Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

plot

I have added some onto the Plot Summary section, mainly in the exposition. I'll try to work on it more later. You all do want the section expanded, right? Is it okay if I work on that, or should I wait until someone tells me to? Sometimes people can be a little up-tight about what they want in a given article. -Kanogul ^(talk) 21:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also, what do you guys think about putting a quote from the book at the beginning of the article? I think that might be a pretty good idea. -Kanogul ^(talk) 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been under some intense copyediting and scrutiny for preparation for a featured article. The plot summary should stay as it was. Quotes at the beginning of the article are not a good idea. --Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what you had in mind, but it's something I noticed a few years back. I first read TKAM in 1960 (I was 9) and since then I've read it at least once a year. It is a rare book that you can read over and over and still find new things. About 5 years ago I read the book and about half way down the first page I realized that in the universe that Harper Lee created in this book, the actual story is very simple and innocent - Scout is just explaining how Jem broke his arm. I have always plumbed the depths of this book, talked about the profundity, it's allusion, the allegory. But this reread I reckon I saw things through Scouts eyes and just listend to what she was saying. To paraphrase - When my brother Jem was 13 he broke his arm badly at the elbow - Then she tells the events that lead up to this happening. Might not be what you want, but I think it's fascinating! Pamela Parker (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

When rereading this book, I found something that seems to me to be worth mentioning. In court, Tom Robinson says that Mayella said she had never kissed a man before and she might as well kiss a nigger. What her father does doesn't count. This seems to me to imply incest, which, once revealed, would have erased any tiny iota of respect Bob Ewell had, furthering his motives for harming Atticus. Alas123623 (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Alas123623 16:57 12/14/09

Atticus=protagonist?

The quote in the second paragraph identifies Atticus as the protagonist, but I was always under the impression that Scout was the protagonist, since all the events revolve around her perspective (I even said she was the protagonist in my addition to the Plot Summary section. Am I wrong, or is the quote mistaken, or what? What needs to happen in either case? It may not even be that big of a deal, but I'd like to get an answer. -Kanogul ^(talk) 21:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Atticus is not described as the protagonist by the article, but by a legal writer. He has been the subject of more papers in legal journals than any of the other characters in any sort of writing, so it bears pointing out that fame in the lead. I've had to remove information about Atticus per the suggestions of other editors who are assisting me in preparing the article for feature, and Atticus has his own article, that I shifted some information to. --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Scout is the protagonist. Perhaps Atticus can be considered a secondary protagonist in the sense of the trial being generally a plotline on its own, apart from the mystery of Boo Radley. In fact, it seems there is a sort of trade-off juxtaposition in this story because the main plot, the trial, is worked through by the secondary protagonist. Scout, being the main protagonist, is involved, however, in the plot-line that is carried under the heavier conflict of socioeconomic inequalities and injustices that are inherent to the time and place in which the novel is set. But it is by, and through, Scout's activities that the situation moves. Couldn't Atticus, in addition, also fit the role of antagonist in this story, in regard to the racism issues of the community brought into the open because of his client's trial? --Anastasia888 (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2009 (MST)

I noticed this issue in the article, and agree with the first person who brought it up. It seems to me that it would be easier to replace 'protagonist' with 'hero', because I think that Scout is definitely the protagonist of the story, for reasons that are obvious. It would be much more clear if the word 'hero' were used, rather of using the literary term 'protagonist'. It's not necessarily wring to say that Atticus is the protagonist, but it could be very confusing to someone who does not know the story. either a fix or a specification is necessary in this article.

IQuarence (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)IQuarenceIQuarence (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a quote. The words of a quote cannot be changed. If Crespino wrote "protagonist" then it would be WP:Original research to replace that word with "hero". A sentence before the quote states that Atticus is the narrator's father. It's conceivable that both Scout and Atticus are protagonists; the quote specifically refers to Atticus' influence in the legal profession, so referring to him as the protagonist is appropriate. --Moni3 (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

bryan sommers

Fantastic article! To avoid posting to the FAC page, can I inquire about this block here?:

"While attending college, she wrote for campus literary magazines: Huntress at Huntingdon and the humor magazine Rammer Jammer at the University of Alabama. At both schools, she wrote short stories and other works about racial injustice, rarely mentioned topics on these campuses at the time."

• This sentence refers to "topics", but one topic, racial injustice, is given.
• "... which was/were rarely..." would be clearer, so "mentioned" can't be read as a verb (which I did, when it occurred at the end of a line).
• (The words I struck seem better placed in the bio.)

