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre reassigned: Southern Gothic 

message: A newer edit claims that Aunt Alexandra was outraged at her Missionary Circle's racist attitudes. Not only did I not ever notice this, but I noted the opposite. As a hostess, she refuses to dishonor her guests, so she allows them all their idiosyncracies, including the gossip about the "Mrunas" and the pastor's wife. She does grieve for her brother's sadness in private, but I never noted any outrage.Moni3 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aunt Alexandra Outraged?? 

message: This page is under serious need of cleaning up. I just edited out a lot of extra information as well as some stubs that someone had placed into the article. On the one hand, although I appreciate someone's clear efforts to help the information presented on this page, the article is only managing to look sloppy in the process. There is still more work to be done just to make this page look half presentable. b_cubed 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate is not meant to superceed the need for a good Lead Paragraph. I have augmented the existing paragraph with more information from the rest of the article, making it more a of "summary" of the whole, which is more the intention of the "Lead". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understanding the intent behind the templates lede, I think Kevin's version is a good summary of the article. The lede should summarize the article but not the plot, which belongs in the plot introduction section. --Meyer 09:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up the article

message: Somewhere I've heard it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.125.68.136 (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google lists several reports of Mockingbird being 'challenged' or 'removed from reading lists'. I'll add a report to the article. --Meyer 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've completed a first cut on a report on Mockingbird bannings and put it under a reinstated "Literary significance & criticism" section since that seemed the best fit among sections existing or in the article template (ultimately, I think there should be more literary criticism in this section than ban information). There are many mentions that Mockingbird is frequently banned to be found, but details on specific cases are harder to find. I originally intented to list notable banning cases, ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom seems to be the best source, and I suspect it is the original source for much of the specific case information currently circulating on the Internet. The Muskogee High School case has better non-ALA support than other cases, so I have retained it. Since the ALA case list seems fairly comprehensive, I don't think listing any more specific cases here would be valuable. --Meyer 10:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The American Library Association lists To Kill A Mockingbird as #41 on the list of the 100 Most Challenged Books in schools and public libraries. Read the entire list here.Moni3 17:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand "challenged" to mean any action taken to remove a book from shelves. It's not necessarily banned but the actions initiated that eventually lead to a ban. I believe the list includes challenges and actual bans on books.Moni3 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this book banned? 

message: The entire Themes section was deleted recently with the reason described as "No Original Research".
With such a subjective nature as novel interpretation, how does No Original Research apply? Can there be a Themes section to any novel or interpretation of symbolism in novels if editors are to adhere to this?
Moni3 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR excludes original interpretations by Wikipedists. Therefore, for the 'Major themes' section we should stick to material explicit in the novel itself or references to the opinions of citable authorities. While it doesn't do TKaM justice, I think our current themes section is comprised mostly of the former. It's a tough standard, but WP isn't supposed to be a repository for AP English essays. --Meyer 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a good reason for this, too. It can't come down to my opinion vs. your opinion. OTOH, documented criticism and analysis is fair game--cite and use. The amount of commentary on TKaM is legion.--Buckboard 09:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Does No Original Research Apply To Novels? 

message: This isn't important, just wondering if anyone else has any viewpoints on this matter. At the end of the book, Atticus says, in response to Scout's words on how nice Boo Radley was even though she was previously prejudiced against him, "Most people are, Scout, when you finally see them." 
I just find it odd and peculiar that in a book that is against prejudice (apart from extreme cases like Bob Ewell), the last line should be this. I think Lee should have written, "Most people are, Scout, when you finally get to know them." This would demonstrate that understanding your fellow human beings and revealing the goodness of human nature within is better than judging them on other factors: skin colour, social status, wealth, ancestry etc. and believing malicious gossip, as spread by people like Miss Stephanie Crawford. 
Maybe it's just me, but this seemed to contradict stuff previously in the book, and it gets me really worked up. It could be just colloquial language, or another innocuous explanation, but I'd like any other viewpoints possible - I love the book and I am extremely interested in it. Any thoughts? Shrub of power 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are reading too much into the word choice of the final line. The line means the same as the book as a whole (which you pointed out), that one should only judge another person after seeing who they truly are as a person and not judging based on appearance (as the jury did in believing a white man's story over a black's) or imagined attributes (as the children judged Boo). -- Meyer 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying - I think that's the most likely explanation for it. Great book though! Shrub of power 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last lines of book 

