Talk:Little Women/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Little Children (film) disambiguation?

I put in see also but maybe people would go to wrong page and need dismabig ?UnDegree 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Little women 1994 lg 01.jpg

Image:Little women 1994 lg 01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ages and Dates

When does the book say it takes place? What time period does it cover? How old are the girls in the book? -69.87.203.44 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh hush, just add it in if you know. ~ Otterpops 12:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Brooke

So, I was wondeing if anyone could tell me about Mr. Brooke? Like any characteristics, traits, anything anybody knows about him, personality? So yea please help me! I need to know, long story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.32 (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yonge inspiration?

Has anybody here read The Daisy Chain by Charlotte Yonge, published in 1856? I'm re-reading it and the parallels with Little Women are amazing. Not to mention the reference to Yonge's Heir of Redclyffe. I have to wonder if Alcott had read it not long before writing Little Women or had read it so often that it influenced her plot -- or she picked out family incidents that reminded her of it in some way. Patrij (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Little women 1994 lg 01.jpg

Image:Little women 1994 lg 01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

i also cannot find the carrol's in the book. what chapter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjf (talk • contribs) 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Good Wives"?

I do always wonder if this novel ends in the declaration of Prof Baher to Jo or if it covers some of the story of their marriage. i neaver have read the "Good Wives" novel.

--189.166.31.247 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Good Wives" is the second half of "Little Women". It begins right at the jump that occurs right around the time Laurie proposes to Jo.--Simonjf (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Á Bible Christmas Present

According to the notes in the version of "Little Women" I am currently reading (from Oxford World Classics), the Christmas present they get isn't the New Testament, but a copy of "Pilgrim's Progress".

However, I just wanted to check this with other people before changing the article itself... --Ophias 13:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Rereading it at the moment, we're not told what the book they get is. It's only described as "that lovely old story of the best life ever lived", "your guidebook", and so on. Do we know if Alcott ever identified the book?

However, that the book was "Pilgrim's Progress" is a common claim in notes, certainly, so well worthy of being in the article. Vashti 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely Pilgrim's Progress and I've gone ahead and made the change. Evidence: The chapter titles are all references to PP; the novel is threaded throughout with allusions to it; and here are a couple of quotations-- "She knew it very well, for it was that beautiful old story of the best life ever lived, and Jo felt that it was a true guidebook for any pilgrim going on a long journey." - Chapter 2; "'Rather a rough road for you to travel, my little pilgrims, especially the latter part of it. But you have got on bravely, and I think the burdens are in a fair way to tumble off very soon,' said Mr. March, looking with fatherly satisfaction at the four young faces gathered round him. - Chapter 22; "'I read in Pilgrim's Progress today how, after many troubles, Christian and Hopeful came to a pleasant green meadow where lilies bloomed all year round, and there they rested happily, as we do now, before they went on to their journey's end,' answered Beth, adding, as she slipped out of her father's arms and went to the instrument, 'It's singing time now, and I want to be in my old place. I'll try to sing the song of the shepherd boy which the Pilgrims heard. I made the music for Father, because he likes the verses.'" - Chapter 22. --Ibis3 01:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

mickey mouse wrote this-isnt that awesome???????? =) I'm not sure if the 'books' are Pilgrim's Progress. It's true that Little Women makes frequent reference to it. However, it would be hard to describe PP as 'the story of the best life ever lived'. That sounds more like the New Testament, which is the story of Jesus. PP could be described as a guidebook to life. However, in Pilgrim's Progress, Christian, the main character, has a 'book' which he uses as a guidebook. This is clearly the Bible. So it seems to me that the girls were given Bibles or New Testaments, but were also very familiar with PP. Certainly the article should reflect the fact that there is a certain amount of uncertainty. 86.147.50.241 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

While this part of the book is undoubtedly an important part, does Pilgrim's Progress really account for this much importance in the article. There is almost just as much written about Pilgrim's Progress as there is about Jo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjf (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Beth...

Can we mention that in the end that Beth dies? It would be considered as a spoiler. Should we put a spoiler tag instead in the characters list? HoneyBee 02:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)She does so not!!!