Changed my mind about a second point, that's all at the moment. Thanks, –Outriggr § 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Outriggr. And thanks for reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In the film version Tom is shot while being transported to the prison, it is implied that he was killed and then the story about him running away was made up to hide the blatant murder. In the book it is much less clear, even on my 5th reading this thought did not enter my mind (that he was murdered and the story was invented to hide the fact). I think the interpretive twist in the film changes the impact considerably. It highlights how society is on trial rather than racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.71.32 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

List of characters

The list of characters has been deliberately excluded from the article. There is already an article on the characters in the book, and the detail of this article does not warrant a list without any descriptions. Much of what would be included in the descriptions is already explained in other sections, such as genres and themes. --Moni3 (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still think that the link for the charcter page should somhow be made more prominent, it dosen't reall belong under plot at all--71.141.142.214 (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Under what section do you think it would be more appropriate? --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats the problem, there really isn't a truely appropriet section. as charcters is kind of it's own aspect of a novel--Sonarpulse (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

When I started on the article a year ago, it did have a characters section. That list is now split off in its own article. A characters list should identify for readers who's important in the novel, but the plot summary, themes, genre, and reception sections already do that in great detail and the information is cited. Because the novel is taught in schools with lessons that tie in to tolerance and human dignity among others, the Themes section has been expanded significantly, at the expense of a list of characters that is located elsewhere. Do you think a list of characters would be able to explain them better than what is in the article right now? --Moni3 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Year TKAM takes place:

24.218.233.31 (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

TKAM actually happens in the year 1935. Evidence ofthis is found on pg. 205 during Atticus's closing remarks in court, he says "In this year of grace, 1935."

It's anachronistic. It takes place throughout three years, and clues point to years between 1933 and 1935 or 1936. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"it has been ranked by librarians before the Bible"

Sure, I can see that as a significant achievement, but doesn't that line sound kind of strong and blunt? I would think that it would be more appropriate to say "it has been ranked by libraians as number one" rather than "it has been ranked by librarians before the Bible" since a person reading this article might not know that the Bible is number two, and there are many other high ranking books other than the Bible that this book has defeated. Heck, for all a lay person would know, the Bible could have been at the bottom of that list, right? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong and blunt goes in the lead to make a point early about the impact of the subject. The article passed through a few comprehensive peer reviews to become a Featured Article. You can read them at the top of this page under "Article History". Since everyone who reads Wikipedia is a lay person, and I got no suggestions to change that, it has not yet arisen as a problem. How would you suggest making the sentence better? --Moni3 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Congrats on the FA. I noticed this sentence: "Tom Robinson's trial was juried by poor white farmers, who convicted him despite overwhelming evidence of his innocence, when more educated and moderate white townspeople supported the jury's decision." and wasn't sure what to make of it. It's not clear how the clauses connect and needs to be adjusted to be logically consistent. I didn't know what you were getting at or I would have fixed it. - Taxman ^Talk 15:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mimus polyglottos

This article discusses the symbolism of the book's namesake in the section To Kill a Mockingbird#Death of innocence. The characteristics of the real-life species Mimus polyglottos are discussed. This includes its frequent singing of different songs (true, sourced in TKAM, sourced in scientific literature) and a mention that it does not harm anybody (false, reference in TKAM, references in scientific literature). In response to concerns about insufficient sourcing (that being the only concern noted in the edit summary), I provided more than adequate sourcing.

After the sourcing for this single one-sentence statement, now the new concern noted is that this violates WP:SYN. The policy, "Synthesis of published material which advances a position" basically describes what we do on Wikipedia. We take published sources to support a position, so maybe the wording on this could be changed. At any rate, the sources given do not need to be interpreted to support this statement. You could probably pick any 3 sources, and it still would suffice. The claim is that they are aggressive towards animals and humans. Every single source mentions that they are aggressive. There's no original research here and no need for the reader to jump to any conclusions because the sources are pretty explicit - except maybe the Youtube one, which, for someone who has never seen a Northern Mockingbird before, might not be sufficient, but this source is really just a cherry on top of the rest of the sources.

The only other part of WP:SYN that I see which pertains to "but where is the sourced correlation to the book?" is a very short half sentence: or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article". But this is not really the meaning of this policy. You would have been much better off citing WP:POVFORK, though this is only a guideline and not a policy. However, a one-sentence statement which is directly related to the previous statement wouldn't even qualify as a fork, as this applies usually just to new pages.

Since the title of the book has the word "Mockingbird" in it, and in this section the use of this mockingbird (Northern Mockingbird, which is the only species of Mockingbird in the U.S. South, where the events in the book occur) as a metaphor, AND two/three mentions of this bird's behavior occur in this section, AND there is a direct quote from the book and paraphrasing of another quote which both describe the animal's supposed behavior from the point of view of the characters ("who explains that mockingbirds never harm other living creatures." and "...is to kill that which is innocent and harmless..."), it seems relevant to mention the contrast between the portrayal in the book and the real world situation. The mentions of the behavior and the direct quote open up the door for this contrast. If these were taken out or were not present in the first place, you might have a case. However, I think that would not be helpful to the article, as it is also not helpful to delete a sourced statement relevant to this discussion of the Northern Mockingbird as a metaphor.