message: Should the "Characters" section include all characters, only notable ones, just the main characters, or what? I think it could be separated into "major" and "minor", although that is subjective to viewpoint. As it links to the main article List of characters in To Kill a Mockingbird, is it necessary to have all characters? Interested to get some feedback on this. Shrub of power 21:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was the one that made the list of characters article. Way back on January 7th I had put into the main article a few characters I thought should be considered "major". I'm not sure I'd still agree with the selection I made back then. Furthermore, I ended up just copying and pasting information from the "list article". In retrospect I think that a few 3-5 terse sentences on the main characters we include would be sufficient. From what I can remember from reading the book, these are the characters I would probably list as major characters: Scout, Jem, Atticus, Dill, Bob Ewell, Mayella Ewell, Tom Robinson, Boo Radley. For the rest I think it would be sufficient to just make mention that additional characters can be found at the List of characters in To Kill a Mockingbird. b_cubed 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: description of character
and so on and so forth, not bullet points.
Lady Nimue of the Lake 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character list 

message: Hi guys, just to say I placed the page up for peer review (see top infobox and follow the link). As of now, we've already received one helpful response, and it'd be worth adding the page to your watchlist if you want to see new responses and help to implement the changes. I haven't worked on this for very long at all, but I feel the article has the potential to be very good. Keep up the good work. Shrub of power 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: The section mentions that Scout learns about the persecution of Jews during World War II.  This is misleading, as the book takes place in the 1930's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.246.201.51 (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocrisy 

message: I haven't been following the development of this article, and I didn't have the patience to peruse the thousands of edits/'edit comments' the article has received in the last few months, so forgive me if this has already been discussed...
I realize that this is a likely a controversial subject here, and I accept that most scholars agree that the allegation that Capote ghostwrote part or all of Lee's novel is untrue, but why isn't this allegation (or 'rumor' or whatever you consider it) even MENTIONED in the article?  Even if one considers the charge to be no more than 'trivia', surely such a pervasive rumor deserves at least a sentence or two.  Personally, I would even go so far as to say that the article actually comes across as non-NPOV due to the conspicuous absence of any mention of the subject.  What is the justification for not including it?  -Grammaticus Repairo 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "and I accept that most scholars agree that the allegation that Capote ghostwrote part or all of Lee's novel is untrue, " that about covers it.--Xiahou 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because I happen to know a little about the subject doesn't mean every other wiki reader knows it too.  Incidentally, the Capote article does indeed have two sentences on the matter--why doesn't this article?  The subject involves both authors equally, the way I see it... -Grammaticus Repairo 00:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: thats just it. "most scholars agree that the allegation that Capote ghostwrote part or all of Lee's novel is untrue" so what sources are you going to quote on this that have more credibility? --Xiahou 00:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand the source of my puzzlement.  I'm quite sure there are numerous reliable sources that support both the 'for' and 'against' allegations that Capote wrote part/all of Mockingbird.  I am certain of this because such information is already mentioned in the wiki entries for both Capote (here) and Lee (here).  What I do not understand is why this information is not included in this article.  Given the quantity and frequency of updates done to the article, I find it hard to believe that nobody so far has thought about adding info about this subject already, so I am can only assume that, for some reason, the regular editors of this article have purposefully chosen not to include this information.  I would like to know the justification for not including the allegations in the Mockingbird article, particularly as it is already included in both the main entry on Harper Lee as well as in the entry on Capote.  -Grammaticus Repairo 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Capote allegedly having written part/all of ''Mockingbird''? 