I agree with putting it in, and the tag just below the characters section header. — Jeandré, 2005-12-05t11:28z

i agree as well, especially because there is an lack of autobiographical context which would help situation a reader into Alcott's world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjf (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am against spoilers unless plainly marked, as it ruins Wikipedia for students and younger readers. However, it's pretty much a free-for-all, so if you are a teacher and want your students to have an unspoiled read of a book - tell them not to come to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 05:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it-- the article claimed that Beth survives, which is inaccurate. If you don't want a spoiler, you shouldn't be reading the encyclopedia entry pon the novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.229.79 (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirects for Little Women Characters

• Elizabeth March character in the Louisa May Alcott novel Little Women
• Jo March character in the Louisa May Alcott novel Little Women

These are the two redirects for the four sisters in the novel. One is the full name, one is the nickname, and the other two sisters do not have redirects at all, nor do other characters with the surname March. Can someone add six more redirects for the sisters, and consider the merits of redirects for other characters? Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Redirects added for the four sisters and Robin March, father of the sisters. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

considering the fame of this book, & its many countless sequels. I suggest individual articles for each of the major characters. There is one now for Theodore Laurence, (which was nominated for proposed deletion) but it needs considerable improvement. DGG (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is book for all they family it is very enjoyable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.148.92 (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Carrolls"

The main article identifies "Aunt & Uncle Carrol" as people who take Amy to Europe. This is incorrect; Aunt March takes Amy to Europe, falls ill and dies there, which prompts Laurie to go collect Amy, marry her, and bring her home.

I'm sorry, but have you actually read the book? The Carrol's take Amy to Europe, and while she's there, Beth dies, that's why Laurie reunites with Amy, they marry and go home... --190.78.125.21 (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know who Aunt and Uncle Carrol are? I have no recollection of them in this novel. BellTinkR (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In the film versions, Aunt March and Aunt and Uncle Carrol are condensed into one person, Aunt March. Flo, the cousin, is written out. In reality, in the book, Amy goes to Europe with Aunt and Uncle Carrol and cousin Flo as a reward for her good behavior as a companion with Aunt March. Please reference Chapter 31 of the book Little Women if you want to change it back to her going to Europe with Aunt March, which is completely incorrect as far as the novel goes. Uncle and Aunt Carrol are not well-developed characters, which might be why people have a hard time remembering them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.220.10 (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Anime

The Anime section is poorly written and referenced and could do with some cleanup from someone familiar with the topic. Helenabella (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Making an attempt.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I just discovered that the section called Characters has been copy and pasted from the PBS site for American Masters, where a section of Porter's book is excerpted. I put in the link. This section needs to be rewritten or eliminated immediately. If no one else does it in a few days, I 'll come back when I have time and deal with it.--TEHodson 04:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Outline

Up for review Your instructor has asked me to look at the outlines for changes that you plan to make to this article. It appears that you have yet to create an outline on this talk page, so it's not possible for me to provide feedback. Please bear in mind that I will be happy to help you, but I can't do that if you don't make any effort yourself. Pacing yourself is key to this assignment and since semester is mostly over, you really need to ensure that you're keeping up with project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor characters Order

The minor characters seem to be listed in random order. I think they should be listed in order of importance, though that might be a little hard to decide. Or should they be alphabetical? What do others think? Tlqk56 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up page?

If anyone knows how to remove the text box that the first sentence is in, it would be nice. It doesn't look too good. Unfortunately I don't know enough about coding to see where it's coming from.

Also, if whoever is working on this will go to this page and change the way the footnotes are cited, it will shorten them a lot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes#Multiple_references_to_the_same_footnote I'd do it myself but I just don't have time. I may come back later, though. This is such a wonderful book, it deserves a great article! Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the first problem for ya, the markup doesn't like any empty spaces at the beginning of lines. We don't really indent except on discussion pages. The Interior (Talk) 15:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'm just getting the hang of this! Tlqk56 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Influence concerns

I see that in April, User: Boffobabe made significant additions to this article, most of which come directly from Sarah Elbert's work on Little Women. However, User: Boffobabe has not made any other edits on WP of any kind. My first inclination is that we may have a WP:COI editor at play here. But even if we don't, the additions here so heavily influence the tone of the article that this reads less like an attempt at an evenhanded description of Little Women and more like a description of Elbert's interpretation of Little Women. Any other thoughts? Someone who is more familiar than I with Alcott's work who might like to reduce the reliance on Elbert's views? Grandpallama (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The extensive reference to Elbert by name and in quoted passages does make it seem like the article offers only one interpretation of the book (which is not to say that I know anything about broader interpretations or criticism). Regarding the conflict of interest, it might be worth noting that the user mentioned above says (on her user page) she's working on a class project; I doubt that she is in fact Elbert. Franknarf11 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Either way I agree that that too much of that resource are used, and without saying in the text where they come from, which isn't required but is helpful, it distorts the article's slant. I'd like to see someone scale it way back. I have other projects of my own, I'd prefer if someone who's already worked on the article did it. Tlqk56 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Issue

It is unclear whether the below text is in the public domain or not. It is unattributed, yet appears verbatim on the web: [1]. I have removed it to the talk page until its origins and compliance with WP:COPY can be ascertained. Editors anyone may rewrite a short synopses of the book.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot Overview