It is misleading to portray the Northern Mockingbird as innocent when it is probably the most aggressive bird in the U.S. South. In the book, that's fine. It's fiction, it makes some wonderful points, and uses this metaphor skillfully. But in an encyclopedia, we can point out other related facts. Not every single statement has to be related to the title directly (though I know the general goal of Wikipedia is for statements to relate back). I mean, a picture of Harper Lee with President Bush, the fact that she went to the University of Alabama, that she worked for an airline, or the fact that she befriended Truman Capote are certainly not directly related to the title but help give some point of reference, as does the very important fact of where she grew up.

Hey, but since you asked for a link between the book and the aggressive behavior, check out the texasnature.blogspot.com source (which was also published in the Houston Chronicle). It has the quote directly from the book about the commonly held belief that it is wrong to kill a mockingbird (title), mentions the urban legend/commonly held belief the Texas legislature adopted a resolution to that effect, and mentions its aggressive behavior all in one source. I'd say that's related.

I was going to add another source, but looking at what's there, it seems sufficient. I'll restore what I had there, because I believe I've addressed your concerns. If you have suggestions on how to modify the wording or something else, please consider tweaking instead of reverting. I realize that people who've worked on a FA don't want to see the article change much (I know, I worked to source every single statement in Houston, Texas to try to get it to FA status), but even FAs can never stay constant forever and being reverted even after concerns have been addressed is equally frustrating.

P.S. Looking out the window right now, I see a mockingbird attack another bird about every 5-10 minutes.

Regards. Ufwuct (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page, but I'll reiterate here. Information about the characteristics of mockingbirds belong in the article about mockingbirds, not this article. Because this is a work of literature, you would have to find literary scholars who tie the aggressive behavior in mockingbirds to the themes of the novel. Without the tie-in to the work of fiction, biological and behavioral information about the birds themselves belongs in the article about the birds themselves. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would "have to find literary scholars who tie the aggressive behavior in mockingbirds to the themes of the novel"? Just because it is a literature article, why does that mean that a source has to be from a literary scholar? What policy is that? I'm pretty sure there's not one. The sources only have to be verifiable and reliable. The sources given were reliable for the facts they were supporting. That's sufficient. Ufwuct (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And by that standard, if I were to put this material in the Northern Mockingbird article, how would I be able to contrast the depiction of their behavior in TKAM with their actual behavior? I would not be able to use the TKAM book itself or sources from literary scholars to mention their depiction in TKAM, because, I must deduce, sources in that article would have to be from ornithologists(?????) Ufwuct (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that kind of source doesn't exist either, otherwise it would have been in the article already. I consider the information on the characteristics of birds to be tangential at best, and belongs here no more than a discussion of the social impact of rape outside of the novel, legal arguments that don't have anything to do with the characters, or tomboys in general. Everything must tie back in to the novel. It's already more than 71 k, and I had to remove information about Atticus Finch and some examples to illustrate cited information about the book to focus the article as much as possible. This is difficult to do with a book as this that is about many issues. I worked for nine months on this article, and I invite you to read its history at the top of this page under "Article History". Some very good editors have added their input and advice. If you like, I can recall them to this discussion so you can get the input of people who are actually much more knowledgeable than I about literary studies. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not about making the article longer. But there's a statement that the complete opposite of reality (though it is a fiction book), and it seems odd that there can't be some short amount of text - one sentence in this case - that would link to that animal's behavior elsewhere on Wikipedia (like the Northern Mockingbird article). The idea of Wikipedia is to create links to other article on Wikipedia and not have orphans (Wikipedia:Build the web). We don't want a self-enclosed world of articles on literature. Though there are a lot of wikilinks in this article of course, because it's an FA, including marginally relevant ones like University of Notre Dame, George W. Bush, and Chicago, what would tip someone off to this species' behavior so they'd read about it elsewhere in a less-cluttered article? The Northern Mockingbird link probably doesn't do that for most. They probably think WTHIT?

I might be okay with not having the entire sentence but having a few words mentioning it, with a well-placed link and also changing the word "explains" in "explains that mockingbirds never harm other living creatures." Even though this is a fictional character saying this: a. it's not in quotes, b. "explains" implies that the statement is true. Can anybody find the exact quote? Ufwuct (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to be open and creative here, by thinking how a phrase might be added to a sentence such as:

Confused, Scout approaches her neighbor Miss Maudie Atkinson, who explains that mockingbirds never harm other living creatures, although in reality they have been shown to be outwardly aggressive to other birds.(ref) She points out that mockingbirds simply provide pleasure with their songs, saying, "They don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us."

