Jump to content

Talk:The Hardy Boys/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Article improvement

A couple things can be done by those more knowledgeable than I:

1) Add a critical reception section. It would have popular reception and sales, the early decisions of libraries not to have The Hardy Boys, the more recent reversal of that policy.

2) If possible, identify who wrote each book. It's difficult to talk about style and characterization when key elements of behavior may apply only to a particular writer's conception.

3) Augment the section describing rewrites, if applicable, to include the fact that the rewrites were to "dumb down" vocabulary for 1960s readers who were not considered as patient or as intelligent as earlier readers. This IS what happened with the Nancy Drew books, as explained in "Girl Sleuth: Nancy Drew and the Women who Created Her". Probably the same happened, with The Hardy Boys? If not, that would be worth noting too. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs major improvement. Will make a list of tasks shortly. Ricardiana (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating Piano non troppos suggestions, here are some things that need to be changed or improved. Ideally, I'd like to see this article receive Good Article status.

  • Need images, particularly one at the top of the page, a la Nancy Drew.
  • Long lists of books, series, etc., should be on their own page.  Done Ricardiana (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Needs to incorporate references.
  • Needs critical reception section.
  • Needs info on authorship of books.
  • Discuss revised volumes and rationale therefore.

Ricardiana (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Neutral point of view, sadly lacking at the moment.
  • In particular, even coverage of all decades without privileging the first 58 volumes or Leslie McFarlane.
  • Better, more grammatical, less casual writing style.

Ricardiana (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job on the article, guys. I've been busy on The Hardy Boys Wiki, so haven't edited any Hardy-related stuff on Wikipedia for a long time. Again, good job! WHLfan (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done what I can on the article for now, and I am putting it up for review over at the Good Article nominations page. Here's hoping! Ricardiana (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Hardy Boys Casefiles

Hello, I just happened upon this page from seeing a terribly written article on a novel from The Hardy Boys Casefiles on the new pages log. It seems to me that Tanman666's (or is it Dddaaannn666?) new pages on these novels need to be deleted or merged into a table something like List of works by Caspar David Friedrich (although a list with synopses was not well received in the James Bond article[1]). They don't have any real content, are filled with what reads like dust-jacket copy, and are violations of the policy on plot summaries. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd be fine with having them deleted, or a new larger The Hardy Boys Casefiles article could be created, like you said. WHLfan (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hardy Boys/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

As with Nancy Drew, this is a comprehensive and well-written article. Before I pass this for GA, I just want to sort out some of the sourcing issues.

It's not ... I just couldn't find anything that talked about the Casefiles, and I didn't want the article to ignore them completely. Do you have any suggestions? I'll try Lexis Nexus one more time.... Ricardiana (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I found one lone article in LexisNexis (which apparently I can't spell), which I added, and I removed this source. Ricardiana (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
A Google News search seems to turn up some newspaper sources. Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
WOW - thank you! I didn't know Google News indexed that far.... Ricardiana (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm - well, it turns out the Google sources are pay-to-view, but I did find some of them through the Access World News database, as well as others, so I added another newspaper source (many just parrot each other and appear to be based either on each other or on a press release). Ricardiana (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You can use Google to find the sources and then use News Bank and ProQuest to access them. I assume you have access, since you have access to LexisNexis. If you don't, let me know. I have access to all of those databases and can get you whatever you need. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind offer, Awadewit ... I was able to access most of the articles, and I think the two I found are enough, given that, as I said, most of the articles repeat each other. The only ones I couldn't access were: "Grandma's adventures with the Hardy Boys" and "Adventures entering the '80s with series." If you have the time, and they turn out to have anything worth adding, that would be wonderful and very kind of you. Ricardiana (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I emailed you one of them - it has a different example than the article. You can decide if you like the "Black Widow" example better. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Awadewit! (How do you send an email, by the way?) -- Please let me know what I can do to return the favor. Ricardiana (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I just clicked on "Email this user" from your userpage. Welcome to the wiki, btw - we do little things like this all of time for each other. Isn't it wonderful? Awadewit (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I never noticed that, thank you. This is wonderful! Ricardiana (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Replaced. Ricardiana (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Replaced with an article from the Wireless News of the London Financial Times (I think that's what the database said). Ricardiana (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What makes Keeline's essay reliable?
Keeline is indexed in the MLA Directory of Periodicals, not for this work, but for close to a dozen others; his most recent is an essay in Nancy Drew and Her Sister Sleuths, ed. Michael Cornelius. Also, his research is mostly based on the archives of the Stratemeyer Syndicate at the New Public Library and, I believe, Yale.
Sounds good. Awadewit (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Replaced with news source. Ricardiana (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Replaced. Ricardiana (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Grant, Tracy - How did you access this article? The Washington Post site or a database?
LexisNexis - added that info. Ricardiana (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hill, Jason - How did you access this article? The Washington Post site or a database?
Actually, I was wrong below - this is from the Sydney Morning Herald's website. Ricardiana (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Woolnough, Damien - How did you access this article? The Advertiser site or a database?
I accessed all of these through LexisNexis. I'm not sure where to add that information in the "cite news" template, though - under Publisher?? Ricardiana (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
That is one reason I don't use the templates. I have no idea how to fit that information in there, but it is essential. I have found that LexisNexis' information sometimes differs from that I find at the newspaper itself, so it is crucial to say that you got the info from the database. You might ask at Template talk:Cite news. The editors there may even be alter the template. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. I will ask over there, and hopefully they will modify the template. In the meantime, I've re-done those references without a template to indicate where I found them. Ricardiana (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The listing under the "Further reading" is missing the publication date.
Fixed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Beyond GA, here are some things to think about:

  • As with the Nancy Drew article, I would include more information on the economics of the series and the ghostwriting. How much did the books cost and different times and how much were the writers paid? How much money have the series made? Etc.
Will add some info on this ... sadly, as with Nancy Drew, little info is available except for the early years of the Syndicate and nothing about the Mega-Books / post-Syndicate years. Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)  Done
  • I assume that the Hardy Boys have not undergone the same kind of physical transformation as Nancy? Have they changed at all?
They have, quite a lot, but I can't find any sources that talk about it - at least not reliable ones. The closest any source comes to a discussion of the Hardys' physical portrayal is to mention that their outfits are updated over the years ... I would love a section that talks about this, but the sources just aren't helping. Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You should publish something and then you can quote yourself! :) Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Stratemeyeredward.jpg - One of the books about the Stratemeyer Syndicate should have information about this photo. Once we add the info, we could add it to the article.
I uploaded a picture of Stratemeyer which should be in the public domain; the source and date info, etc., I took from Connelly's The Hardy Boys Mysteries. Ricardiana (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Such, at least, was McFarlane's intention: "It seemed to me the Hardy Boys deserved something better than the slapdash treatment Dave Fearless had been getting ... I opted for Quality." - This quotation is a bit difficult to understand - I don't think readers will know who Dave Fearless is.
Added a footnote. Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The "Evolution of the characters" and the "Cultural impact" sections have quite a few quotations. I would try to cut down on them. It makes it hard to read, as the writing style changes abruptly.

Will do.... Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Went through and pruned. Ricardiana (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Since there aren't very many images in this article, you might think about adding some quote boxes with quotes from the novels or from critics.
I like that idea a lot ... will try to think of / find some good quotations. Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Added one; will look for more to add. Ricardiana (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Added a couple more. Ricardiana (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be best if you added the publication location to the references.
Agreed ... I'm not sure how to do that in the templates, though, and I must confess my heart quails at the thought of re-doing all those references. I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world.... Ricardiana (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it is location=. I reiterate my loathing of templates. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well, they do have their limitations. In any case, I think I've fixed this finally. Ricardiana (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of the ISBNs have dashes and some do not - they should be standardized.  Done
  • If you take this to FAC, you will need to fix the ending punctuation of the quotations. See WP:PUNC and WP:MOSQUOTE.
Went through the whole article. I think it's OK now. Ricardiana (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks, Awadewit, for your thorough review and helpful suggestions. I'll start working on them soon. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to pass this for GA now. As I said, these other issues are things to work on beyond GA. Thanks for writing such a wonderful article! Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominating for Featured Article status

I've nominated this article for Featured Article status. Please leave comments by clicking the link at the top of this page. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

South Park Parody

In the South Park Episode Mystery of the Urinal Deuce (Season 10 Episode 9) the Hardy Boys are parodied with focus on their alleged homo-erotic relationship. I don't want to add this myself to a featured article and don't know if this is relevant at all... --Lagerbaer (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It can't be added until there is a reliable source discussing the episode, per WP:RS. Ricardiana (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardy Men

Great article! I wanted to clarify something, though. It is extremely unlikely that The Hardy Men will be made, yet the Wikipedia article seems to imply it is forthcoming shortly. It has actually been in development since around 1998, so such projects that have been in development for this long indicate no certainty of actual production. I recommend re-wording about this project (including not having it in the summary paragraph of "Film and television") or possibly just remove mention because it is only talked about but not acted upon. 81.39.13.182 (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed mention of it since I do not think that mere development of a project for over a decade entitles a "Film and television" section. I re-formatted it to be television-only, though if we need to, we can mention the project somewhere. It shouldn't shape the section to be labeled for both media, though. 81.39.13.182 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps - but the article cited is from 2007, not 1998. While the project has been in development for a long time, it has been mentioned in recent sources and therefore merits a mention. Where else should that mention be if not in this section? Ricardiana (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Whiteness

The summary states that they embody "whiteness". I am white, and I have no idea what it means to embody whiteness. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.231.118 (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Main articles tend to get a lot of - shall we say 'strongly opinionated editing'. It's been removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Featured Articles include what scholars say. It's not my opinion. Please read Wikipedia policies. Ricardiana (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Anon, this article may help. Ricardiana (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No, articles reflect the scholars that we choose to put there, and the wording that we choose to use. I strongly agree that "whiteness" is not an appropriate word to be using here. It is far from clear to the reader what it means. If it means "white privilege" then that's what it should say. But whether it is a scholarly view or not, it reads like a piece of junk. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

superfluous word: "facetiously"

"the boys are so little differentiated that one commentator facetiously describes them thus: 'The boys' characters basically broke down this way – Frank had dark hair; Joe was blond.'"

and if you ask why don't I fix it? The answer is simple Mr Poechalkdust (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not superfluous. Ricardiana (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Impact???