First part Little Women follows the lives of the four March sisters, from oldest to youngest: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy. The start of the story is set at Christmastime, where Jo, the second eldest of the March sisters, grumbles, "Christmas won't be Christmas without any presents." The four girls discuss the upcoming holiday and sigh as they long for pretty things that they can't have because of money constraints. On Christmas morning, they present their mother, affectionately known as "Marmee", with the gifts that they used their own money to buy and proceed to give their Christmas breakfast to the Hummels, a poor family of immigrants, while they settle for bread and milk. They are later rewarded when the wealthy neighbor, old Mr. Laurence sends them ice cream and flowers. Soon after, Meg and Jo attend a New Years party at Meg's friend, Sallie Gardiner,'s house, where they meet Mr. Laurence's grandson. Theodore "Laurie" Laurence, who is later christened "Teddy" by Jo, proves to be a good friend. The March sisters resume their everyday routines after the holidays end and take up their little burdens: Meg works as a governess in a household of unruly children, Jo looks after her disagreeable Aunt March, Amy faces a hard-hearted teacher and hostile peers, and although she stays at home and keeps house, Beth longs to take music lessons and have a fine piano. The girls, and their new friend Laurie, still find time for fun in snowball fights, the Pickwick club, and their little P.O. box, where all things from poetry and pickles to garden-seeds and puppies pass through. Mr. Laurence becomes like a grandfather to shy Beth and gives her his deceased granddaughter's piano. Almost a year later, the family receives a telegram informing that their father, who has been away serving as a chaplain in the Civil War since he is too old to fight, has been injured. The girls are left to run the house while their mother goes to Washington D.C. to be with him. Laurie's tutor, John Brooke, accompanies her. Meanwhile, Beth has been visiting the Hummels regularly and has caught scarlet fever from the baby. She recovers but will never be fully healthy again. Mr. March returns home and Mr. Brooke asks for Meg's hand in marriage. She is unsure at first but agrees, and they are engaged.

Second part Three years thereafter Meg is happily married to John, and they have their own little house and twin babies. After Laurie returns from college, Jo has noticed a change in "her boy" and fears that he has fallen in love with her. She goes to a boarding house in New York to be a governess for the winter, while Amy goes abroad to Europe. Meanwhile, Beth is growing weaker and closer to death's door. Jo befriends a German professor and works on her writing, while the artist in Amy is inspired by the beauty and culture surrounding her in France, Germany, Switzerland, and England. Both girls often send letters home to the family describing their adventures. Jo returns home and as she feared, Laurie proposes. As she loves him only as a friend, she turns him down and heartbroken, he leaves for Europe. Jo continues to look after Beth until she passes away. Since sweet Beth was her special girl, Jo is inconsolable. Laurie and Amy hear the news and return from Europe, quietly announcing their recent marriage. As the March family happily greets the newlyweds, a knock is heard at the door. Jo finds it is Professor Bhaer, so she invites him in and introduces him to the family. He is well received, and soon the two realize their affections for one another. A year later, Jo and Fritz Bhaer are married and settled at Plumfield, land Jo inherited from Aunt March after she died. They turn the big house into a school for boys and have two of their own, whom they name Rob after Jo's father, and Teddy after Laurie. Laurie and Amy have their own little girl named Beth, in memory of the beloved sister. Five years later, the entire family attends the Plumfield yearly "apple" picking: Marches, Laurences, Brookes, and Bhaers, alike. The book closes with Marmee saying, "O my girls, however long you may live, I never can wish you a greater happiness than this!"

Weasel Wording

If anyone has access to the Sarah Elbert source, it would be good to review what it says at page 193, to which the following sentence is sourced: some people questioned how she was able to write so beautifully and reflectively about "American home life.” "Some People" appears to be weasel wording, see [WP:WEASEL], unless we can determine that the books' author really used the term. I'd rather fix the issue or remove the sentence.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sentence removed, can be re-added when source is double checked and weasel wording changed.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Jo section

jo montana is also in hanna

Her section is written like some combination of a back-of-book summary and an essay. It was easy enough to fix the use of first- and second-person and use of future tense in the last paragraph, but it still needs a re-write from someone who is more familiar with the plot of the book. The entire last paragraph should be gutted for its "What do you think will happen?" open-endedness and replaced with information about what actually happens to Jo at the end of the book. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This whole article needs to be done from scratch--it's a mess. I keep hoping I'll feel inspired to do it (just re-read the book) but I haven't felt up to it. There needs to be a clear distinction between Jo and Louisa May. They are not the same person, however similar, and whoever started this page didn't get off to a good start on that score. And people need to stop writing essays about who the characters are and do a good plot summary. Maybe I'll do it soon, but if anyone else wants to start, please do.--TEHodson 00:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The article states that "Jo rejects Laurie to marry Professor Bhaer, who is much older than she, believing him better suited to her. "The crucial first point is that the choice is hers, its quirkiness another sign of her much-prized individuality". This isn't correct. Jo rejects Laurie because she isn't in love with him. At this point in the novel, she hasn't even met Friedrick Bhaer. She meets him when she takes a Governess position in New York to get away from Laurie and the reminder that she has lost his friendship and caused him pain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.61.106 (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Little Wives