That reads quite badly. It screeches the flow of words to a halt and were I to see that in an FAC, I would ask for it to be removed. It doesn't have anything to do with the discussion of the themes. I understand that one of the priorities of Wikipedia is to provide links to other articles of interest, but the primary purpose of it is to provide an accurate, well-written collection of free articles. Lee was clearly using the bird as a symbol, which is cited in the article. In a discussion of the figurative embodiment of the innocent, inserting a literal statement about mockingbirds implying the lack thereof is confusing and distracting: what then is the point of the Death of innocence section, that, despite what literary scholars have written about Boo Radley and Tom Robinson, they had an aggressive side and perhaps deserved their punishments? Similarly, someone could claim in a discussion about Mayella Ewell that 25% of women in the U.S. are raped or sexually abused by their fathers. While that might be true, it doesn't tie in to the novel. This article isn't here to illustrate the behavior of mockingbirds (though if you're interested in taking the Northern mockingbird to FA, you can and should contact jimfbleak or Casliber - they do bird articles all the time), but to discuss the novel's characters, themes, and other literary elements that try to explain why the book has been so powerful and popular for so long. --Moni3 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Audio recording

I am recording this since its going for front page status. As a voice actor, I am asked to do different accents sometimes and while they are by no means accurate, they give a flavor that is closer to other audio recordings of TKAM. So I am trying my best southern accent I borrowed from my Cincinnati friend. I've just uploaded the introduction only for now. If it sounds too weird, I can revert back to Midwestern English. .:DavuMaya:. 06:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, neat. I listened to the lead. I don't wish to disaparage your intentions, but I grew up in the South and live there now, and I think you should read in your normal speaking voice. If that's a Midwestern American accent, that's fine. If it's British, that's fine. I think the novel has exceeded its roots in the South; any accent that is clearly spoken would still be appropriate. I also listen for accents as a habit, and try to pick out where people are from. My parents are Northerners, and I lack a specific regional accent though a few Southern tinted words escape me from time to time. There are specific Southern accents as well, and I can't tell you what marks a South Alabama accent from a North Florida one, unfortunately. So a general American accent would be sufficient. Thanks so much for doing this. I'll give the article a quick read today so I can clean up any edit blips... --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the current recording with intro and section 1. Will continue expanding the file. .:DavuMaya:. 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great so far. Do you mind if I ask you what program you're using to record it? --Moni3 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Audacity. I'm recording simply via my Powerbook's microphone and then filtering bg noise through Audacity. So the quality is decent but not professional. If theres any quirks let me know. It just takes so long to setup my microphone stuff, its easier this way. .:DavuMaya:. 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

lynching paragraph

he wasn't by himself when the mod tried to lynch robinson, the town's newsman was covering from a window with a shotgun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.190.143 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Underwood was indeed in a window with a shotgun. Atticus was by himself facing and talking with the potential lynchers. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Biographical background and publication section

Have you checked that section recently? It appears to contain one paragraph repeated twice.

AJim (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To Kill a Mockingbird seems more metal in hindsight than I remember it

[1] This is totally irrelevant, but I found this bit of vandalism quite amusing. 209.150.60.240 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done on the FA! I love this book and was so happy when I saw it on the main page. Cheers - Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 06:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm very glad you enjoyed reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception in literature

This article ought to have a short section on the revererations of this novel in later literature. I am thinking right now of Meera Syal's novel Anita and me, which for the last ten years has been one of the big items on the British literature school syllabus, and which parallels To Kill a Mockingbird thematically and structurally, for which reason the two are often read together in school lessons. (See Graeme Dunphy, "Meena's Mockingbird: From Harper Lee to Meera Syal", in Neophilologus 88, 2004, 637-59.) But there are certainly others who have honoured the novel by imitating it. I don't like to mess with a featured article which I haven't worked on, but somebody who is involved in this page really ought to pursue this. --Doric Loon (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is something to consider. I will have to read the article you mention. I approached this one as a literary work, which seems to be a part of its massive success, along with lesson plan and legal motivation. There are fewer literary articles written about the book than educational material or legal commentary, however. Much of the educational material, particularly dealing with race, suggests reading TKaM with another book that concentrates on a black point of view. So Anita and Me would be one of many other novels mentioned. I have to take this into consideration. Clearly it's already a long article, and keeping the focus on the novel instead of the film, or the life of Harper Lee (which is now almost inseparable) is also hard. I will, however, do my best to find the article you mention. --Moni3 (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you let me have a mail address, I can send you a PDF of the article. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I see the author has it on his website - I'll put it into the article. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Doric. I need to read the source, which I will do in the next couple days. I went through and restored most of the article to what it read as before it appeared on the main page. One of your edits, the sentence in Style I put in a blind edit because it's worded in a way that's problematic. As I said, I'd like to read the source so I can understand what it's saying. If I have significant issues, I'll address them here. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Moni3, you've certainly had enough to do. You will be wishing there were no such thing as featured article status, I trow. Sure, take your time, and change my edits as you think fit. The article is already so good I wasn't sure where to add. The essay compares TKaM with AaM, focussing on style, plot structure and postcolonial theory, so it would be relevant here at several points, especially since so little seems to have been written. --Doric Loon (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I read the article by Graeme Dunphy, though I have not read Anita and Me. Let me tell you what my inclinations are, and this should go without saying, but who knows: I've read all the material cited in TKaM plus quite a bit more, and I worked on this article for nine months. I'm familiar with the material cited in the article as well as the many peer reviews and suggestions given by helpful editors who also wanted to see this article featured.