I'm not sure that I would categorize 90% the information provided under the heading "Cultural Impact" as having anything to do with the impact of the Hardy Boys on the culture. However, it has a whole lot to do with how people want to micro-analyze the various strong POV about what the Hardy Boys might be about. IMHO, it provides a whole lot of pseudo-sociological discussion about the Hardy Boys without hardly ever discussing the actual impact. In some respects, this section is very much a coatrack to talk about the big bad White Man. A whole lot of quotes are used to justify the message that s/o is trying to get across.

I think that this whole section -- if left in -- should be retitled to something like "Sociological analysis of themes, stereotypes, plotlines, and alleged idiosyncracies" or something equally buzz-word heavy. Either that, or someone with a NPOV could seriously edit this section down.

The Hardy Boys have had a significant impact on our culture, but you wouldn't know it by reading this section.

This section highlights why Cobert invented the word truthiness about Wikipedia. And it really does take away from the value of the rest of the article.

Sigh. User:Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The job of an encyclopedia is to report, thoroughly, what people say. You don't agree? You don't have to. The information has to be there, however. Also, this article reached Featured status after being thoroughly vetted and follows all Wikipolicies regarding NPOV. Ricardiana (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just because someone says something does not necessarily make it encyclopedic. Further, the main thrust of my comment (despite my ranting) was to indicate that this section has nothing to do with cultural impact and everything to do with sociological analysis. And I certainly don't think this is NPOV. There is a decided slant to the article. [[User:Don'tKnowItAtAll|]] (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with you about the slant. The article ends on this note of forensic distaste, as if first and foremost (at least in the minds of those in the know), The Hardy Boys phenomenon is a problem. One almost gets the impression that early exposure to the Hardy Boys is a wellspring of racial bigotry, corrupting white youth or something like that. (In fact, most kids don't read much at all, and the bookish kids by and large are not growing up to bad adults because of things they read.) Wouldn't it be more reasonable and comprehensive just to take a moment and step back and say that the early Hardy Boys novels were created in a certain time historically, by people living in that era, and that the books reflect the sorts of attitudes that were fairly widespread during that era? It's absurd to expect books of a previous era to conform to the social and political mandates of this one. --BAW (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The article ends by summing up what critics say about the books. You don't like what they say? Get published. Ricardiana (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
First off, that's quite an arrogant tone you're taking there. Aside from that, putting together an encyclopedia entry does involve some judgment about what published sources to include. You have to decide if they are worthy of inclusion even if they are published. After all, there is much that is published that is pure nonsense. One is not obligated to include every opinion from every published source. For example, you might draw fromThe Protocols of the Elders of Zion for an article about anti-Semitism, but not for an article about Judaism. --BAW (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The sources say they are talking about cultural impact. Therefore that is the title of the section. Do not change it again, please. Your opinion does not matter - only the sources' opinions matter. Ricardiana (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, DontKnowItAtAll, please read Wikipedia policies. Your edits are really disruptive because you are trying to present the "truth" - please read WP:Truth - the truth doesn't matter, only the sources. I'm sorry you don't like the sources and what they say and what they say about what they say, but there it is. Please stop changing the article to present your spin on the sources - that is against WP:Truth, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. If you continue this disruptive behavior without any attempt to dialogue about these policies, I will have to register a complaint.. Ricardiana (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The entire cultural impact thing doesn't seem to be presenting information in an encyclopedic manner, but trying to lead people to an assumption. Does it matter that one writer claims that some gay people fantasized about the characters? What does that have to do with the article at all? Do you think a large number of their fans are homosexual, buying them because they have a wild imagination? Did these books have a significant cultural impact in the gay community? And just because the article was mentioned on the main page of wikipedia, doesn't mean those who selected it went over every bit in detail, and that everyone should just accept everything in it without question. Dream Focus 15:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources In this article

I really think this article needs a lot of work most of the information is apparently "sourced" but who ever entered in the sources only entered in a name and a date in parenthesis. I'm not going to claim I know the guidelines for sourcing the information but that's not even acceptable at a high school level.72.44.176.210 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? Are you familiar with, say, MLA format? Please also see the full bibliographic entries under "References", to which the footnotes are keyed. Ricardiana (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I was not, but I am familiar with uppity people who have to feel superior by talking down to someone. 72.44.176.210 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
My apologies; I should not have responded to you in kind. Ricardiana (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I too should apologize my original remarks were not directed specifically at you I just saw all of the sources marked with just a name and number in parenthesis and was wondering about them and asked about them in a rude way. Isn't the MLA format a little more then necessary. The article sources the same books multiple times, wouldn't it have be enough to just mark the book as a references? or is the format being used because the books in question talk about the hardy boys on specific pages but that's not what they are about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.176.210 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, it's to pinpoint specific pages, and yes, most of the books only talk about the Hardy Boys here and there. Ricardiana (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Homoeroticism

Please, everybody, stop deleting this from the lead. Wikipedia policy says that the lead should summarize the entire article. This information is discussed at length under "Cultural impact." Furthermore, according to scholarly citation formats and Wikipedia's manual of style, these citations are appropriately and thoroughly referenced. It is standard practice to provide a quick footnote to the appropriate text and page number, and then a full bibliographic entry at the end of the article. Ricardiana (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

They get along so well, they must be gay? Why is this in here?

They have girlfriends, but the books don't focus on that sort of thing, it not their target audience. The article seems to be suggesting that if two boys get along well, and aren't actively having wild crazy sex with their girlfriends, they must surely be gay. Its to sell to a younger audience, not teenagers or adults. Young boys aren't interested in hearing about girls. To say they must be homosexual, because one friend hates girls and likes sports, he therefor a clear homosexual, is just plain ridiculous. They are never mentioned as being homosexual in the books, so this is original research, or just slander copied from some hack writer publishing their unfounded opinions on it. Dream Focus 19:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not original research. It is a scholarly opinion, cited to a scholarly source, per Wikipedia guidelines. I have also included citations to Gary Westfahl, who agrees with you. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide ALL points of view, not just the ones one thinks are best. Ricardiana (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, please read the footnotes. Gay boys who read these books read the Hardy Boys as gay. Ricardiana (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Some gays see this, since they are desperate for someone famous to be gay. Many of them published books that surely Abraham Lincoln was gay, reading into things something which is not there. He slept in the same bed as another man! Well, in country inns many people shared beds together, that just how they did things back then. Same thing here. And since there are an unknown number of ghostwriters, you never know if any of them actually intended that. It seems ridiculous they'd try something controversial, and having one book say that someone is gay, doesn't really amount to anything credible. These aren't real people, but fictional characters, and those who created them do so by set standards, and aren't realistically going to make them secretly gay. Anyway, we do not provide all points of view, since otherwise the 9/11 page would include alien conspiracies, death rays, God's vengeful hand, and whatnot, that some people honestly believe is what happened. Dream Focus 20:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. Genetic fallacy
  2. Your opinion is irrelevant - NPOV policy requires that what sources say be reported, and WP:OR requires that we ONLY report what sources say. Ricardiana (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Just because you think it's ridiculous, it doesn't mean other people do also. The book is a scholarly work from Vanderbilt University press, and the Amazon page has reviews from other scholars on the issue. Whether or not you disagree with it, there's a published work saying so. There's more on this sort of issue at the Neutral Point of View page.--AW (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Google finds 23,7000 books published by Vanderbilt University Press at Amazon. How difficult is it to get something published? Do they have a review board before approving something, or can anyone put out any crazed ideas they want? Just because someone published their original research through a University Press, does not make it credible, and you can call anything scholarly. How about we change it to, "since it has two boys more interested in each other than any girls, one writer has suggested that makes the books homoerotic, along with every other work of fiction which had two males getting along." Wouldn't that be more accurate? Dream Focus 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Please read the link AW provided. Wikipedia policy states explicitly that we don't decide what's true. We only report what reliable sources say. The changes you suggest would violate Wikipedia policies. If you would like your opinion to be in the article - along with Gary Westfahl's, who ALREADY AGREES WITH YOU, as I already pointed out - you will have to publish something. Until then, your opinion does not count; only published, reliable sources per WP:RS count. Ricardiana (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ricardiana You don't own this article

You are not the only one whose opinion counts, but it is apparent that you are trying to keep a certain POV in this article. W

Just because something is published does not necessarily make it worthy of an encyclopedia. If that were the case, all the hate-mongering pamphlets published over the years against various minorities would be included in an encyclopedia. Gosh, I bet that any one of the editors who have been trying to work on this could come up with similar publications that they should "report" on. Does that make them encyclopedic? Certainly not.

Further, some of your own edits are not very encyclopedic of themselves. For example, the minor change I made to try to accommodate you leaving in your slanted reporting about the Hardy Boys' impact on your early life was undone. It did not change the article, did not delete any of the content, but it certainly did better categorize what was being said. And it didn't take away ANYTHING that you had put in. Still, you just had to have it your way. ENOUGH!

Just because those books said that they were looking at the cultural impact does not mean that they were. In fact, each of those references was really looking at the impact that the Hardy Boys had on gay boys and men. But that is only one small segment of the United States culture and the impact that the Hardy Boys had on (1) straight boys and men, (2) family values, (3) adventure books, etc.