message: Looking through this article and its history, it seems to me that it gets vandalized quite a bit more than is normal, and in the revert/undo shuffle, I noticed that some information has been incorrectly added or subtracted. Does anyone else think it is a good idea to request semi-protection of this page? -YK Timestalk 02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: Boo Radley does not live next door to them, he lives three houses to the south...
Istillcandream 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boo 

message: The article does not mention how Tom Robinson died, yet it says his "widow" was menaced by Bob Ewell, can someone please mention that he dies while trying to excape the prison because he had given up hope? Or something to that effect?
Istillcandream 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Info 

message: Doesn't the book say that the knife fell in Mr. Ewell's ribs, not stomach? Just a minor thing...
JoeyETS 04:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Ewell's death? 

message: That this article hasn't been featured is a crime, but understandable. It is still not in a state to be featured. It is a good article, but I think some actions should be taken by the people who watch and edit it in order to get it there. I watch this article because I love the book. I propose a very small wikiproject here: WP:TKAM, the goals of which is to watch, maintain, and feature this article. We as a group would have to agree on how to get this article featured. This will be difficult, since as we love it so much, we all want to see our small bits of edits included in it. Tough to do, but my suggestions:
:*Move most of the characters to the List of characters in To Kill a Mockingbird page. The characters who should stay on this page should be Scout, Jem, Dill, Atticus, Calpurnia, Tom Robinson, Mayella, and Boo Radley. 
:*The section on Literary Significance and Criticism should be expanded considerably. This book is made a tremendous impact on American literature - as well as literature around the world. Every example of its impact should have a good reference.
:*Delete the awards section. The Pulitzer Prize is mentioned in the introduction and in the Literary Significance section.
:*Put the Plot Summary on a diet, make the language consistent throughout. Our article has the voices of a thousand editors instead of a single unifying language.
:*The article is still vandalized fairly regularly, but not at the frequency it was in the past. This might change when school starts again and students all over the world are required to read it, but keep it clear of vandalism and small student insertions. I hope if students and non-students alike love this book, they will join our efforts to keep it communally excellent.
Besides keeping it relatively vandalism-free and adding info in the Literary Significance section, I won't begin to make these changes until a consensus is made from the other folks I know watch the article on its improvement. I hope to read your own suggestions about how to make it better.Moni3 14:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I waited a week or so for any feedback. Are there objections to my making these changes? Moni3 11:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve article quality for feature 

message: So, I'm a geek.
And I created a userbox if you're interested.
If you'd like to put it on your userpage, click on edit this page, copy the code between the { and } and paste it on your userpage.
 
:You should put some kind of a pic in the ID section (a screenshot of the movie if thats possible). Connör (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No fair-use pictures in user-boxes... --antilivedT | C | G 09:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: FYI, this discussion on how to cite a section from a single source is located here, on the citation talkpage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation discussion 

message: Kscottbailey, you mentioned that the lead was "over-long", but according to GA criteria for leads, an article of this size should be at least 2-3 paragraphs long and should summarize what the rest of the article details. Right now the lead summarizes the background section only. I believe the lead should be a powerful introduction to why the subject is notable - especially this one that is rated top importance in WP:Novels - and should draw the reader into reading the rest of the article. --Moni3 01:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I prefer pith. Per WP:LEAD, I have moved one paragraph (on theme) into the introduction. K. Scott Bailey 01:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know. That's what we get when we yearn for external validation through GA reviews... --Moni3 04:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the point in WP:LEAD, but I much prefer a pithy lead. As for GA, I may do some more work on this one, cleaning up the phrasings and such, if I can find the time. I hope it gets there. K. Scott Bailey 04:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of the lead in a good article 