"Good Wives" was published as "Little Wives" at some point. Do we know where, when, and why? 109.157.79.50 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It also seems to have been published as "Little Women Wedded". 109.157.79.50 (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary, the immigrant audience and religion

This is the first Wikipedia article about a novel that I have read, that tells the plot wholly through the character descriptions. A short plot summary might improve the article, no more than four paragraphs or about 800 words. Then the character descriptions for the sisters might be more focused on character, and not events. The audience for the novel is claimed to be the many immigrants flooding into the US at the end of the 19th century, of whom so many were Catholic, from southern Europe. Did the novel's distinct Protestant Christian focus not dissuade them at all from the story? The one character who is Catholic, the French maid to Aunt March, is useful for teaching Amy French, and how to calm herself, but her rosary is a rather scary thing to Amy, not something she can safely touch, or really ask how it is used. Question put out for those who know more about the immediate audience for the novel, beyond the 2,000 book sale that astonished the publisher on first printing. The other part missing from this article is publication history, which might note when copyright was lost, and collect any other comments on its sales since it was published. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I put up a draft of a plot summary. Feel free to improve it. I also added a bit in the Publication history indicating continuous publication from the 1980s to 2014 in multiple media as recorded on the web site Fantastic Fiction, and that some publishers still issue the two parts as separate volumes with separate titles, though both are treated as one book in this article. I am not all up on the scholarly research on this book, so I leave that others, though it does interest me that religion is never an issue, but rather the role of a woman in American society --Prairieplant (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

correct literary genre -- coming of age story or Bildungsroman?

I put both Coming-of-age story and Bildungsroman in the genre entry in the infobox. I do not know which is correct for this book. Little Women is not mentioned in the Wikipedia articles for either genre. The link had to be changed, as it was pointing to a general article on Coming of age in various cultures, with a quick sentence in the lead that books and films use the term as well. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation method for often cited sources in this article

Mr. Granger This article is using the rp system for many authors, so the full cite is given once in the html, and the page number in that book is indicated by rp|page number in brackets Template:Rp. The page number shows in the text next to the reference number. The benefit of this is that the oft-cited authors are immediately evident in the Reference list, the Reference list is shorter, the number of times the author/book is cited is shown by the a, b, c, etc in the Reference list, and the page numbers are easy to read. Plus, just one isbn is used for each book (some isbn numbers were incorrect) and thus easy to check that is the correct number. It is an easy system to use once you look at in the html version of the article, with the rp|page number in double curly brackets after the citation with the full details, and again after the ref name=Book / citations. Sorry I had not noticed the errors creeping in, after my long effort to improve the formats in the Reference list a while back. I hope that is okay with you, and that other editors will notice this system and keep it up. --Prairieplant (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC) --Prairieplant (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a good system, and I have no objection to it. My edits were just to avoid having the same reference name defined multiple times with different values. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary, length and other issues.

I am disappointed to see how you handled my longer, and in my opinion, improved from a written standpoint, plot summary. Simply reverting back to your own version, without even discussing with me or leaving a message, is not the way editors normally cooperate on Wikipedia. I have no desire to get into an edit war with you over it, but just expressing that when someone makes an improvement to a page, throwing it out wholesale in favor of your own version with no discussion is not really an encouraging, helpful, or team-building way to proceed. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

TheBlinkster Sorry that I disappointed you. The Plot summary in place is at the limit of length for Wikipedia as it is. Your editing made it way longer. The summary can always be made better; in this case it means making it better within the Wikipedia limits for length. I did read what you wrote, and mainly it added details-- not main plot line-- rather than finding a better way to succinctly convey the plot. That is why reverting was the simplest change for me to make. Lots of novels now sold as one book were originally published in 2 or 3 volumes; that does not stretch the length for the Plot summary when there is one article for the whole novel. I find it challenging to write succinct summaries of long novels, but I know it can be done so I keep trying to learn how to keep to the major points. Other editors often "tighten up" a posted plot summary without losing the main thread of the story, better than I can do it. Also keep in mind that lots of the details of the novel are discussed in other sections of that article, as there has been much scholarly analysis of Little Women over the years. I hope you can see my reasons, and that you keep contributing to articles on novels. There is a Wikipedia article with guidance on how to write a summary. WP:NOVELS might be the link. I am writing this on my phone, where I have not figured how to open a second tab to get the correct name for the article, sorry. A search using 'length of Plot summary in Wikipedia' may find you the right article. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't object so much to your having concerns about the length, or even the added detail, as I do about the fact that you would just revert somebody's significant that wasn't vandalism and that clearly had been done with some thought, without even attempting to discuss or notify the person whose change you reverted. My opinion is that the summary in its current form is lacking - it's disorganized and leaves out important details from the book (some detail is important) and that, even if my attempt was too long, it would be more proper to try to strike some balance between the two rather than just throwing it all out in favor of yours. I also think that other sections of the article are too lengthy and could benefit from cuts, though I chose not to make them, which in turn might free up some room for a longer plot given that like I said this book is really two rather different books (two volumes, two parts, etc.) However, your handling of the reversion was so out of character from my usual, more collaborative experience on Wikipedia that I'm not inclined to try to improve this particular article further, as I don't want to waste time working on an article that just gets reverted with no discussion. Have a nice day. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