You have tried really hard to make this an issue about the effect that the Hardy Boys had on gays, using such terms as homosocial (the preferred term is isosocial, BTW), homoerotic, etc. You are doing nothing but using the Hardy Boys as a coatrack to advance whatever agenda you have in mind. The fact that you doggedly resist any attempt to try to bring a NPOV to the article only strengthens the argument that you are not NPOV yourself.

Allow others the opportunity to do some constructive edits. Just because the article went thru the Featured Article review does not necessarily make all edits by the persons who participated the only edits that are allowed. User:Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. Criticising your changes and, more importantly, requesting you to discuss them, is NOT "owning" the article; that's silly.
  2. You have explicitly argued on here that you are retitling the section to reflect "the truth" and the "bias" of the article. That is why I object to the change. Further, the sources - which I have actually read - do NOT say they are engaging in sociological analysis - they say they are talking about the cultural impact of the series. Your opinion that they are wrong is IRRELEVANT per Wilkipedia policy - which you still haven't addressed.
  3. If something is published by a reliable source per WP:RS, it IS worthy of an encyclopedia - THIS one. Featured Articles MUST include a broad, comprehensive overview of EVERYTHING that is said in ALL reliable sources. Your opinion that these sources are stupid and shouldn't be included is flat wrong and flatly against Wikipedia POLICY.
  4. Finally, stop trotting out your opinions. Tell me how your opinions fit with Wikipedia policy. Until you can make edits that follow policy rather than your opinions, I or someone else will change them because your opinions are IRRELEVANT. Ricardiana (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You never asked me to discuss my changes; you just reverted them.
I never said I was reflecting the truth. Interesting that you think I did.
Just because something might be considered to be encyclopedic (and we could debate some of the info), does not necessarily mean that it is required to be in a particular article.
I never said that the sources were stupid. Interesting that you think I did.
Your opinion that my edits are unworthy is just that -- your opinion. And just like you indicated, it is against policy.
Who are you to determine that my edits are irrelevant?
Who are you to determine who is and is not a reliable source?
I never said the sources were wrong. Interesting that you think that I did. What I did was to make a minor change in a heading to better reflect the content of that section, something which does not invalidate in any way what your sources have said. Just because a supposedly reliable source says that they are doing something does not necessarily mean that is actually what they are doing. You might want to look up the definition of "impact", "analysis", "cultural", etc., before you just blatantly push your opinion down everyone else's throat.
Changing verbiage does not necessarily invalidate what was said. Note that I did not take a single thing away.
You have deleted at least one sentence, and your changes were detrimental to the article's being well-written. You created a section on cultural impact minus a sentence, and then left cultural impact hanging in a short, unexpanded paragraph in order to create a new section with a title that you say reflects the truth; you STILL have not addressed the fact that the sources say they are talking about cultural impact. Ricardiana (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I didn't use the word "truth" but you did. Why do you keep using that word?
Opinions about what is and what is "well-written"? Hmmm.
The reason I left the cultural impact hanging was so that some unbiased editor (which apparently doesn't include either me or you) could expand on it. But you never gave anyone a chance; you just reverted it without giving it a chance to be expanded. Now is that really NPOV?
The reason the sentence was moved down to the new section was because it was a GREAT lead-in to what the new section was all about.
I did address the fact that the sources say they are talking about cultural impact. It is in the fourth paragraph to the start of this section of discussion.
Where are your sources about the impact on the rest of the culture beside gays? The Hardy Boys impacted straight men, straight boys, females, the adventure genre, the pulp fiction genre, families, etc. But I don't see a single thing in your edits that address that at all. You can't even tell me with a straight (no pun intended) face that there was no other cultural impact.
The whole section is about more than gays; it talks about race, sexuality, psychology. Ricardiana (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Now, perhaps it is instructive to think about why I (and others, if you read this discussion) didn't really notice too much about race and psychology but did recognize the significant discussion on sexuality/sexual orientation. Why is that? Is that really NPOV?
The fact that you have now violated the 3RR rule is evidence of your own lack of bias and your intent.
I don't think I have violated that rule; I did not really appreciate your edit summary telling me I couldn't make any changes, but I haven't been keeping track of the reverts and I am not aware that I have violated that policy. Ricardiana (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure you didn't notice your violation of the 3RRs. You were too busy also doing other reverts.
[[User:Don'tKnowItAtAll|]] (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you User:Don'tKnowItAtAll for writing what I was about to write myself. There are things in this article for which I don't see consensus - just one person's opinion.
I suggest starting with the word "whiteness" in the lead, which doesn't even convey any meaning. Maybe Ricardiana could explain what he thinks it means. Does it mean racial privilege? Identification with peer group? In what way to the Hardy Boys "embody whiteness" more than any other books of the time (99% of which were about white guys).
Ricardian, you may be forgetting the most important Wikipedia rule of all - that edits are made by consensus and not by the rulebook. Let's have some real discussion instead of just argument. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I am the one who asked people to dialogue about this article. Please don't say that I don't wish for input; that is false. In answer to your question, the word "whiteness" has now been wikilinked to the article on white privilege, which explains the concept in question. The concept is mentioned because it is mentioned in the sources.
As far as consensus goes - this is not one person's opinion. It is the opinion of reliable sources. (I might also point out that this article didn't get to Featured status just because I said so. It was reviewed repeatedly by a number of different people. You, Don'tKnowIt, and DreamFocus are actually in the minority.) Ricardiana (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's remember that we as editors have to make choices about which sources get used. Are they reliable and representative of mainstream thought, or at least a significant minority opinion?
Let's go back to whiteness. You say it really means "racial privilege", so maybe it should say so. But frankly I don't find support for the statement in the article, let alone the sources. Yes the Hardy Boys were clearly and openly racist by today's standards, but probably no more so than every other piece of juvenile literature of the time. But it's a big step from that to saying that their enduring popularity is "because they embody whiteness". What is the source for that statement, and why isn't it expanded upon in the body of the article? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for your reply. I appreciate that you're willing to discuss the issues. So, onward. As to making choices about what sources get used, yes, we do make choices in that Holocaust-deniers don't get major airtime, but these sources are not on that level. They are very representative of current mainstream academic thought. They are also not minority opinions - I looked for everything I could find on the Hardy Boys, and every book that mentions them is included, so I did not do any cherrypicking (except to leave out Hardy and Hardy Investigations and Frank and Joe Turn Blue, which are full of detailed publishing information - too much detail for this article, though they could be used for a separate article just on publishing history, I guess).
About whiteness - this is expanded on in the body of the article, in the "cultural impact" section. The source is cited, too. Ricardiana (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Try to keep calm, everybody, and focus on the subject, not the editors, per WP:CIV and WP:TALK. The idea is to try to reach consensus.
Ricardiana, your #3 point about anything published in a reliable source being worthy of the encyclopedia is close to correct but not quite. It's worth looking at the WP:WEIGHT section of WP:NPOV, especially this part, which is policy like the rest of that page:
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.
I think we're closer to "extrmely small (or vastly limited) minority" here than to "significant minority". A few scholars in a few books don't normally add up to something significant. Is there a source somewhere stating that the idea that the characters are/could be/should be/might be gay are ideas held by a significant number of people? If that were the case, this should be left in. If some reliable source said that a significant number of gay Amrican men found the Hardy Boys meaningful to them in relation to homosexuality, then it should be mentioned in the article, I think, at least in a brief way (briefer than this).
Even if something remains, the section seems to give a lot more detail to the subject of gays and Hardy Boys than it seems to be worth. Not only does the Westfahl source strongly disagree with the "Hardy Boys as gay" idea, but that seems to be where some of the proponents of the idea were discovered. Westfahl's strong disagreement (see pp 29-30 [2]) should be noted in more detail in the article, and this source [3], which seems reliable, indirectly makes the "Boys as gay" idea look a bit more strange: the series was consciously meant to promote virtue, manliness and innocence. The "Hardy Boys as gay" ideas seem a little tongue-in-cheek anyway. -- Noroton (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict with below)Additional thought: If some authoritative sources like the St. James pop culture encyclopedia mentions this topic, then it seems to me it's worth mentioning here. I assume there are books out there that cover the Hardy Boys or reference books like encyclopedias of juvenile literature (or just books about the subject) that cover it. Do they mention this topic? Here's how St. James mentions it:
After the 1960s, parodies in print and on stage showed the boys in narcotic and sexual situations, including homosexual spoofs that called them the "Hardly Boys." But the books' spirit of eternal youth and innocence, so absurd to cynical adults, has been a crucial element of their success with children.
It just mentions some spoofs, and that's it. And anything can be spoofed. If the satire is prominent enough, it should be mentioned in the article, but that's it. -- Noroton (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue is discussed by two critics, which makes it worth including in the article. Dennis's discussion is longer than Westfahl's, which is why he gets more space in the article; to stretch out W's would require OR. I could also add a mention to Connnelly's book; this is indeed a common enough view.
The footnote mentions a couple of gay authors who specifically find the Hardy Boys meaningful.
Thanks for the link to the Nash article; the fact that it "indirectly" indicates this or that, though, strikes me as a violation of OR, specifically synthesis. Ricardiana (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Response to added comment -- spoofs and parodies are already mentioned in the article, but separately from critics who talk about homoeroticism. Those critics do not represent fringe views; see above. Ricardiana (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You comment "Those critics do not represent fringe views; see above." Could you point out exactly where you addressed that? I looked but didn't see it. Thanks. I think my added comment addresses yours about OR. My main point is that we don't have evidence that this "Hardy Boys as Gay" idea is held by more than an insignificant minority who aren't worth mentioning because too few people think there's some kind of homosexual content or subtext here. I think Wikipedia does cover the subject of gays and Judy Garland, and if I recall, the article that covers that shows pretty well that a significant number of reliable sources have commented on that. We need something to show that here, or it should go. Since we have Westfahl saying the idea is ridiculous and Nash in the St. James Encyclopedia saying innocence was something important, you really need something to back up that at least a significant minority believes either that many gay boys were affected by the idea, that it's a plausible idea that the characters could be seen as gay or that some authors meant it to be seen that way. I've suggested several ways that this might be shown, and it seems to me the onus is on you to show it, since we haven't seen any indication that these ideas are prominent enough to be included in the article. -- Noroton (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The article never says the Hardy Boys are gay. Dennis argues that elements in the books allow gay readers to think of them as gay. That's very different. Dennis's view is just as valid as Westfahl's, and is backed up in the footnote by references to two gay authors who agree; Nash does not directly address the subject. Feel free to add her views about innocence to the article, but not in such as a way as to violate WP:SYN. Ricardiana (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, your standards strike me as cherry-picking. Westfahl and Nash are two people - you think they should be included. Dennis, Savage, and Bronski are three - you don't want them to be included. Further, to decide that westfahl and Nash are right is a blatant violation of NPOV. Ricardiana (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
response to 18:43 comment: No, I'm not advocating inclusion of Westfahl's comments on this if the topic weren't in the article. It's not cherrypicking to cite mainstream sources on this, anyway, and it's pretty obvious that the mainstream view is that the Hardy Boys are nonsexual, non-gay innocents, as mainstream sources say, if they bother to mention homosexuality at all. You're arguing fine points here when you need to be finding evidence to back up your idea that this is a viewpoint held by significant reliable sourcing -- something you might well be able to do, for all I know. And if you do, I'll support inclusion of this in the article. I think that's pretty reasonable. -- Noroton (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You are cherry-picking which sources you believe are "mainstream" when all sources meet WP:RS. Please define "mainstream" and explain why you think some reliable sources should not be included. Ricardiana (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Westfahl's view is very obviously mainstream, as backed up by St.James/Nash article, which cites the intentions of the people who controlled the Hardy Boys series and follows the innocent/straight meaning that almost everyone has ever taken from the depiction of the characters in the series. Validity has nothing to do with it -- only significance and prominence of the view. It is really the onus of editors who want a minority view included in an article to show that the view is significant enough among the totality of the reliable sources, and there are acceptable ways to do that. I don't want to repeat myself any more on that. There's nothing wrong with having this in the article if you can do that, but the article violates NPOV if you can't. -- Noroton (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Westfahl's view is no more mainstream than Dennis's, Savage's, and Bronski's. The article does not violate NPOV, as indicated in part by the fact that the multiple people who reviewed it during GA, peer review, and FA all thought it was unbiased. Ricardiana (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
From WP:WEIGHT (policy): Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. -- Noroton (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Westfahl's view is no more mainstream than Dennis's, Savage's, and Bronski's. Meaning those points of view are equally prominent in all of the sourcing on this? The idea that the characters could be seen as gay is just as mainstream in the reliable sourcing as the idea that they're straight? Is that what you're saying? -- Noroton (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The idea that they are gay is not what the article says. The idea that they can be read as gay is, and yes, it is just as mainstream, as evidenced by the number of reliable sources. Speaking as an academic, it's also just plumb a mainstream concept in academia. Ricardiana (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ricardiana here - the article doesn't say "The Hardy Boys are gay", even as a minority viewpoint. It does claim that some readers thought of them as gay. I'm still not sure how valid a viewpoint that is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It may not be valid, but it is given in three sources that meet WP:RS. To eliminate them would make the article one-sided and violate NPOV. Ricardiana (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ricardiana on this, but why don't you all take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution --AW (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping to avoid that, but you are probably right. Ricardiana (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC) [Note: I have already requested input from editors previously involved in the article; I have also posted a request for comment at the NPOV talk page, and I've contacted an editor through Editor Assistance. Hopefully this won't have to go to formal mediation, but it may. Ricardiana (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)]
It has been three days. Let's try to work it out. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