message: Nice to see your hard work rewarded, Moni! My contributions were relatively minor in comparison, but as a lover of TKaM, it's just great to see the article be improved enough to pass to GA! Isn't there some shiny little icon that goes on the actual article page? Or is that just for FA articles? As for working it up to FA, I have a long weekend ahead (Monday off), so I can get the ball rolling there perhaps. Congrats to all who worked on this, even if it was just some copyedits here and there! K. Scott Bailey 08:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, a good thing. But the writing of it was much more fun than the review of it. I'd like to ask Awadewit for a review and points to improve. I've worked with her (her, I think) before, and the suggestions were very helpful, and (s)he seems quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia guidelines and policies. That way there will be specific points to improve instead of a constant stream of tweaking in places that may be fine the way they are. --Moni3 12:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that - she's not reviewing right now. I'll find someone else I've worked with. --Moni3 12:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your doing the "leg-work" on this. It's not my cup of tea, so having someone who is more familiar with the processes that go into it is very helpful. And I agree about the writing of it being FAR more fun than the reviewing of it. I think we might have had an inexperienced GA reviewer, but it all turned out well in the end anyway, so it's no big deal, I guess. K. Scott Bailey 13:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding "some shiny little icon," I believe that is only for featured articles (a star). So now it's time to see what's involved in getting this article that far. :) Lawikitejana 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you'll move to CT and then to KS, thus completely retracing my winding route... cheers! K. Scott Bailey 00:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Cool! 