TheBlinkster That Plot summary has not been changed by other editors in a while. If the summary is too long it will get one of those flags put on it, the other option I had instead of reverting. But that leaves the work to someone else. I figured you would be watching the article, so I explained all I could in the edit summary. The length rule is not altered for the novel being long. Not a rule I wrote, just how Wikipedia wants things to be. Sorry if I acted differently than other editors you have encountered, such that you feel insulted. My own efforts get reverted, and I watch other fiction summaries, where this same thing happens, a max length summary is expanded instead of revised. I do not mean to insult you. My interest is in the short summary. If you do come back to this article, try to revise but within those limits. Please do ignore the volume split, it us not pertinent for the summary. The length of the rest of the article has no bearing on the length of the summary, so that is not a useful plan for a longer summary; I mentioned the rest of the article as a place that details too minor for the summary get picked up in analysis or criticism. Some editors place little value on the summary, saying that "notability" resides in what is written in the other sections, like themes, critical reception and the like. Me, I like a good plot summary. When I have trouble getting it terse, succinct, I look at summaries for novels that are even longer books, yet shorter summaries, to remind me that it can be done. That is the challenge, and it is worth trying drafts in your sandbox to meet it. I do not defend what is there as the best possible summary--it is a reasonable one that just fits the max length guidelines.

My main work on this article was putting format to the inline citations, on text written by others, and looking at the sources. It had no plot summary when I first read it, if memory serves. When I get to my regular computer, I think I will move this discussion to the Talk page for Little Women, and flag you that I did. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Character description and wording...

"Bhaer has all the qualities Bronson Alcott lacked: warmth, intimacy, and a tender capacity for expressing his affection—the feminine attributes Alcott admired and hoped men could acquire in a rational, feminist world."[7]

I assume this isn't a direct quote of Alcott's and is quoting the write-up referenced... So isn't this a little too much of a personal opinion and interpretation to be included in this manner? And is it factual to characterize "warmth, intimacy, and tender capacity for expressing one's affection" as feminine attributes? Green Daemon Moik (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and the wording of the plot summary is very fancy and opinionated, not just stating the facts. The person who wrote it sounds like they were trying to use some literary skills, and it's hard to read. (sorry if i messed up over here i'm new to editing and everything) Imnotverycreaatiivee (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of the story

The article states that the novel begins at Christmas 1865, during the Civil War. The civil ended in the previous spring and summer with Lee surrendering in April. The story then develops with Mr March being nursed by Marmee and John Brooke serving in the Union forces. Christnas 1865 cannot be the correct date for the beginning of the story. 86.172.112.138 (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have revised the opening few sentences ... thanks for pointing it out. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 10:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You have altered the text to say that the story takes place "Following the civil war" This is still inaccurate. The father serves as a pastor DURING the civil war and when he is sick Marmie goes to nurse him. John Brooke is first Laurie's tutor and then serves in the Union Army, therefore the Novel would start at Christmas of either 1861, 1862 or 1863. '63 is probably too late, allowing only 16 months for John Brooke to be tutor to Laurie and all that involves timewise, to enlist and be wounded. 86.172.112.138 (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The first part of the story covers either 2 or 3 years. Starting at Christmas the plot develops until Amy burns Jo's manuscript and Jo carlessly allows Amy to nearly drown in the ice. This could be the same winter (within weeks of the first Christmas) or the following winter. Summer passes into the next winter, when Marmie goes to nurse her husband. (The plot summary places this as Christmas 1862.) Beth contracts scarlet fever and Marmie returns. The following Christmas their father has returned home at the conclusion of part one. The story begins with the girls' spending their first Christmas without their Father. This would suggest 1861... with Part one ending at the end of 1863. Part 2 begins three years later with the war over, in the interim period John Brooke has joined the Union Army been wounded and returned home. (The plot summary states he spent a year in military service). If part one ended at the end of 1864, there would be barely time for John Brooke to enlist in the Army, be trained and get deployed, wounded and invalided home before the surrender of Lee a little more than 3 months later. 86.172.112.138 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You are making me want to read the book again. Better not to add actual dates unless one is positive they agree with those in the novel/s.
Thank you for your considerable effort in trying to analyse this.
I have made the following revisions: ... their father is acting as a pastor, miles from home, invoved in the American Civil War. and,They are pleased but consider Meg too young to be married. Brooke agrees to wait but enlists and serves a year or so in the war. After he is wounded, he returns to find work so he can buy a house ready for when he marries Meg. Laurie goes off to college.
‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 18:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Elsewhere it is stated Mr March suffers his illness in 1862. As part one of the novel covers 2 years and John Brooke subsequently serves for one year during the war, the only timeline that fits is that part one covers 1861 - 1863 and John Brooke serves in the Union forces sometime from early 1864-1865 in the period before part 2 commences. No other timeline is possible.