I want a little more proof than what is provided in the fourth paragraph of the cultural impact section that two brothers are gay, especially since this would imply incestuous desires. Such a thing is obviously not evident from the books themselves and not in standard discussions of the book. Furthermore, there is original research synthesis going on, especially with reference 115 which reads:

Michael Bronski, for example, recounts that his early reading of Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew was "my first pornography, and they taught me that I could have a mysterious, adventuresome, erotic imagination of my own" (quoted in Connelly [2008], 225).

Claiming that one individuals experience is connected to his homosexuality and to homosexuals in general is clearly not what the original source says, nor is it clear in the source that it has anything to do with him being gay, as any boy would feel this same way. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A gay male teenager sees Nancy Drew as pornography? That doesn't make sense to me, which makes me suspicious that the quote is being taken out of context. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should check it, then. From the article: "It is impossible to read Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys in their original versions and not be aware of the subliminal eroticism. Of course, all the books have been revised to remove not just the sexual innuendo, but the endless and quite explicit racist and class-biased characterizations (after Nancy accuses the African-American caretaker of not doing his job in the original version of The Secret of the Old Clock (1930), he exclaims, " ‘I was just fed up bein’a caih-taker. It ain’t such an excitin’ life, Miss, and while I’s done sowing all my wild oats, I still sows a little rye now and then.’ ‘Yes, Jeff,’ replied Nancy, ‘I can smell it on your breath right now.’ ") as well. But I was able to read them in their original versions. In a sense, they were my first pornography, and they taught me that I could have a mysterious, adventuresome, erotic imagination on my own. I knew that I wanted to be held, touched, and fondled by Carson Drew and Fenton Hardy. (Hell, in a pinch I would have taken Joe or Frank; but they were always tied up.)" It is not taken out of context, and neither you nor anyone else gets to decide whether this "makes sense" enough to be in the article. It should be included for NPOV. Ricardiana (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As a clever fellow once said, "You can find an academic citation for almost any stupid erotic theory about literature or art; what you can't find is all the people reading the journal in their offices and rolling their eyes."
Needless to say, a certain judgment is required in these matters, and all the references in the world to Wikipedia Policy can't alter that fact, for there are always some sources that are not included. There's a reason that, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, wouldn't include a bunch of cretinous drivel derived from some erstwhile academic's musing about having achieved erections past while reading childrens' stories, for crying out loud. I suppose some of the people who perused Clifford the Big Red Dog stories went on to desire to engage in sexual congress with livestock, but that doesn't tell us so much about Clifford, as it does about them. And that is the underlying basis for my remarks here ie., the fact that Mr. Michael Bronski of the Boston Phoenix claims to have written an article about The Hardy Boys does not, in point of fact, make that true. That article is not about The Hardy Boys. That article is about Michael Bronski. Most leftoid, identity politics-derived literary criticism comes under the same heading ie., the author is merely discoursing on themselves. If someone wants to write an article about Michael Bronski, that Boston Phoenix piece you cited would constitute an excellent source. But as a source for an article on the The Hardy Boys, it fails miserably. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The version established through consensus below and inserted into the article five days ago does not use Bronski. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The contention in this thread is not about the sources per se, but establishing the sources as mainstream or common. This is one "testimony" and not representative, nor is there information to claim that his homosexuality established the above connection. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Which source are you talking about? one in the footnotes? That is why it was in a footnote. The Dennis article is mainstream and leaving it out but Westfahl in is blatant POV. Ricardiana (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The lead appears to state that "some attribute the Hardy Boys enduring popularity to their embodiment of homoerotic desire". Ditto for "...racial privilege". Whatever the merits of the cultural section I don't believe we have found any sources that would back up such strong statements as even significant minority views. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That is not true. The section in question cited a number of sources before others deleted them because they didn't like them. Ricardiana (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You have been very keen to say that the lead should summarize the article. If the sections of the article that those sentences summarize have been removed (and if they have not been restored I assume they were removed with consensus) then the sentences in the lead that summarize them should be removed also. If the sentences are in the lead, then there must be something in the article that elaborates them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There was, until deleted. Please read the version that I got to FA status. Ricardiana (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, the source does not say the two brothers are gay. It says that gay readers read them as gay. That is a different thing. Have you read the individual sources (plural)? They are not fringe. They are mainstream; they meet WP:RS; and they represent views that are commonplace in academia. Ricardiana (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Grammatically, "them as gay" means brothers = gay. Furthermore, your understanding of mainstream is incorrect. Mainstream means that they represent what the majority says about them. I see no evidence which demonstrates that "gays" feel a way, nor is stereotyping appropriate. Furthermore, there was nothing to suggest that the individuals feel a way because of their sexuality, or that they are different than normal boys. The quote you use only furthered that. You could find a new source and quote it directly here and we can discuss that. However, I am just going off of what that one quote says (which seems to be a personal view). Fringe views are acceptable, but they have to be dealt with properly, and the article seems to gloss over some fine points in a very unpleasant manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
"I am just going off of what that one quote says" - exactly, you aren't paying attention. There were THREE sources that talked about this. Which you don't seem to have read. But then again, you think you take part of one sentence to decide the meaning of the whole. Ricardiana (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
When I checked the page, there were two references. One was the quote above. I requested you to post what the other references say. The Fringe was the isolating and emphasizing the one individual and the presentation that it was based on his homosexuality, which was unclear from the source. Please provide further quotes to verify what was stated in the article so we can analyze it further. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I have posted, below, links to the full texts of all the sources. Also, if you wanted to critize my "unpleasant manner" you should have read what I actually wrote; it's perfectly clear from this talk page that stuff has been deleted, and making snarky remarks about what I wrote based on a chopped and changed version is obviously not the height of intelligence. Furthermore, you didn't request me to post what the other refs say; you didn't realize there were any, so your closest approach to fairness was to concede that I might find "a new source". Please get your facts straight, starting with what the sources actually say and not your fastidious distaste for what you figure they're saying without having read them. Ricardiana (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't saying you had an unpleasant manner. I am just saying that putting the statement into a footnote was unpleasant. And I am obviously not responding to your actions if someone else chopped it up. Please remember that. I am only responding to the current version, and if it can be fixed by restoring sources, then all the better. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Slightly less weight?