message: Just a couple notes to perhaps consider before taking this through the FA status.  I'd like to point out, though, that I'm not a top notch copy-editor, so I can't absolutely harp on that issue, but I'll stick to what I know: sourcing and formatting.  Also, pictures!  I like pictures.
*The first paragraph in the Background section is without sources.  I'd also re-word the first sentence to something like "While working in New York City as a reservation clerk for British Overseas Air Corporation in 1957, Harper Lee approached a literary agent..."
::I've actually gone to the cite-sources talk page about this. Seriously - Lee hates interviews. The only source there is about her early life that I've found is Shields' biography, which I would have --Moni3 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reference to the photos, it has been suggested that the photo of Lee and Pakula be deleted due to the fact that it doesn't really illustrate the article... Photos...honest to God, they drive me nuts here. I'll see what I can do to get permission to use photos, but technically, it can (and probably will) be argued that photos of Lee don't necessarily illustrate To Kill a Mockingbird. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will work on this. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Will work on this. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some further changes, removing the redundant-sounding "had been sold." If you find the current wording awkward, or just totally hate it, feel free to revert. I'm not married to my wording in that sentence. K. Scott Bailey 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you typo'd, Bailey: "climber"?  Also, it's somewhat clumsy as one sentence, so it could be split into two or fiddled with.  Whichever.  María (críticame) 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for letting me know. K. Scott Bailey 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The book banning issues are the only controversy, albeit a major one, surrounding the book that I could find. Although I suppose it could be in its own section. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there was the note about people claiming that Truman Capote had either ghost-written, or heavily edited the book. It was not well-sourced though, so I removed it. Perhaps we could source it better, and add it into such a stand-alone section. Also, there were multiple controversies regarding the book-banning, in that its depiction of southern racism was found offensive (i.e. the liberal use of the word "nigger") as well as the descriptions of rape. Perhaps I can sandbox a stand-alone section, have you look it over, and then we can decide on including it? K. Scott Bailey 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok. Will cite. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Will work on this. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Back to the above photo issues, from above. I had stills from the movie in the article at one time and they were deleted. Photo policies drive me nuts. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I rather liked the kick at the end of the article about Lee refusing interviews. And again, with the citations about the Shields biography. Ay. I'll see what I can do to find more. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Will work on this. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Maria! I appreciate it. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I'm glad to help.  As for the photo issues, I could see how it would be such a headache, but I would think that if permission were given, a rationale were listed, and if it directly correlated to the article, then it would be fair game.  For example, if the main argument against the photo in the Legacy section were that it does not relate to the novel, then I would look for information regarding Lee's participation with the filming, if there was any.  Even if she just visited the set and met the actors and crew, I would mention this and then move the photo to a more fitting place (Adaptations).  Photos, if available, of Lee's hometown would be very helpful, for example, because it shows where the novel's inspiration comes from; I could understand those being impossible to find, but something similar to that would be great and an asset to the article.  Also, I understand about Lee's unwillingness to give interviews, but surely there must be other, similar sources so you're not basing the entire article on just one book?  There's nothing wrong with that one book, but variety is the spice of life.  María (críticame) 22:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been run in circles trying to find and get permission to use photos in the Birmingham campaign article. Photo permissions sometimes take weeks to get. But I'll see what I can do. I've been working on a couple other articles today, and I'm about beat. I'll get some research done in the next couple days and report back what I've found. --Moni3 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely understand.  If you need an extra pair of eyes, or even just help in formatting those pesky refs (I'm really very anal about that sort of thing), let me know. María (críticame) 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That makes more sense. Let me dig up some sources that 1. cite that the rumors were being spread that Capote wrote the book (rumors also circulated that Lee wrote large parts of In Cold Blood), and 2. sources that cite Capote refuted the rumors. Will work on this today. --Moni3 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can put together in my sandbox after school today, and let you take a look. I won't cite it at all, though, as you seem to have a good feel for inline citations, how to format them, and all of that. I know I've said it before, but you're doing great work here, Moni! K. Scott Bailey 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restructured some of that section and wrote a paragraph about Capote and referenced it. Change what you want, just not the good parts... --Moni3 17:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you noticed, but I reworked the section a bit, and inserted my changes. Hopefully I didn't change any of the "good parts"... :) K. Scott Bailey 14:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone should write and tell them that we've edited it up to a GA now, and that they should update their link accordingly. K. Scott Bailey 23:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: I was wondering what this sentence even means:
:To Kill a Mockingbird was listed as #64 of the 100 Best Gay and Lesbian Novels by the Publishing Triangle,[30] as selected by a panel of gay and lesbian writers.
Is Harper Lee gay, and I didn't know it, or is this simply an award given to really good novels by these fine folks? This isn't an argument for exclusion or anything, I've just been curious as to the meaning of this award, and was wondering if it means anything with regards to Lee's sexuality, or if it's just this group's way of rewarding books that the gay community finds generally outstanding? K. Scott Bailey 21:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite know. But I searched for awards and this came up. --Moni3 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Could it be because of Scout's tomboyishness, perhaps?  I always thought her kind of butch. :)  María (críticame) 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, being a former tomboy myself and the logical progression of one in adulthood, Scout always struck me as what I termed (when I taught) FLA: Future Lesbains of America. Reading the Shields biography convinced me. She was such an outsider in college. She was incredibly alienated at Huntingdon - she smoked a pipe in the dorms when all the other women were aspiring to be models of Southern Womanhood, she swore like a sailor, she was the object of rididcule in her sorority at the University of Alabama. She made at least one lesbian reference in Rammer Jammer - to the Well of Loneliness in the 1940s. And in the 1940s, one had to know where to find this book. I can only imagine how lonely she was. --Moni3 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're convinced she is a closeted lesbian? Other than the Rammer Jammer thing, and her tomboyishness that carried over into later life (with the swearing and such), has she ever hinted about it? If so, this would be something good to include in the Lee biography, if it's not there already. K. Scott Bailey 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have special powers. I get to post them on the discussion page, but special powers fall under No Original Research, unfortunately. Lee has never discussed her sexuality at all. The rules of Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons won't allow special powers. It has to be in print. --Moni3 14:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there should be a "special powers" exceptive clause, under the "original research" policy ... ;) K. Scott Bailey 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm...not that I particularly agree with that statement. Doesn't say a lot about the judges' view of masculinity that integrity and morality are feminized qualities. Still, there's that, in case anyone was interested. (I like my special powers explanation better.) --Moni3 23:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked your "special powers" explanation MUCH better. That explanation almost makes me think we should take it out, as it disagrees completely and fundamentally with the way I have always read the book. A bit strident for my tastes... K. Scott Bailey 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think the quote should go in the article at all. I just posted it here since it was brought up back here on the discussion page. I found, actually, a lot of crap that has no place in the article even though it was about the book, and I'm using my own judgment to make these decisions. An entire essay on the use of "right" and "left" as symbols in the book. Dude, wtf? No wonder Lee doesn't talk to people about the book. People are crazy. --Moni3 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. There's so much navel-gazing that goes on around literature ... anyways, I wasn't talking about the quote, I was talking about the survey related to the quote. If the people who put together the survey were that strident and ... umm ... "crazy", to steal your word, I was just musing that it made me wonder whether we should leave that out of the article. Doesn't make a difference to me, though, and none of our reviewers have brought it up as an issue. K. Scott Bailey 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking about this, actually. I think it's notable to include the list...and I'm not sure if that's more of a personal feeling about my perceptions on the book, to be honest. Everyone, it seems, gets something from the book that resonates within them. Clarence Thomas identified strongly with Tom Robinson, which he wrote about in a recent memoir (bet he neglected to say who Anita Hill identified with), the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is known for its very conservative approach to things, used the quote Lee write in 1966 about how the book is about Christianity - oh, and they printed that last month with another quote from this article, so I think they got it from our endeavors, btw.  I agree with the tomboy part of the explanation, and Scout's atypical girl behavior is brought up over and over, but the feminization of Atticus is not from this planet. I'm leaning toward keeping the mention of the list in the article. --Moni3 16:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even from my first reading of the article, it felt a bit "dropped in" for some reason, as I'd never considered TKaM (or Lee) in that light. As you have done the heavy-lifting thus far on the progress this article has made, though, I defer to your judgement on what merits inclusion. -- K. Scott Bailey (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Curious Fact About TKaM 