• It was very difficult to find resources for this article. It was eventually a point that I decided to make, citing two scholars who pointed out that it has not been the subject of a lot of literary study despite (or because of) its popularity. Because of the scarcity of sources, I read a few articles that compared TKaM to other books, or Lee with other authors, or suggested it be taught with other books. These include A Dry White Season, books by Mildred Taylor, Jane Austen, Truman Capote, Mark Twain, and Member of the Wedding. Furthermore, a scholar wrote an entire essay comparing the fictional Tom Robinson to the very real and tragic death of Emmett Till. Aside from brief mentions of Austen and Till, these comparisons are not explored in the article in any depth, though analyses of Mockingbird from these articles are included in this one. This was done to concentrate all material on To Kill a Mockingbird.
• Because this novel has been so pervasive in English-speaking cultures over the past 48 years, it has taken some doing to hone the article to a very concentrated discussion of the themes that have reflected why it has remained so popular and powerful for so many people. What has had to be cut are extended discussions about the impact of Atticus Finch, and the intertwining of Lee's life after the novel's publication with the lore of the novel itself. It has inspired a To Kill a Mockingbird in popular culture article (I haven't checked it in years, so I don't know what's on it).
• For these reasons I don't think the inclusion of a comparative analysis of Anita and Me is appropriate for the article. No other works of literature or authors are explored, despite numerous comparisons between the novel and the many works of art it has inspired or folks think it spawned from. However, I have to say: the an article on Anita and Me is in low form. It needs some help. If that book is in fact inspired from Mockingbird, that's where that claim should go.
• So it is my opinion that the Reception in literature section should be removed. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. It would probably still be good to keep the Dunphy article in a footnote here somewhere, since he doesn't JUST compare the two, he also talks about Lee's style etc per se, which few other studies do. But I can live with striking the new section and putting the information into the other article. On the other hand, I do wonder if it would not be helpful to give the reader some way to get from here not only to A&M but also to all those other works you mentioned, and the also to the critical literature on the comparisons. Even if it is only a short sentence "TKaM has been compared critically with ..." and put it all into a footnote. OR a "fiction" section in that "popular culture article (I didn't know it existed), which could be cross-referenced briefly from here. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation please

The opening para's contain this sentence: Often the book is challenged for its use of racial epithets, and writers have noticed that although white readers react favorably to the novel, black readers tend to respond less positively.

Is there a citation for this please? --Bardcom (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The following was in a previous version of the article:

Although the novel has had a generally positive impact on race relations for white readers, it has received a more ambiguous reception by black readers. A teaching guide for the novel published by The English Journal cautions, "what seems wonderful or powerful to one group of students may seem degrading to another". A Canadian language arts consultant found that the novel resonated well with white students, but that black students found it "demoralizing". A student who played Calpurnia in a school performance summed up her reaction this way: "It is from the white perspective, from a racist kind of view. You don't see much about the African American characters; you don't get to know them on a personal level.... But it definitely has a [universal] message behind it. I know it's basically about racism but that's not all that you can get out of it."

While I can see why the text was pared down to the one sentence, the cites appear to have become misplaced at some point. Use at will. Steve ^{T • C}