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I peer-reviewed this article before it went to FAC, and I supported its promotion at FAC. I did not detect bias, and I was not surprised by any of the cited views expressed by critics. That said, I can understand how another editor might prefer less emphasis on sex, which we are hard-wired to notice and remember. Perhaps the dispute here can be resolved by downplaying or removing a few instances of the hot-button word, "homoerotic" and its cousins. Here are four specific suggestions:

  • The last sentence of the lead could be revised to put white privilege and homoerotic desire at the end of the list, thus: "Critics and scholars have offered many explanations for the characters' longevity, suggesting variously that the Hardy Boys embody simple wish-fulfillment, or American ideals of masculinity, or even white privilege or homoerotic desire."
  • In the "Cultural impact" section the passage marked with the "sentence needs balancing" tag might be revised to eliminate the quote and the word "homoromance". The revised sentence would read: "This closeness has prompted the argument that young gay readers were able to read homosexual romance into the stories."
  • The counterclaim to the "homosexual romance" claim would then immediately follow, and it too could be altered to avoid repeating "homosexual". It could say, Gary Westfahl, however, argues that the Hardy Boys themselves are asexual, although he and others suggest that Chet is portrayed as a feminine male character."
  • The fourth sentence that might be changed is the next one below the Westfahl sentence. It could become: "The Hardys' ignorance of sex and their increasing respect for the law have led to some negative perceptions and many parodies of the characters." This would eliminate another repetition of "homosexual", which I think can be inferred from the parody titles.

Any thoughts? Finetooth (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with all these suggestions, Finetooth. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Ricardiana (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I, too, supported this article's promotion at FAC. I thought at the time that the article was well written and followed all Wikipedia's guidelines...and I still do. However, I do think the Cultural Impact section focus on sex a bit too much. Maybe this dispute could be resolved if this section was expanded to focus more on other ways the series has had an impact. I'm not saying the homosexual stuff doesn't have a place in the article, I'm just saying that maybe this section could focus less on this on more on other ways the series has impacted culture. I mean, the Hardys have had a lot more and (probably) impact on other things than this.
The thing is though, we'd have to find sources that did deal with the Hardys impact, on say, children's' mystery fiction (the Hardys was one of the first mystery series for children, and I think this is of bigger impact than the sexual orientation of the characters). I just don't know if there's anything like this out there. WHLfan (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There aren't any sources about genre and the Hardys, or I'd have bloody well put them in. You know why sex is mentioned "a lot" (which it really isn't, or rather wasn't), WHLfan? Because the sources talk about sex a lot. They don't talk about the genre. That's why I, per policies, reflected what sources actually say, including pretty much every goddamn one of them. Ricardiana (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Ricardiana, I realize that, that's why I said, "we'd have to find sources" and "I just don't know if there's anything like this out there". The point I was trying to make, is since that's what the sources talk about, than, going by Wikipedia's policies, the article should NOT be change until someone comes-up with sources that talk about what (I think) is of greater cultural impact. WHLfan (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for my tone; I was in a bad mood and should not have posted to you until I had calmed down, so I apologize. I agree, the article should be based on sources. Ricardiana (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is filled with people poncing about, waving their little wands, magically making some sources "mainstream" and others "not mainstream", when every purse-lipped cantankerous homophobe is in every other context more than happy to dribble on about the PCitude of modern academia and thereby conceding what is in fact true, that scholardom loves to talk about sex these days and not so much about form or genre. How is one supposed to reflect current research in reliable sources without reflecting current scholarly interests? By waving the magic wand of stupidity! One self-important flick, and reliable sources are suddenly relegated to Holocaust Denier Hell! Another flick, and one utterly unoriginal pop culture encyclopedia entry revealed through a quick Google search is elevated to the level of Arbiting Source, the source against which every other puling source is judged! But the wand isn't done! Criticise these changes and the wand turns one very thorough researcher of an editor and about a dozen dedicated reveiwers into a "minority" and starts nattering with faux-maturity about "remembering the most important thing ... consensus. Right! If enough dumbass homophobes think opinions they don't hold are fringe, then they're fringe! If people who don't even know how many sources the article had think it only used one, then it only used one! The moving wand flicks, and having flicked, moves on! Ricardiana (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ricardiana has asked me to comment here since I have reviewed the article in the past. I will review the sources and add some comments. I cannot get to the books until tomorrow, though, since my library is closed on July 4. If anybody has copies of the relevant pages and can email them to me, that would be a help. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You are more than kind. All the relevant sources are available via Google Books. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here are links, in case that's helpful:
  1. Nancy boy by Michael Bronski
  2. The kid by Dan Savage
  3. We boys together by Jeffery Dennis (the discussion actually starts a page or two earlier
In the original article, I put Savage and Bronski in a footnote, b/c I was afraid of violating WP:SYN by putting them together with Dennis; I also wanted to avoid giving undue weight to the view that the Hardys are read as gay, and I tried to balance Dennis and Westfahl (here at this page) by giving as much space to their views as they themselves give. Ricardiana (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
One more thing - I originally cited the Bronski article to Connelly's 2008 book, as I had it in front of me and figured that a)a book is a more reliable source than a website and b) that showing that Bronski is quoted in other reliable sources would bolster the discussion (how sadly wrong I was, it seems). ~ I don't have Connelly anymore, as it was an ILL, but as I recall, Connelly quotes Bronski in the course of discussing the issue. At the time I didn't think Connelly added much, but it's worth another look. I'm putting in another ILL request, and if your library happens to have it, even better. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Ricardiana, describing other people as "dumbass homophobes" waving a "magic wand of stupidity" just because they disagree with you is not at all helpful. It's a violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and probably a bunch of other acronyms if I cared to dig more up. I, for one, fully support homosexual rights on a variety of issues, I'm jut not a fan of any political agenda (or other self-serving interpretations) being pushed onto literature for no good reason. Anybody can look at any work of art and read any sort of message into it they want, and that's not particularly scholarly, encyclopedic or notable. We can't let articles become soapboxes for personal points of view. We can refer to the idea in the article, but we cannot give it WP:UNDUE weight, per WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

::Blah blah. You and others have acted stupidly in deciding that reliable sources aren't "the truth"; I've said so; suck it. Ricardiana (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Rescinding - I confused you with DreamFocus, so I apologize. ~In response, I would say the article presented, originally, two different POVs - one scholar who says the Hardys can be read in homoromantic terms, and another scholar who says no, they can't. That's presenting two sides, not pushing one. Ricardiana (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
We are not here to argue that all sides are equally correct, as that's a violation of WP:UNDUE. Did you even read those lins I've already given you multiple times? And your highly uncivil remarks and personal attacks are not justified toward ANYONE, regardless of whether you had me confused with someone else. DreamGuy (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation?