The story also states that the Christmas is their first without their father. This would strongly suggest it was 1861, as it was the 1sr Christmas of the war. If Mr March was going to enrole as a pastor with the Union Army, being a paragon of virtue he would likely do this as early as possible. O know that doesn't work for Wiki but it just reenforces the logical progression of the above timeline. Mr March can't be away for 2 Christmases and there be over a year left of the war for John Brooke to serve. It is interesting that Christmas plays such a big part in the family story. The first Christmas they are without their father, the second Christmas they are without both their father and mother and the final Christmas of part one, they are all reunited. It does really date the story when you think about it. The first Christmas the war is something remote, as it was to most families in the beginning, by the next Christmas they are experiencing the dread of loss that many families were experiencing, although it is indirect to the actual conflict. By the third Christmas they have suffered casualties in the family. Both the father and Beth have suffered greatly but survived their ordeals. Many other families were not so lucky at that point. However like most American families of the time, their stuggles were not yet over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.47.163 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I changed "miles from home" etc. to "their father is acting as a pastor in the American Civil War, far from home", since he is a pastor to soldiers and "miles" doesn't capture the distance to the front or to Washington, where he is laid up. Zaslav (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

What page did the event of the first sentence made by 86.172.112.138 happen?

Sincerely, 49.192.44.178 (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There is one explicit date in the first part of my edition (Project Gutenberg e-text). In Chapter XIX, Amy dates her will "this 20th day of Nov. Anni Domino 1861." In Chapter XIII, the end of the first part, Marmee says "... a year full of events; this has been such an one, but it ends well, after all." It has been one year, from one Christmas to the next. That sets the action from just before Christmas, 1860, to Christmas, 1861. Since the war did not begin until early in 1861, Amy's date must be a mistake, but part one certainly takes place during one year.

As for Mr. March's illness being in 1862, I could not find a date of 1862 in the text of my edition. Is that date really there? (It is plausible.) Zaslav (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Poorly referenced

I had a friend in high school who wrote a term paper on "The Banana". He had exactly one bibliographic source for his work and was given an "F". This article might better be titled "Little Women in the Eyes of Sarah Elbert" and would fare no better in a mediocre public high school than my friend's unappreciated effort. She seems to be the sole critical source for Wikipedia's commentary on Alcott's work, and how that she's dead, we must be content to accept that no one from now until the heat death of the universe will have anything to say about "Little Women" that could add to the length and depth and breadth and predictable banality of her insipid commentary on a novel for 19th century tweeners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.167.246.243 (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This article cites comments on the novel from Alberghene, Cheever, Cullen Sizer, Reisen, Elbert, Madison, Matteson, Sicherman, Acocella, Saxton, Masse, Susina, Seelinger Trites, Keyser, Seppanen, Matteson, Boyd, and MacDonald, and Isaac. It is not one person's view. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"Little Werewomen"?

Has anyone come across a copy of "Little Werewomen"? I had a used paperback copy but lost it in a recent move. Mgaopler (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to locate a hardback or paperback copy of "Little Werewomen", an old 80's pulp novel which was based on Alcott's work. Does anyone know where I can find a copy? I have looked high and low... help me, internet! Mgaopler (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You can try looking under the title Little Women and Werewolves, for starters, User:Mgaopler. The author was Porter Grand. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

My revisions

I've been asked to justify my revisions to the article yesterday. The page is clearly a mess, and my edits pointed the way forward, but were clearly only a start. I do object to simply rolling back all changes. I only came here to add missing information about a previous 1950 TV adaptation of the book, since it is useful and relevant to the topic, and due to this dispute it's still not there. Exactly this lack of engagement with good-faith edits is why I haven't even attempted to edit a Wikipedia article in over a decade.