Hi, the references provided above don't seem (to me) to be strong "verifiable sources" for the claim being made. The teaching guide reference doesn't say the same thing and it doesn't polarize in terms of white and black. The article from the LA Times contains some good sound-bites, but a lot of the material is WP:OR and not "scientific" - especially for an opening paragraph. And none says exactly what the opening is saying, which now seems to be WP:SYNTH. I recommend the sentence in question is removed from the opening paragraph. Thoughts? --Bardcom (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm staying away from the article today because it's being changed at a rate I can't keep track of, so I don't know what is in the article at this moment. However, the sentence in the lead about white and black readers responding differently is backed up (or was, 24 hours ago) by the quotes from the LA Times, The English Journal, and an article about the censorship of the novel in Nova Scotia, which was motivated by the use of racial epithets. All three address the disparate reactions of black readers to the novel. --Moni3 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that you say the sentence is "backed up". I've read the references. You are not using a quote from the LA Times , and the English Journal is not directly referenced. None of the people interviewed are qualified to make such a statement - all statements were personal opinions and not given in any professional capacity, or the results of any studies. It's all very anecdotal. I'm going to remove the sentence as WP:SYNTH. --Bardcom (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What is it you want to see? Are you looking for a survey of black readers giving their opinions of the novel? Is that the "scientific" you were looking for? Two articles referencing groups of black readers say some find it degrading and demoralizing. Another group of parents in Canada wanted it banned from schools for the use of epithets. What are you looking for? --Moni3 (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well actually, yeah, some scientific study would be great, or at least an academically backed survey. It's a pretty large and generic claim in an encyclopedic article to be based on a quote from a teaching guide which says something that is pretty open to interpretation, and an article in the LA Times quoting personal opinions including that of a schoolkid. The text was making a very specific claim - no references produced actually make the same claim. Interpretation of the references is WP:SYNTH, and that's why I've removed the sentence for now. Do you understand the reasons? In a nutshell, Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. --Bardcom (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice to have all carried out like ad agencies do, but for now what exists are the two articles that address groups of black readers as students. They are written by educators who, through years of experience teaching the novel, are giving their expertise to others who will be addressing issues of race in the classroom. As a former teacher, this is not a point of confusion for me. The survey has been done by teachers in many classrooms who have noticed their black students—over years—are less moved by the story than their white ones. The claim is not supported by a single student's statement, but that of the Canadian language arts consultant, and the group of teachers who wrote the teaching guide found in The English Journal, as well, once more, by the attempts to get the novel removed from the teaching curriculum in Nova Scotia. Furthermore, African American scholars comment on the disparate treatment of black characters, in particular the comments made about Tom Robinson as a symbol of black characters being "stupid, pathetic, and defenseless". Forgive me for pointing out Wikipedia guidelines because I hate it when other editors do that to me, but the purpose of the lead is to summarize the content within the article. The statement "black readers tend to respond less positively" is well supported by these published instances of black readers responding less positively than white readers. I have not synthesized this information, nor included original research, contrary to your claim. I feel you are quite misguided in your removal of the statement and it should be restored. --Moni3 (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple way to settle the matter then. Produce a reference for white readers react favorably to the novel, black readers tend to respond less positively.. No reference produced so far actually uses these words, or can be unequivacally interpreted in this way (hence the WP:SYNTH tag). BTW, I don't know why you're asking for it to be restored seeing as how you reverted my edit... --Bardcom (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought you reverted my reversion, so nevermind on that. Seriously—suggesting this for the main page is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever done. I need mass quantities of Valium. However, I don't believe that claims in the lead need to be substantiated verbatim in the article. There has to be room for broader ideas stated and cited in the article to be summarized and paraphrased in the lead. Although, if we consider the following cited claims:

1. Teachers have claimed black students find the book degrading,
2. A language arts consultant claimed black students find the book demoralizing,
3. It has been challenged and removed from classrooms for the use of racial epithets,
4. African American scholars note the black characters are explored less fully than the white ones,
5. Particularly, Calpurnia has been called a stock "contented slave" character, and Tom Robinson has been labeled an example of a literary device among white Southern writers that makes black characters dependent upon white ones to help them or solve their problems,

What would you suggest as a sentence to summarize all those points to represent that these issues will be addressed in the article? Let's see if we can compromise on the re-wording of this statement. Moni3 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand why this must be very stressful - hopefully it'll be worth it! In fairness, the student quote isn't a good reference, and the sentiment has been too watered down. I also believe that a short sentence will fail to adequately express the correct sentiment (in the absence of a usable referencable summary soundbite). So, I'd suggest using quotes from "Preparing to Teach" guide, and from "The Case Against".

What about the following:

Students, and often their parents, sometimes have difficulty with the profane language, racial epithets, absence of a Black perspective, complex family and social relationships, and violence in the novel.

While the White student and White teacher may misconstrue it as language of an earlier era or the way it was, this language is still widely used today and the book serves as a tool to reinforce its usage even further ... The terminology in this novel subjects students to humiliating experiences that rob them of their self-respect and the respect of their peers.

Can elements of the above be adequately summarized? Not sure if I could do it... --Bardcom (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, the stuff you just wrote is way worse than what I think you're suggesting it should replace (which I agree with the OP that it needs citations). Tempshill (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a featured article?

Holy POV Batman. Speaks volumes as to the current state of Wikipedia. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion, based on the available research of the novel, of what should be included or excluded from the article? --Moni3 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, when you makes statements like this without bothering to explain yourself, you reduce yourself to a troll. Was that your intention? It seems that your behavior, indeed, "speak volumes about the current state of wikipedia". (uninvolved editor) Isolation booth (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing absolutely nothing further to add. LOL @ the troll accusation. I'm sorry to say I probably pay your welfare. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What's there for him to add? You've given an unsubstantiated claim regarding an article which cites 123 sources and then sidestepped a valid inquiry to point out that Isolation booth didn't add anything to your 11 word premise. What POV are you referring to? Why is it a problem? What can be done to fix it? Until you elaborate on one or more of these points this discussion is utterly meaningless. Legend Saber (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What the heck?