I have been asked to comment on this matter. As I have experience with the Mediation Cabal, would participants here be willing to submit to their informal mediation process? If so, I would be willing to accept the case and work with all of you to achieve a version that is acceptable to all parties and, more importantly, in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Assuming this is the ultimate goal of everyone involved, is this something you would be willing to do? Firestorm Talk 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This dispute has been going on for three days. I think we should try to work out for a few more days or even (gasp!) weeks. Besides, no other dispute resolution processes have really been tried. This is a rather drastic escalation in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the Mediation Cabal is usually the first step in Dispute Resolution. It is completely informal, as opposed to the Mediation Committee, which is formal mediation. MedCab mediators have no authority to impose judgments, and I'm not an admin, so I couldn't even if I wanted to. Even if you think you're not ready for it, please keep us in mind. Thanks, Firestorm Talk 19:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Firestorm's offer is kind, but I'm eager to hear what Awadewit has to say after the library re-opens, and I, too, see no need for hurry. Ricardiana has responded to my four specific suggestions above, and I was hoping that others involved in the dispute might consider those suggestions as well. It seems to me that any editor proposing substantial changes to an article, especially a featured article, should proceed with caution. This thought leads to a fifth suggestion, that the article be reverted to the state it was in on 30 June 2009 when it was move-protected by User:East718 and that subsequent changes, if any, be agreed to on the talk page before they are made. Finetooth (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm obviously biased, but I think that's an obviously sensible suggestion. Thanks, Finetooth. Ricardiana (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I am very open to informal mediation, and I appreciate your input. Thanks, Firetstorm. Ricardiana (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we more than need mediation. What's been happening on this talk page and to this article is bullshit, pure and undefiled. I will hold off on quitting Wikipedia until a decision on whether to mediate is reached; if mediation happens, I'll be involved. Ricardiana (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Most seem to agree that one writer publishing a book saying the Hardy Boys was gay, is ridiculous, and should not be in here. We do not give equal weight to every conspiracy theory out there, as I have previously mentioned. The company that publishes them would not allow them to be homosexual, and since they control the fictional characters, that's that. And some homosexual writer saying he loved books like this, because he could use his imagination about the two male characters getting some gay incest going on, isn't needed for the article either. Two different parts, both of which have been removed by different editors, and will hopefully remain out of this article. And having some formal mediation would be nice. We could also do a strawpoll to see who believes things should be in there, if its anyone but just one user. Dream Focus 00:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dream Focus, I've read through all of the sources, this entire talk page, and the article. I'm not sure that you quite understand the debate yet. First, the article does not say that the Hardy Boys are gay - that is not what is at issue; the interpretation is much more subtle than that. Perhaps you could reread the article and the sources? Second, this is not a "conspiracy theory" in any way. This is sound literary interpretation published by a respected university press. Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • [4] This is the version where the fuss started. Scan for the words "homoerotic" "homosexual" and homoromance" found in multiple places throughout the article to see what the controversial bits were. Dream Focus 18:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I read that version as well. As I said below in my statement, I think there is a misunderstanding of what "homoerotic" and "homoromance" mean in this discussion. They do not mean "gay". I have suggested below that the article include an explanation so that this misunderstanding can be avoided. These are terms unfamiliar to most readers, so I think it is fair to ask the article to explain them. Awadewit (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • By "most" I assume you mean NOT "the dozen or so people who have reviewed this article" BUT "the three or four people who have shoved their oar in on the talk page and deleted sourced material without being willing to participate in actual dialogue (as evidenced by not responding to Finetooth's thoughtful suggestions) or even read the sources"?? Ricardiana (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • [5] it seems to me many different people have tried to edit things out, you telling them to "fuck off" in the edit history, and constant edit warring with them. Dream Focus 18:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I shouldn't have used bad language, so you're right about that. However, if anyone looks at all the edits made by others, they will see that I only changed edits that either a) deleted sourced material or b) added unsourced material that I know, from exhaustive searching, is not just unsourced but unsourcable (at least, not using reliable sources). Many other changes have been made that I did not revert or modify in any way, including changes to wording, addition of templates, etc. Ricardiana (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested in another opinion...I read the debate above before reading the relevant sections of the article, and when I did turn to the article, I was surprised, because what's currently there (July 5, midday) seems perfectly fine. There's nothing about the homoromantic stuff in the lead, which I think is the way it should be -- the lead is not the place to be getting into nitty-gritty analytical details. (Similarly, I would suggest removing the "agents of the adult ruling class" bit, but I won't push it!) In the "Cultural impact" section, the paragraph dealing with the issue seems reasonable and proportionate, although I can see why an editor above objected to the "Cultural impact" label, because much of the paragraph is an analysis of the boys' relationships, which is definitely a matter of literary analysis rather than cultural impact. But I guess it was intended as a lead-in to the reading-the-boys-as-gay idea, which does fall under "cultural impact". At the same time, Ricardiana, I have to say that this whole discussion probably would have been much more fruitful if you didn't try to portray those who disagree with you as anti-intellectual homophobes... WillNL (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi; I know you; your Hardy Boys website is very enjoyable. Re: the current state of the article, that's as it has been pruned. The lead is supposed to summarize the entire article, so if the cultural impact section has a paragraph on gay readers/readings, the lead should have a sentence, or half a sentence, on that - as it did before people starting deleted referenced info. ~ The cultural impact label might be worth changing, but it represents better than "sociological analysis" what the sources describe themselves as doing. Finally, sure, I've lost my temper, repeatedly, but in the words of Alexander Pope, "fear not the anger of the wise to raise / Those best can bear reproof who merit praise". I've also apologized for some of my comments, but if you are going to pay attention to snarkiness, you should look at everyone's comments. For starters, accusing me (as the person who wrote nearly the entire article as it stood when it reached FA status) of being biased, and deleting reliable sources, did not assume good faith. That's for starters. Ricardiana (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but my site is mostly a relic of my high school years -- still hoping to improve it one of these days. You've done a fantastic job with the article. Compared with the last time I read it, it's unrecognizable (and in a very good way). The cultural impact section can keep that title as far as I'm concerned. However, I tend to feel that the gay readers/readings topic is not important enough to be included in the lead. Yes, the lead is a summary of the entire article, but that doesn't mean it should include every single point that is made in the article -- it cannot and does not. It includes the most important points. What counts as most important is a judgement call. But I don't feel particularly strongly about any of this; I really just wanted to add a moderate voice to the discussion. WillNL (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, and your kind words. As to what should be included in the article - that's obviously an ongoing discussion and necessitates going back to the sources. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of current version of article and preceding discussion

Article:

  • Claim:"This closeness has prompted the argument that young gay readers were able to read homosexual romance into the stories,"[107]
  • Evidence: I did not see this argument in Dennis, but I did see it in the Savage memoir. However, the Savage memoir states the following: "Now back when I found my mother's diary, I was just beginning to understand that I might be gay; I was a little too excited whenever the Hardy Boys got tied up on TV." - This is an implicit argument (could be homosexual romance or S&M). Since the source is unclear and the Dennis material is so much clearer, I would remove this material and expand using Dennis. The Dennis material is actually stronger than the article makes it out to be. Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You're right, this claim is clearer in Savage than in Dennis; I was thinking of Dennis's claim that the Hardy Boys books "provided something unavailable in the movies, radio programs, and comic books of the era" (38), which he then goes on to argue is homoromance. That's not explicit enough, however, necessarily to warrant inclusion. You're also right that Dennis's claims are much stronger than I made them out to be; I wasn't sure how to expand his ideas more fully without weighting the article heavily in his direction, but perhaps fuller explication would be more helpful. Ricardiana (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Claim:"while at the same time the "oddly placed girlfriends and the unconvincing fraternal bond suggest a desire for homoromance diluted by ... discomfort."[108]
And the source is not notable for this article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The Dennis source is a peer-reviewed, academic book. It is important to include in this article. Not including it would actually be a problem. I have searched the MLA database and my university library for "the Hardy Boys" - there are not that many sources available. Excluding good, reliable sources is not acceptable when there are so few available. Please explain why you think the Dennis source is not acceptable. Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Claim:"Gary Westfahl, however, argues that the Hardy Boys themselves are neither heterosexual or homosexual, but asexual, although he and others suggest that Chet is portrayed as a feminine male character"
  • Evidence: The Hardy Boys "are not homosexual or heterosexual, but asexual". He provides examples from the novels of why Chet can be considered to take "a nurturing, feminine role towards his friends". In addition, he highlights a scene in which Chet articulates a desire for all of the boys to take a bath together, calling it a "bit queer". Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page:

  • Ottava Rima raised the issue of WP:FRINGE. Homoeroticism in The Hardy Boys is definitely not a fringe theory because homoeroticism itself is such a mainstream theory in literary studies. In fact, it is my opinion as a recent editor of a children's literature journal that if someone wanted to publish an article about The Hardy Boys and homoeroticsm they would have to have something else in the article to get it published. Homoeroticism is part of Queer theory, which has a long, established pedigree in literary studies (Harvard just established an endowed chair in the field.) Writing about homoeroticism in The Hardy Boys is, frankly, rather boring, from a scholarly standpoint, and there is nothing fringe about it. Note that Westfahl even sets up his argument against the "homoerotic interpretation" and "the determined homoerotic critic", which suggests that this argument is recognized by the scholars writing in this field. Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
That's just an unsupported assertion you expect everyone else to accept. This article is not "list every interpretation anyone ever came up with" it's about the Hardy Boys. Some topics are just not notable for the overall topic. I would hope that you would need more than just somebody arguing about homosexual subtext to print an article about it -- like actual real evidence that that was the intent or so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1) Which part would you like me prove? 2) This article is about what scholars have said - this is what they have said, so we should say it, too. 3) The intent of the author is not always the issue (see intentional fallacy). Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Don'tKnowItAtAll has suggested renaming the section. S/he has suggested "Thematic analysis" or somesuch. Would changing that help resolve some of the problems? While the "Cultural impact" title makes sense to me, "Thematic analysis" also makes sense and may be more appropriate for Wikipedia. Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
That might be more appropriate but it doesn't solve the underlying WP:Unue weight problem. DreamGuy (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"Thematic analysis" sounds fine to me. Ricardiana (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like to say very clearly that this article does not and should not say "The Hardy Boys are gay." - There is some misunderstanding in the above discussion by some editors, I think, who are unfamiliar with the terms "homosocial" and "homoromance". These terms do not mean "gay". This article meticulously follows the sources. However, since there was all of this confusion on the talk page, I'm wondering if a brief explanation of "homosocial" is warranted in the article to prevent the same thing from happening to readers unfamiliar with the concept. Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I purposely removed the word "homosocial" from the article, replacing it with phrases which say exactly the same thing but are easily understandable. Simple words are always better, if possible, and complex synonyms should be used only if unavoidable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll look through the diffs for that later today - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I am familiar with the term "homosocial" (though it confuses most people) but, frankly, those were the least of the problems. It's fine that gay lit interpretations exist, but we can't turn every article into what some author trying to dig up gay themes says about it. We have a Simpsons article, for example, but we do not list all the Simpsons references on every article that covers a topic mentioned on the Simpsons, as that's trivia and giving UNDUE weight to a cartoon's view of the real world. Similarly, we should not give undue weight to "everything has gay subtext" arguments on every topic that somebody wrote about as having gay subtext. It's ridiculous. Perhaps a brief mention in the body of the article (like a sentence or two with a link to a ref for those people who care to go look it up), but certainly not a paragraph or more and definitely not in the lead, and frankly no coverage at all in this article would be perfectly acceptable for how notable (i.e. not at all) the idea is to the overall topic. DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
How shall we establish the weight given the Hardy Boys literature to this topic so we know how much to give in the article? Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A brief editing time-out to give Ricardiana some space