message: We should link the two pages.. The Maycomb page is simply too small and it would do better as a section in the article. 67.161.73.43 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant information in the Maycomb article is already in the TKaM article. --Moni3 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Maycomb]] 

message: The article says: "Maycomb's sheriff arrives and discovers that Bob Ewell has been killed. The sheriff argues with Atticus about the prudence of giving Boo the credit for it. They eventually settle on the story that Ewell simply fell on his own knife during the struggle with Jem and Scout."
Is that accurate? Atticus says to Heck Tate 'Mr Finch do you think Jem killed Bob Ewell? Do you think that?' And then Tate denies it. Should it be changed or am I interpreting it wrongly? Tarquin (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boo Radley killed Mr Ewell? 

message: I went through the article again tonight and I don't see anything that I could improve; it reads wonderfully! :)  I'm going to study the first FAC again, though, just to start things percolating upstairs. The longer I brood on the article, the more helpful I'll be, methinks. :)  Thanks again for this gift, Moni; as always, the crafting reflects the person. :) Willow (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much, darlin'! I truly appreciate the assistance. Study all you want. I'm going to hold off on any FACs until I get back from New York City in the first week of March. Then the punishment begins. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Done for now, methinks

message: *Despite its themes, To Kill a Mockingbird has been the target of various campaigns to have it removed from public classrooms, often for its use of racial epithets, and writers have noticed the different reactions black and white readers have to the book. - This sentence needs to be split into two and the second half explained more clearly - hint at the different racial reactions.
:DONE
*Scholars have guessed that the inspiration for Tom Robinson's plight was the infamous case of the Scottsboro Boys,[11] in which nine black men were convicted of raping two white women on very poor evidence. However, Lee stated in 2005 that she had in mind something less sensational, although the case served the same purpose in displaying Southern attitudes about prejudice. - I am not sure what "the same" is referring to here.
:DONE
*I would add a sentence or two at the beginning of the paragraph on Tom Robinson, outlining what the possible theories are so that the reader is prepared for the long paragraph. Otherwise it becomes a little confusing to keep adding on theories.
:DONE - a bit.
*Lee combines the child's voice as narrator with the grown woman reflecting on her childhood. - This is slightly confusing.
:DONE
*At times the blending is sublime enough to cause reviewers to question Scout's preternatural vocabulary and depth of understanding. - If you are not intending to reference the sublime, I would change that word. 
:DONE
*her teacher says she must undo what Atticus has taught her already since Scout knows how to read and write - This is confusing.
:DONE
*Satire and irony are used to such an extent that Tavernier-Courbin suggests one interpretation for the book's title: Lee is doing the mocking–of education, the justice system, and her own society. - This needs to be explained a bit better.
:DONE
*This can be seen in Lee's representation of the Southern caste system to explain almost every character's behavior in the novel. - I'm not sure what the "this" is referring back to.
:DONE
*For example, Aunt Alexandra explains Maycomb's inhabitants' faults and advantages through genealogy (families that have gambling streaks and drinking streaks, for example),[6] while Lee herself describes the Finch family history and the history of Maycomb. - I think this should say "the narrator" instead of "Lee herself". 
:DONE
*This theme is further reflected in Mayella Ewell's apparent powerlessness to admit to what she did, and Atticus' definition of "fine folks" being people with good sense who do the best they can with what they have. - I think the referent has been lost for the "this" - I would explain it again. What theme exactly?
:DONE
*Who are Harding LeMay and Edwin Bruell? We need identification tags for them. I added a lot of "scholar" tags. These should be specified as much as possible - literary scholar, historian, etc.
:DONE
*Scout as a child narrator allows a detached description of a story about racial conflict when it does not affect her directly. One writer asserts that the use of Scout's narration "functions as the not-me which allows the rest of us - black and white, male and female - to find our relative position in society". - This is confusing.
::I tried to reword the sentence going into the quote.
*Despite its generally positive impact on race relations for white readers, the novel has had a more ambiguous reception by black readers. - I have altered this sentence quite a bit and moved it to the beginning of the reader-response paragraph in "Southern life and racial injustice". Do you think that it accurately portrays the research you did or do you think the negative African-American reaction should be described even more strongly?
:What is in the article accurately reflects commentary by white and black writers about the book. After my first FAC, I thought it interesting enough to include the fact that so few papers have been written about the novel. It seems no one seriously wishes to explore or criticize the novel at any length. 
*Scholars note that Lee's approach to class and race was unique - This is a big claim - was unique at the time? is still unique?
:Altered this a bit.
*The novel explores courage in several ways. - This is a rather weak beginning to a section. Can we come up with something stronger and more exciting?
:DONE
*A 1991 survey by the Book of the Month Club and the Library of Congress Center for the Book found that To Kill a Mockingbird was rated behind only the Bible in books that are "most often cited as making a difference",[4] and has appeared on numerous other lists that describe its impact. - The second half of this sentence needs to be more specific - what impact?
:The novel appears on many lists that describe its impact. They're now footnoted at the request of numerous editors. Should I de-footnote them or summarize them? 
*The character of Atticus Finch has impacted the legal profession throughout the U.S. - We need a more specific topic sentence for this section - how has Finch affected the legal profession?
:DONE
*those letters expressing the most outrage complained about the racial aspects of Mayella Ewell's attraction to Tom Robinson, even over the depictions of rape - This is confusing.
:DONE --Moni3 (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prose