• Why look at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as a template? The obvious reason is that is classified as a good article, and this is a C-class article. Both are popular children's books, with adaptations in other media, and that page has been much more rigorously edited due to its popularity. If there's a Wikipedia project page about structuring entries about books, I'm happy to be linked to it, but Harry Potter is a great place to start.
• The top summary is fine. It tells you what the book is, a one-line plot summary, and some salient information.
• The next section clearly needs to be the plot summary. The meat of the book is what's in the book, not the information around it. This is obviously followed by the characters, as they appear in the book. The people who played them on film is only relevant in the adaptations section. Both are bracketed under a main heading on the HP page, which keeps the number of main headings down.
• After that, the circumstances by which the book came about. Development followed by publication information. This is where the current development and inspiration sections can go, followed by its publication. The commercial reaction throughout the years goes here, with some explanation of its popularity justified, but lots in the publication section moves to analysis.
• The lack of an analysis section is what stops this being a great article. There's some great analysis in the page, it's just scattered willy-nilly. The section "Explanation of the novel's title" goes here, without that overwrought subject heading. Half the paragraphs in reception move here also, since they're literary criticism rather than booksales or the critical reception at time of publication. Influence also has a lot of analysis in it, mixed in with the legacy of the book. Those things need to be separated out.
• Adaptations is the next obvious section. This is mostly fine. If you want a table with the casts through the ages, it can go here, but they're mostly included in the text, so it's repeated information. When I restructured the TV section, I arranged it by region: US, UK, Japan, India. This preserves the great compression of information about the several BBC adaptations, although clearly the 2017 version needs to be more prominently flagged as a PBS co-production. You could make the section international and strictly chronological, but that would read less neatly.
• After that, the legacy of the book. Authors influenced, that sort of thing.
• This revision was my first stab at this structure. Already clearer, but still with work to do on it. jamdav86 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I can respond more fully in a few days when I have computer access again and am not editing on mobile...

My key points are:

• Improve the article by adding information and citations
• Clarify what you will, sure.
• Do not copy other articles in structure. This is no YA contemporary fantasy book. It's a 150 year old bildungsromans. Have a better reason to reorganize it than you want to make it look like 1 of those 7 articles (and if you insist on saying that, communicate not only which one but specifically what Harry's got goin' on that Jo March hasn't).
• the format of this template is more appropriate: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate
• Don't combine and subsection the weighty sections on a novel with such a rich history into "Development, publication and reception". See above template.
• Adaptations chronologically = not arbitrarily ordered. Adaptations by country = ... Well...
• Thank you for neutralizing your tone by removing "crass" and saying you've been strongarmed out of editing. Assume good faith. Be precise in your language. Take to the talk page. All will be well. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you're hung up on genre, which is but an aside in my above argument. And my editor's opinion on each respective book is irrelevant. Any book deserves a clear and informative article, and it's better for an encyclopaedia if the structure of articles is consistent across it. It's easier to read one that way.

Thanks for finding that article template, I'm happy for this page to be restructured exactly like that. By restructuring this article, it will make it easier to add new information with citations, since it will be clearer where new text belongs, and will help in rewriting the old. Much of the information demanded of the template is in the article, it's just scattered throughout, which makes the article read worse than it is.

The character list should probably be more strictly a list of characters, since in its current form it's quite overbearing. Occasionally it even re-rehearses the plot of the novel, which is covered more than sufficiently in the summary, Also, I'm not too comfortable with the article implicitly declaring who these characters are, when it should be saying "this critic thinks this about them". In short, it's less article, and more book report, than I care for. The summative parts can be moved to "Major themes", the more specific points. under "Literary significance and reception".

My argument about the current draft of the TV subsection is that it is neither strictly chronological nor is it summative. If it was strictly chronological, it wouldn't go 1958, to 1950, all the way up to 2017 within a sentence, then in the next paragraph back to 1978. Happy to rewrite it chronologically, even though doing it by country would read more neatly, but that's not how it currently is. jamdav86 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If pointing out that a modern children's fantasy series book is not a 150-year-old contender for the Great American novel in an attempt to communicate that the two are apples and kumquats... guilty!

Chronological coverage of adaptations is objective; by country is subjective. Reorder more chronologically if you like with a copy and paste.

Major characters in the literary canon should be more than a dramatis personae, if that is what you are suggesting, especially considering all of the five major characters and possibly others redirect to this page. Some repetition of plot points in the character section is not problematic as long as it is pertinent and sourced. Analysis can and should be attributed to the critics who profess such opinions, but some description of character is necessary for a novel of this stature and can be communicated without the input of critics. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

At least your gatekeeping in terms of literary theory is consistent with your gatekeeping when it comes to editing this encyclopedia. Your username has made no positive changes or additions to this page, which has remained stagnant since your first reversion in December. I've come with many suggestions of improvements, and your only responses have been "no" and "reorder with a copy and paste", which is not how good rewriting works. I don't feel free to edit even that section, because all you have ever done is revert my changes, and I have no wish to get into an edit war.. Unless and until more voices enter this discussion, I'll have to consider us at an impasse, and the matter closed. jamdav86 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't call me a gatekeeper because I'm the only other editor participating in this discussion and one of the only people voicing opinions on the article. No, I have not provided prose and citations to this article, which I have been watching for a few weeks, but that doesn't mean I have not provided positive changes. Watching articles on subjects I care about to see they are not vandalized or unintentionally worsened is sometimes as much as I can do to balance my inner inclusionist and deletionist as well as a life. I have casually studied Alcott off and on for over 15 years. Maybe I'll make changes to the article when I enter another Alcott phase; maybe I'll create another 25 articles from scratch before I get to it. It's moot.