What the heck happened to this article? Was it hacked into somehow? —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected it cause of how bad it is (the right version is showing, if not just purge your cache). Sorry. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It was template vandalism on {{EditionPoints}}, which I've reverted. æ² ✆ 2008‑07‑11t23:08z

He's getting smarter. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, this is an old trick. KnightLago (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Hi, there's a section above entitled "citation please" that outlines the problems with the phrase writers have noticed that although white readers react favorably to the novel, black readers tend to respond less positively. It is not supported by verifiable sources and amount to WP:OR. Previously, due to the high volume of editing taking place because this article was FA, I decided to leave it. I have spent some time constructing a sentence that is totally supported by references as follows:

Often the book is challenged for its use of "profane language, racial epithets, absence of a Black perspective, complex family and social relationships, and violence". Other critisisms report that in the classroom while the White student and White teacher may misconstrue it as language of an earlier era or the way it was, black students are subjected to "humiliating experiences that rob them of their self-respect and the respect of their peers".

See "Citation please" section above for previous discussion. --HighKing (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to include examples of what the sentence states in the lead. The lead summarizes the information within the article. There are, as is pointed out above, five examples in the article of the different responses black readers have had to the novel. With these two unnecessary sentences, the point—which is minor in comparison to the themes and reception of the book—is belabored and given undue weight in the lead. It puts entirely too much emphasis on the reception of the book by some black readers. Per lead guidelines, the lead should reflect the body of information in the article, which should reflect the body of literature that has been written about the novel.

Furthermore, the stunning accusation you leveled that the sentence was borne of original research and synthesizing information was unwarranted, and by including these examples in the lead, you have only proven that the information in the lead was correct the way it was, and the accusations were without any merit.

Your sentences also included misplaced italics. No other quotes in the article have italics, and I can't understand why you would impose them. WP:MOS on italics.

I spent 10 months working on this article, with the help of some very accomplished and knowledgeable editors, not only on Wikipedia issues, but those of literature as well. You can refer to this "agreed upon" version and the consensus of editors who have earned my respect from previous talk page discussions (starting here and reading to the end of the page), and the FAC process. I read all the sources that are listed, and quite a few others that are not. That alone should be enough to prove that I have the experience to know what goes in a lead, particularly this one. But I have also written nine other featured articles, three more good articles, and am a regular reviewer of other featured article candidates. You are going to have to let this go. --Moni3 (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears you may have ownership issues with this article. I'm not questioning your credentials, or the work you've put into this article, or other articles. Well done I say. But I disagree with the specific words used in the sentence that writers have noticed that although white readers react favorably to the novel, black readers tend to respond less positively. Nothing more, nothing less.

Specifically, the (your?) use of the terms react favorably and respond less positively. These terms are imprecise and open to intepretation, as well as imposing a positive and negative sentiment to the different reactions. These sentiments are not supported by the references. It is objectionable for this article to impose a POV in this way, and to interpret/judge the POV as being favorable/unfavorable without a reliable source or reference. This article (you?) might think that the reaction is less positively, but perhaps another equally unsupported POV would be to say white readers appear unable to recognize the degrading racial discriminations in this book, while black readers believe current use of the text propagates racial discrimination - the difference being that nobody is judging the reaction as being good/bad or favorable/unfavorable, but merely reporting the reaction.

An earlier version of the sentence was better - and writers have noticed the different reactions black and white readers have to the book.. --HighKing (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of confusing ownership with extraordinarily high standards. Had I ownership issues, it would never have gotten to FA, because I would have refused the advice and constructive edits of other editors with more literary and wiki-writing experience than I. Again, the sentence as it was before you changed it, as it is now, summarizes the information in the article generally enough though still be accurate: clearly the book is quite popular, but there are some readers who take issue with the depiction of black characters and more casual racism in the book.

Now that's three taboos you have accused me of: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OWN. I don't appreciate it. Otherwise, my view has not changed. Your changes to the lead are unnecessary and gratuitous. --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Are we actually on the same page? I have not accused you of either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH - please retract that comment. Why are you trying to personalise this? This isn't about you, or me. This is about the text.

But seeing as how you've brought it up, I stand by the WP:OWN remark. Here are some things you said above:

• I spent 10 months working on this article, with the help of some very accomplished and knowledgeable editors
• because I would have refused the advice and constructive edits of other editors (!)
• to prove that I have the experience to know what goes in a lead, particularly this one.

From here, it still looks like you view this article as yours, and are acting as a gatekeeper, judge and jury, over any other contributions.

Your latest response does not address any of the points I raise. Please address the points. I have outlined why the statement is objectionable, and I believe the reasons are reasonable. I am not trying to insist that my changes are the only ones that can be the replacements. My objection is solely that the text is judgemental and assigning sentiment to different views in a way (in the absense of a reference) that is unencyclopedic.

I suggest that the text is changed so that it is either directly supported by references (my preference), or that it reverts to the previous text that merely reported a "difference". --HighKing (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I addressed the points already. That has not changed. --Moni3 (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that you have addressed the point I raised concerning the current sentence, you have merely raised some objections to my suggested alternative. I'm open to other alternatives, as I've stated above. --HighKing (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

<reset indent> Well, I don't know much more to say, so I guess I'll reiterate. By looking at the article history, you'll be able to see this article is highly vandalized throughout the school year. I know that and I accept it. You'll also see that the majority of edits made to the article in good but misguided faith are made to the plot summary, because that's all anyone knows about. I doubt that those who edit this article have read the sources available.