message: this article has been turned down for featured article status before... is there a list of what people can do to improve it? perhaps one should be created? Jackchen123 (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A few editors are working on this, Jackchen. The list you read above this section is a good place to start on how to improve it. I'll be working on this over the next week or so. Feel free to pitch in. --Moni3 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... remind me to scroll down next time... thanksJackchen123 (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: I would like to add a small section for First Edition Points. Can I do this while the block is in place? or must I get someone else  to do it? EraserGirl (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add anything as long as you are registered. However, the article is at over 65k, cut from more than 71k, and I may have to cut more text to prepare the article for Featured Article Cadidate. What sort of information about the first edition did you want to add? --Moni3 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  About 3 lines of text that would identify a first edition from a reprint.  First edition point information is spread out all over the internet and some not even as yet findable on the internet.  I think Wikipedia would be the ideal central location for this reference information. I just randomly started with Mockingbird.  I think the appropriate place would be as part of the or an Infobox, since this is not dynamic nor (usually) disputable information. 
 ==Points==
 Number of 1st printings: 5,000 approx.; verso: "FIRST EDITION" ; DJ:  $3.95 on the lower corner, no printing statement, Harper
 Lee's photograph on back, Truman Capote quote in green ink on the front flap, Jonathan Daniels blurb on the rear flap; 
 Boards: brown with green cloth spine.
EraserGirl (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll be honest with you: I'm not sure if the information you're considering adding is encyclopedic. You can, of course, add any information that is reliable and verifiable, but I will soon be suggesting this article as a Featured Article Candidate, where other editors will scrutinize the content and tell me if that information must go. I've had to remove information about the characters and the book's impact, so I'm not confident a paragraph about first edition points will withstand the FAC process. I've worked on this article for almost a year, already nominating it for FAC unsuccessfully. I'll be quick to remove anything that stands in its way. --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with your goal to raise this piece to FAC and appreciate your labors (truly), however I will firmly disagree with the dismissal of Points as not worthy of an inclusion in an encyclopedia. Points don't change, they are not subjective information. One of the WP goals is to make valuable information centrally available, accurate point referencing is very important. The internet is filled with many people selling books as firsts which are anything but. If we leave the information here on the discussion page, it will be available for future inclusion perhaps even after FAC.  Thank you for considering it. EraserGirl (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Patrick Cather has posted a detailed guide to identifying first editions of this work on his eBay seller's page. I wonder if an external link would be more appropriate in an encyclopedia than making this description ourselves. (Re: WP:NOT). --Dystopos (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternately, adding some description of the book's printing and production seems relevant to this article, and I wouldn't mind seeing it laid out as a history, perhaps just ahead of the "Adaptations" section. --Dystopos (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: No external link would be appropriate unless it was sponsored by a non-profit org such as the LOC or a trade group such as the ABAA. And even then there is almost no motivation for such a site to collect and provide the information for free. Sending people to a commercial internet site for general information flies in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for.  How do YOU know a commercial seller's information is true and accurate? Not that there would be motive in posting false data, but there is no guaranteed and no recourse if it were incorrect. I live and work on a trade mailing list with hundreds of sellers, collectors and professionals and we must field at least one or two inquiries a day asking for the correct points on this title or that one.   Having such data available on WP would assure that it was communally corrected and readily available. EraserGirl (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the link would be so bad. The page is informative rather than commercial in nature and is more detailed than is reasonable for inclusion here. As for truth and accuracy, I'm not sure than Wikipedia holds a trump card there. --Dystopos (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started a discussion of my proposal on WikiProject Books, if anyone thinks another article would be more appropriate, please let me know. Thank you. EraserGirl (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: EraserGirl, the way this is written now is jarring. If this information has a place in this article (and I'm still not convinced that it does), I don't believe it is the first paragraph of the Reception section. I don't know why the price and the designer of the first issue is important enough to be included in the article when other information had to be removed. Please reconsider this in the scope of the entire article, particularly as I will be nominating it for a Featured Article in the near future.--Moni3 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's out of place to put information about the book's publication history in an article which is about the book. I don't object to moving the information or seeing someone write about it more fluidly than I have, or provide more detail about later editions. If I were editing the article for length by myself, I'd start by stripping out about 75% of the excessive analysis in the "themes" section. Is there a WikiCliff'sNotes? --Dystopos (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dystopos, I disagree with you quite strongly on what you characterize as "excessive analysis". It's read by just about every secondary school student in the English-speaking world. Why has it been such a powerful novel for 40 years? This is what the article seeks to answer. And I don't mean to be indelicate, but its power does not derive from how much the book cost in 1960 or who designed the original cover. --Moni3 (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are certainly more important questions, but harder to settle in a form germane to an encyclopedia since there are as many interpretations as there are readers. The facts, as trifling as they may be, are at least settled and verifiable. --Dystopos (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless that I remain unconvinced, I won't be moving this information until it comes up in the FAC process. I'm fairly sure it will unless it can be integrated into the article more effectively, and connected to the impact of the book overall. --Moni3 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Moni that the Points information is not well-integrated at present, but I also sympathize with the wish to include the information.  If the idea is to include such information for many novels, then I suggest that we make a new standardized template box, which could be colorful and brighten up a section like an image, slim and aligned with the right-hand margin.  That way, the information would be there, and anyone interested could find it that much more easily, but it wouldn't interrupt the exposition.  I'll be happy to make such a template box; the only problem is that I know, ummm, basically nothing about points.  If you could explain what types of information you'd like to convey, I'd be happy to make the template in whatever colors you choose. :) Willow (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it's better to create a whole infobox for something that can be conveyed in a couple of sentences. I just think it's good to have some information on the production of a book as well as on its context and thematic content. Perhaps looking at some of the featured movie articles for clues about how to add production details in an encyclopedia format would be useful. --Dystopos (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Points