Regarding the copy and paste comment: that's only not in chronological order because someone decided to write it as what BBC has done (which is kind of that "by country" order you were favoring). Given the state of the article, having the BBC adaptations, which are at this point strictly dates, this is not something I'd lose sleep over. But if you will, go ahead and break those into short sentences or make flesh them out into something more helpful than their wikilinks. You don't have to clear smaller edits of the article here.

Please do not misconstrue or mischaracterize the nature of my edits and comments. I have stated that your character table would work, restructuring per novel article requirements is good, and reordering the television adaptations is good. Your first edits were reverted because other things were changed in a way that was not constructive. If you don't want to make the changes you say you do, okay, but everyone reading this should be clear that the cause is your own weariness on the subject and not a threat of edit warring by yours truly. We both have better things to do than this. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion requestA third opinion was requested about this discussion. By way of background I primarily write about children's literature and have written a number of Good articles about them. It seems that fundamentally this disagreement is about whether the article should change, or not. That is harder to mediate in the form of a third opinion. All articles, even (featured articles can generally be improved, but not all changes are improvement. Through continued discussion on the talk page editors can hopefully find consensus about what changes are appropriate for a given article. Diving into the specifics here, one area of dispute seems to be what article to model this one from. While there is no set format, the Manual of Style does offer a suggested list of sections, and order, for books. It also suggests that if there is a well developed plot section a character's section is generally not needed. The final area of current disagreement seems to be over the way adaptations are covered. Could one of the parties explain for me the issue? I think I understand from looking at the edits and this discussion but don't want to offer an ill-informed third opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)):

Barkeep49, I don't know that there is an active disagreement per se. I don't know that asking for a third opinion was fitting for this situation, but I was addressed and so I'll answer.

Regarding format: I think the other editor is on board with considering WP:NOVELS now, so I think we're good there.

Regarding characters: Maybe such sections are generally not needed in novel articles, but that seems to be decided case by case, and I and I believe others find it helpful here. I'm generally loath to point to examples in other books, as they are hardly precedence, but older books that are in the canon do tend to have character sections, and for good reason. See The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, War and Peace, Silas Marner, Jane Eyre, Gone with the Wind, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and even the more recent Harry Potter (#1). I'm not sure where we'd redirect the redirects if we removed the character section. I think these could be edited down some in this article, and I don't think we need to list every performer who played in each adaptation in that section--that is a little fancrufty.

Regarding adaptations: I prefer by format (stage, film, television, etc.--not necessarily in that order) and then chronological within each. The other editor preferred (I think) by format and then by region. Listing by region is subjective and would potentially demonstrate a bias towards English-language adaptations by putting the US and UK adaptations first and then listing other regions without any criteria that I can see. Why write about Japan and then India? Why not India first? Chronological answers the question of what adaptations of Little Women have there been? without needing to assign value to the different regions in terms of which adaptation to write about next. Editor is concerned about the adaptations currently being slightly non-chronological and is making a beef out of my comment to cut and paste to make it moreso. Of course a longer rewrite would be in order. Ok, am I clear with this point?

Editor in question claims to not want to make changes now, even those agreed upon. Whatever they decide is fine by me. Let me know what else I can do here. Thanks for thirding. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You're correct that the decision to have a character section can be made on an article by article basis. However, our highest quality articles that do have character sections, like Uncle Tom's Cabin, A Christmas Carol, tend to be more focused on analysis and critics than the style this article uses. I am also not aware of any article that has been reviewed where the adaptations are mentioned in the character section. Thanks for clarifying the adaptations section. I'll leave that alone for now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmmm

Are they hot? 2605:B40:1301:7200:4198:4E2D:B2E4:1425 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acheampong2, Mrsredacted, Williamsam38.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Gk

Gk 27.60.85.135 (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

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

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Little Women(book)

This entire synopsis is of the recent movie. It is NOT the book. There are so many inaccuracies, the entire synopsis must be rewritten by someone who has actually READ the book!! 2600:1700:4810:6AF0:9407:9DC1:E8B4:8088 (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi!

Not to be dismissive, but you are more than welcome to create an account and implement these changes yourself. If you don't want to create an account, fill out an Edit Request with your written synopsis and we will be happy to look it over and add it to the article :-)

If you have any questions leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! mooshberry->talk; 02:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive

Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.

Thank you! Remagoxer ^(talk) 22:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)