Would it be helpful at this point for all editors except Ricardiana, the main contributor, to refrain from making further edits to the article for, say, three days while Ricardiana decides how best to deal with everyone's suggestions? During this time-out, Ricardiana would be free to revert, revise, delete, or add without interference. On July 8, interested editors could meet here again to discuss disagreements, if any, with Ricardiana's latest version. I would volunteer to watch the article and to explain the situation to any new editors who wander by and who revert Ricardiana's edits or make other substantial changes to the article without awareness of the ongoing debate. Does anyone object to this plan? Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
That is fine with me, too. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Same, here. WHLfan (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestion, but I think it will only raise hackles. I'd be happy to post a version to a sandbox on my user page, though, and people can comment on it from there. How does that sound? Ricardiana (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've posted a hasty version here. A summary of changes and the thinking behind them:
  • I've restored the terms homoromance and homoerotic, because they are used in the sources, and because they are precise terms whose meaning are not adequately conveyed by their elimination. I think they need some more explanation, however.
  • I've expanded the Dennis section, to make more clear exactly what he's arguing and the reasons he gives.
  • I've put Bronksi and Savage in the article instead of buried in a footnote, to help establish notability.
  • I am waiting on an inter-library loan of Mark Connelly's book on the Hardy Boys; he discusses these issues and has a whole section on the word "queer" as it appears in the books.
Finally, I'd like to point out that the next section, which discusses parodies of the Hardy Boys, discusses parodies of the Hardy Boys as gay. It makes sense to point out what elements in the stories are seen by various critics and commentators as homoerotic before mentioning the parodies that go one step farther. Ricardiana (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that making the paragraph even longer is the solution. While I do feel that the paragraph belongs in the article, I think it should only be a fraction of this length. A disproportionate amount of space is given to Dennis (2007), which is a source that I find particularly difficult to take seriously. He actually suggests that homoromance is *the* reason that the Hardy Boys have endured, which is (in my opinion) a patently ridiculous assertion. Yes, it's what the source says, so it should be included in the article, but at the same time, "it's in the sources", as an argument, only gets you so far. How much weight to give these sources -- how much space on the page -- is still a judgement call that rests with the editor. WillNL (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If several different people have removed information he keeps putting in, then obviously most people are against it. He can post on his userpage subpage for drafts [6] and then upload the final version after discussion about it. Dream Focus 20:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Dream Focus, I'm asking you as a matter of courtesy to consent to my proposal. Finetooth (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
How about this argument: I ask as a matter of courtesy that you not use nay words with the letter "E" in it for a week. Are you going to suddenly just do that for no reason just because I ask you to and then pretend you aren't being fair if you refuse? It's simply not courteous to make a ridiculous demand in the first place, so please do not try to play the "just being nice" card when you are making unreasonable demands. DreamGuy (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It was a request, not a demand, and it was clearly rejected two days ago. The discussion has moved in another direction, which is fine. Finetooth (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, no. That's not how the wikipedia works. If the materials is challenged, it can be removed. Anyone can edit. If he needed a few days to work on something, then he could do on his user page, simple enough. Your proposal makes no sense whatsoever. Dream Focus 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
DreamFocus, where this editing is done is not all that important. It would be a nice gesture if you could agree to this, especially since Ricardiana has done such substantial work on this article. Without all of his/her work, it would have not have been an FA. You are disputing the least important part of this. Instead, you should debate the content and the sources - the real issues here. Awadewit (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You know he doesn't WP:OWN the article, right? Because yo seem to be arguing that we should hand it over based upon previous edits to the article, which is insane. If you think it's the least important part of this, then drop it as unimportant, asit's an extremely important foundation of Wikipedia that people do not own articles and that we don't hand any of them over to a single person for any length of time for any reason. And, honestly, with the lovefest you just heaped onto Ricardiana, the unequivacol support you gave to anything and everything he wanted to do, and your wanting to suspend all normal editing rules to let the guy take over, I get the feeling that you're not exactly a neutral outside opinion at all. DreamGuy (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It is also important that we go slowly and carefully read the sources, which I did. I actually did not give him/her unequivocal support. Did you read my arguments? I suggested that part of the article and one source be removed. I also suggested that more information be added to the article to that it was clearer to readers unfamiliar with the material, etc, etc. Please grant me the courtesy of reading my post. Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No offense, DreamFocuzz, but you are acting like you are actively deranged here. From your user page it suggests that perhaps you have some interesting personal views, but you understand what is going on here. Mostly, your rabid inclusionism, your insistence that sources "do not have to be major ones like national newspapers", seems to conflict with your problem with the book that has been written. Certainly it seems that you do not like gay people, and certainly you are being either too stubborn or too prideful to allow a reasonable consensus to arrive. Annie o wilkes (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
— Annie o wilkes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"Actively deranged"?? You've got to be kidding me. That's a clear personal attack. I don't normally support DreamFocus on anything -- in fact this may be a first -- but you can't just toss off insults like that when he suggests that we (gasp) actually do what we do on all other articles here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing against gay people, everyone equal in my eyes. My complaints aren't that manga and most anime aren't reviewed in major newspapers, so you can't meet the requirements for most of them, that why so many articles have been mercilessly deleted. What's going on here, is someone is trying to suggest that there is something homoerotic in the books, based on one writer's opinion(which sounds like a conspiracy theory), ignoring the fact that the standards the publishing company has for them, would not allow that at all. Common sense beats conspiracy theory. There are many books about 9/11 conspiracies but we don't include in those articles, or that the moon landing was fake, or the holocaust didn't exist. You don't put these in the article, in a way that suggests they are taken seriously by most people. And many other editors agree with me, and keep taking out the information whenever someone tries to put it back in. Dream Focus 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, no. If you want to see what Ricardiana can come up with, he can present it on the talk page or create a temp page, just like anyone else with controversial edits to propose has to do. At best he should edit the article and then expect to get reverted immediately if others disagree, per WP:BRD. We never just say only one editor can edit the article for a few days. That's just insane and not at all how we do things here, ever. DreamGuy (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • [7] Annie o wilkes has one edit on the wikipedia ever. I'm thinking this seems like someone's sockpuppet, created just to insult someone(me). Is there somewhere to report this, and have someone check the IP address? Dream Focus 15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you are probably right, however you would need to have an idea who it is before a checkuser can be run - they can't just check Annie o wilkes' IP address and try and find a match in all of Wikipedia's gazillion editors.  pablohablo. 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The good news is that nobody's going to take a one edit account showing up to attack others seriously, and if it does other harassing edits it can be dealt with. And some of the other comments on this page seem mighty suspicious as well. I'm currently looking into the accounts involved. DreamGuy (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
From a quick look, I'm not seeing any other obvious sockpuppetry, but there did appear to be some WP:CANVASSing and other slightly grayer areas of conduct. DreamGuy (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, i'll extend my offer of informal mediation in my capacity as a cabalist. This is usually the first step in Dispute Resolution, and I think that with some work (and good faith) by all editors, this can be the last step for this particular issue. Keep in mind that since it is informal and unofficial mediation, we do not have the ability to impose sanctions. I'm also not a sysop, so I couldn't even if I wanted to. If you want to wait until it gets bigger and uglier, then by all means go ahead. However, if we can nip this in the bud with help from an uninvolved mediator (myself), then I think it would be better for everyone. Firestorm Talk 03:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure this is necessary yet. Ricardiana has just drafted a new version of the disputed section (posted today) and we have an ongoing dialogue on the talk page. I think we are slowly working this out. Awadewit (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The homoerotic part

Here's my thoughts, to User:Dream Focus and others. I see your points, but I think you're missing a lot of things. For one thing, the book by Dennis is a reliable source, whether you disagree with it or not. It doesn't matter how many logical arguments you make about them not being gay (and I agree with you), but some scholars have argued otherwise. If you can find reliable sources that say they aren't gay, by all means add them. And it's not that your opinions don't matter, it's that in order to keep Wikipedia fair, we have to follow the guidelines there are -- we can't just delete things because they seem illogical or wrong to us, especially if they have reliable sources. And a scholarly work published by a university would be considered a reliable source, it's not like it was printed at Kinko's or something. Furthermore, the article mentions their girlfriends, as well as sources that say they're asexual. Many arguments are represented. --AW (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts are the same. While I don't agree, that's what the sources say... WHLfan (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more (lol about Kinko's). Best, Ricardiana (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Revised version

Here is a link to Ricardiana's new version - User:Ricardiana/Sandbox. I have posted her statement below (it was a bit buried above).

  • I've restored the terms homoromance and homoerotic, because they are used in the sources, and because they are precise terms whose meaning are not adequately conveyed by their elimination. I think they need some more explanation, however.
  • I've expanded the Dennis section, to make more clear exactly what he's arguing and the reasons he gives.
  • I've put Bronksi and Savage in the article instead of buried in a footnote, to help establish notability.
  • I am waiting on an inter-library loan of Mark Connelly's book on the Hardy Boys; he discusses these issues and has a whole section on the word "queer" as it appears in the books.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the next section, which discusses parodies of the Hardy Boys, discusses parodies of the Hardy Boys as gay. It makes sense to point out what elements in the stories are seen by various critics and commentators as homoerotic before mentioning the parodies that go one step farther. Ricardiana (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If each person who would like to raise issues with the new version could list them in a clear and enumerated fashion, we can address them slowly and carefully. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Parodies make fun of anything popular. The books sell very well, over a million a year the article says, and have been around for quite some time. An easy target is to say they are gay. That doesn't mean those making the parodies seriously think they are, it just a funny joke, and they probably haven't even read any of the books. So I don't see how mentioning the parodies that make simple gay jokes about them, is valid to the article at all. They have been parodied in the Venture Bros by two teen brothers who try to be detectives and act like them, without anything sexual at all going on. Dream Focus 16:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether or not the people making the parodies seriously think the boys are gay -- obviously, in most cases, they don't. But nevertheless, it still comes up again and again in parodies, which suggests that there really is something about the way the Hardy Boys are portrayed that makes them susceptible to being parodied as gay (by humorists) and interpreted as gay (by some gay readers). That's the point that the paragraph is making (at least, as I see it). It's very different from saying "the Hardy Boys might be gay", which nobody is claiming. (As I say below, I happen to think that Ricardiana is placing slightly too much emphasis on this point, but it absolutely is a valid point.) WillNL (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, WillNL. Can you explain what you think should be cut, and why? Best, Ricardiana (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think focusing on the sources will help us resolve what to include and what not to include. Can you present your argument in terms of that? For example, do you think some of the sources used in the parody paragraph are unreliable? Do you have sources that discuss parodies other than the ones discussed in the article that should be included? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • So, some of the many parodies about this popular series, have shown them as gay, and that somehow proves, what exactly? There are parodies of Walt Disney being antisemitic, frozen in ice, and whatnot, but does that get in his article, adding credibility to any such accusation? Dream Focus 16:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • We always need to go back to the sources - what has been published about Hardy Boys parodies? This is what has been published. Wikipedia articles can only report on what has been discussed in reliable sources. Do we agree on that? Awadewit (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I had posted a comment after Ricardiana's statement above; here it is again:

I don't think that making the paragraph even longer is the solution. While I do feel that the paragraph belongs in the article, I think it should only be a fraction of this length. A disproportionate amount of space is given to Dennis (2007), which is a source that I find particularly difficult to take seriously. He actually suggests that homoromance is *the* reason that the Hardy Boys have endured, which is (in my opinion) a patently ridiculous assertion. Yes, it's what the source says, so it should be included in the article, but at the same time, "it's in the sources", as an argument, only gets you so far. How much weight to give these sources -- how much space on the page -- is still a judgement call that rests with the editor. WillNL (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain what you think should be cut, and why? Best, Ricardiana (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a disproportionate amount of space (more than half!) is devoted to Dennis. Unless it can be shown that he is the preeminent critic in the area that is too much. Along with the parodies that makes so much of the section about homosexuality that it may as well be called "Homosexuality".
I would like to see this reduced, but I've fought too many battles on Wikipedia trying to cut down on the prominence given to a minority view, and I don't think I've won one yet. What I suggest we do is balance Dennis with some other viewpoints, and put them ahead of Dennis so we aren't giving him so much prominence.
Incidentally, have we given up looking for sources that say "the Hardy Boys popularity is due to their embodiment of racial privilege"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There was a source in the article. What do you think should be expanded / needs support? Ricardiana (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we expand on Westfahl? What does he think is the secret of the Hardy Boys popularity? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You can read Westfahl's book through Google Books. He really doesn't talk about the Hardy Boys much, but feel free to post what you think should be added to the article from Westfahl. Ricardiana (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
For my own clarification, does the term "homoromance" as used here imply homosexual feelings, or is it like "homosocial", just implying a "romance" with like people (romances aren't always sexual, remember). DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe it's a grey-area sort of term. Dennis is using the term, I believe, to avoid suggesting that any sex is going on, so in that sense it's closer to homosociality - but "romance" implies something stronger than just spending time with guys. Ricardiana (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've written a shorter version of the paragraph at Ricardiana's userpage. Perhaps this will alleviate some of the problems people are having with this section.
  • I have removed the Bronski and Savage material as it was not all that specific and the Savage, as I said above, is a memoir and not a reliable source for this article.
  • Here is the description of Dennis at SUNY: "Jeffery P. Dennis received his Ph.D. from SUNY Stony Brook in 2001. He is interested in the intersection of deviance and criminology with issues of gender, masculinity, and sexuality, especially the historical representation of deviant youth and bullying, harassment, and delinquency among LGBT youth today. Dr. Dennis is the author of Queering Teen Culture (2006), We Boys Together: Teenagers in Love before GIrl-Craziness (2007), and many chapters, articles, and research presentations. " - This is his area of expertise. I don't think there is a preeminent critic in this area, but this is clearly what he is known for (he has two books published on the topic!), so I think emphasizing his view is legitimate.
  • I think that the details in the paragraph describe what "homoromance" means - what does everyone else think?
  • The long version of the paragraph is 559 words. The entire article is 4359 words. At a little over 10% of the article, I think this can be cut down a bit, which is why I have offered a shortened version.

Thanks for everyone's continued patience! Awadewit (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This shortened version looks great to me - thanks for doing that. I'm curious to see what others think. Ricardiana (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks fine to me too. Finetooth (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. WillNL (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If no one has an objections, I will substitute this version into the article in three days. Awadewit (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Since there was consensus on this version and no one raised any objections, I have added this version to the article. Awadewit (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lead

I'm separating out this discussion from the main part on the "Cultural Impact" because I think it's a separate question.

User:Awiseman (aka AW) added the disputed part back into the lead with the ironic edit summary of "I don't want to get into an edit war", without any discussion, on the grounds that "it was referenced". Even more ironically his very next edit removed a well-referenced statement.

Let me repeat the reason why the disputed section was removed. The part of the lead that was removed says that (according to some) "the Hardy Boys popularity was due to their embodiment of homoerotic desire" and "the Hardy Boys popularity is due to their embodiment of white privilege". Nothing in the reference cited supports such strong statements, and the matter is not elaborated on in the article, so these can't be considered "summary statements".

Less strong statements are arguable, and are being argued above. I would agree that some people probably find homosexual overtones in The Hardy Boys, and there is good justification for saying that the books employ racial stereotypes, maybe overt racism. But to expand those to the statements above, and claim that they are the reasons for the books popularity, is clearly ludicrous and obviously unsupported. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Two things -- first, you make a valid point on the reference to homoerotic love and white preference - those articles don't say "this is a reason for their longevity" which is what was claimed here. However, secondly, I'm not being ironic and I don't appreciate you not assuming good faith. I put that about the edit war because I meant I wasn't going to revert it if somebody else took it back, I would prefer to discuss it here. In later edits I tried to add other opinions, in order to show there wasn't consensus on any of them. In fact, I added two other arguments from elsewhere in the article that have nothing at all to do with the homoerotic part, and you took them all out, calling it a "laughable edit." That's not the way to go about this -- it's not an argument at all. "My very next edit" was adding "though others disagree." I removed nothing -- I moved the section that I mentioned previously from the bottom up to the top. When you took out the whole section, you removed a number of well-referenced statements. I'm going to re-add that section, minus the homoerotic part and white privilege parts. Hopefully that covers all thte bases. Sorry to get fired up. --AW (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Dennis (2007) really does suggest that homoromance is a reason for the Hardy Boys' success and longevity -- in fact, not just a reason, but the reason (last line of page 37, first paragraph of 38) -- which is why I find the source so hard to take seriously. WillNL (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Then I suggest we wait until the question of the reliability of that source is sorted out above before putting his conclusions in the lead. AWiseMan, this counts as a recent objection. So did my last post above. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
But that source wasn't in what you and User:DreamGuy reverted! That's my point. I took that part out, and the part about white privilege. --AW (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't notice the changes. I would still suggest waiting to see how the section under discussion above turns out before summarising it in the lead. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Do my eyes deceive me - or is this something we can all agree on?? Because I agree, the lead should be left alone until the controversies with the article are thrashed out (and I recognize, AWiseMan, that you're right - right now the lead neglects to summarize any of the "cultural impact" section, not just the part currently contested - but what the hell, that's the least of the article's problems right now). Ricardiana (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree - there is no reason to write the lead until we have decided what to put in the article! Awadewit (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
One small correction, DJ and AW - the source that talks about white privilege (and the article, at one point) does say that this is a reason for the Hardy's popularity. The essay is available through Google Books - I'll look for the quotation later (feel free to beat me to it, anybody). Ricardiana (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, but now we have to show that it's a mainstream view. If it is a mainstream view, then I suggest something is written about it in the culture section, and when that's agreed we can summarise it in the lead. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, let's see. First the essay is available here. Some quotations: the Hardys are "paragons of white, male, heterosexual authority" (241); "racist stereotypes are not incidental but are fundamental to the success of the hardy Boys series" (252).
  • Are these views mainstream? The author of the essay, Meredith Wood, is an independent scholar who is the chair of the International Gay and Lesbian Rights Commission; she has a book contract with Temple University Press.
  • The essay is part of a collection of similar essays that argue that popular culture is popular for racist reasons, and this is a common idea in scholarly journal articles and books.
  • It's also an idea that is commonly brought up in discussions of series books - critics who write about Nancy Drew, for example, also argue that Nancy's popularity is due to her whiteness, from Bobbie Ann Mason in the 70s to the authors of essays in the 2008 collection Nancy Drew and Her Sister Sleuths. Scholars also commonly bring up the question of race, racism, and white privilege in other series such as Tom Swift.
  • So, the source does say the Hardys' popularity is due to racism; the person saying this is not a professor but does have a book contract with a university press; and the view expressed is mainstream both in academia and in studies of Stratemeyer series books. Further, there are few sources about the Hardy Boys compared other series - I think it's important to include the ones that we have, unless there is a compelling reason not to. Ricardiana (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As we have now decided what is in the article, we should return to the question of the lead. Currently, the lead does not summarize the entire article, as it does not address the "Thematic analysis" section. We need to add some sentences on that. Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Through all these changes, the characters have remained popular. Hardy Boys books sell more than a million copies a year.[1] Several additional volumes are published annually, and the boys' adventures have been translated into more than 25 languages. The Hardy Boys have been featured in computer games and five television shows and used to promote merchandise such as lunchboxes and jeans. Critics have offered many explanations for the characters' longevity, suggesting variously that the Hardy Boys embody simple wish-fulfillment,[2] American ideals of masculinity,[3] American ideals of white masculinity,[4] a paradoxically powerful but inept father,[5] homoromance,[6] and the possibility of the triumph of good over evil.[7]

This revision retains all of the existing last paragraph of the lead and adds one sentence to summarize the "Thematic analysis" section. It summarizes the critics' explanations in the order that they appear in "Thematic analysis" and gives no special weight to any interpretation. Finetooth (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Ricardiana (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I also think it works. Awadewit (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I've inserted this into the lead. Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
  1. ^ Kirkpatrick (2001).
  2. ^ See Cross; Kismaric and Heiferman.
  3. ^ Riska (2006), 66.
  4. ^ Wood (2002)
  5. ^ Morris (1997)
  6. ^ Dennis (2007), 39.
  7. ^ Kismaric and Heiferman (1997), 130
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hardy_Boys/Archive_2&oldid=1068462261"