On the day it was on the main page, several suggestions came for the article, including yours. I accommodated most of them, read a source recommended by an editor to weigh how much this book's impact on other pieces of literature should be reflected in this article, and I even responded to the unhelpful comment that appeared under yours asking if this was indeed a featured article and if it was, what a state Wikipedia is in. I do not own this article but I will protect it to honor the subject. Honoring the subject is the reason I spent so much time writing it.

Now, I must admit that I found your comments on July 11, and these today confusing. I have done my best to assume good faith, but on the whole we're arguing about half a sentence in the lead that you have said incorporates OR and SYNTH (in your comments above on July 11). Not only do I disagree, but I fail to see where there is room to argue it at all. It is clear to me that "Often the book is challenged for its use of racial epithets, and writers have noticed that although white readers react favorably to the novel, black readers tend to respond less positively." is supported by five examples in the article. In making changes to the lead yesterday, you 1. used sources I already used (Suhor and Saney), and failed to cite them appropriately, 2. used italics for quotes, which is against the MOS, and 3. skewed material in the lead to bloat the significance of this issue. Again, I do not own this article, but with three serious errors in a single edit, I have to wonder how much of article writing and source material you are familiar with.

I've asked someone off-Wiki to review this discussion, in the off chance that I'm being unreasonable. There are five editors off the top of my head that I can ask to weigh in on this half a of sentence, who either assisted me in editing the article or have extensive knowledge of the MOS. If we are unable to come to an agreement on this, then I will be happy to take their input. Let me know and I'll ask on their talk pages. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree there was a lot of vandalism, especially around the time I made the suggestions, and it was for this reason that I believed my suggestions to be untimely. I returned now as the article is quiet. I also acknowledge the tremenduous amount of work you've put into this article.

But enough. Your responses to date are unnecessrarily aggressive. Previously I put it down to volume and stress due to the article being featured.

If my comments are confusing, point out what you don't understand and I can attempt to explain it or clarify it. If I failed to cite something appropriately or breached MOS, a simple note to point it out so that I can avoid similar mistakes in the future would suffice, but it does not detract from the point we are attempting to address. Accusing me of skewing material in the lede is untrue. Accusing me of bloating the significance of the issue is unnecessary emotional language, especially in the absense of any particular point. And labelling my errors as serious errors is a clumsy attempt to detract from the point we are discussing, although depressingly common on WP.

I have maintained a polite and factual tone throughout this discussion, and I ask that you stop and simply address the points I've raised.

I agree it is half a sentence, but the sentence is offering a biased opinion, not supported by references. This was discussed previously. You mention 5 points that support the claim - I assume the points previously raised. I responded above, but to summarize, some of these references fail to meet the criteria of WP:VS, and more importantly, none support the summary used. If you believe that they do, fine. At least now we can look at why we differ in how to summarize the points.

I do believe your tone, and especially the comment of I fail to see where there is room to argue it at all leads me to conclude that you may not be giving the same weight to the point I raise, or that I am failing to properly express the point. I'd be very happy to accept that we may not see eye-to-eye on this issue and that a 3rd opinion would be helpful. --HighKing (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked User:Awadewit, User:Scartol, User:Yllosubmarine, User:WillowW, and User:Tony1 to weigh in. All have experience with FAs, MOS, and literature articles. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to say that I put together a compromise version based on the first step. I have since reverted it, but it can be found here. That is my proposal for everyone to agree to. Does that satisfy all parties on the issue of the claim in question? Now, I do how that we can acknowledge the hard work and dedication that went into this article. Yes, it is an FA and deserves to be respected as such. I also hope we can all acknowledge that sometimes things are missed. I hope that, instead of viewing anything as a problem that could be the end of the world, we are able to come together for a compromise. I have put my suggestion above, but it will not hurt my feelings if it is not accepted, or a new compromise is put forth. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this is particularly accurate. Individual articles in journals cannot be said to "speak for" an entire journal. Awadewit (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Could be shorten to academics and say: "like Charles Suhor and Larry Bell" instead of the journal. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ottava, thank you for suggesting a compromise, but the amendment you suggested unfortunately still uses the same phrases - "favorably" and "less positively". If we can use phrases that are supported by references rather than interpreting reactions as "favorably" and "less positively", I'll agree. Or if we can just simply say that some students have "different reactions", and leave the descriptions to later in the article, that would also work. --HighKing (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If it was altered towards that direction, would you still believe the line needs to be cited? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ottava - if it was altered in that direction, stating a fact without sentiment, the line would not need to be cited. It is only in cases where a sentiment is attached should a citation clearly show that it is a peer sentiment, and not the opinion of an author. To be clear, the problem here is that "favorably" and "less positively" are used without any context -> the sentiment used implies, and can be interpreted as, a societal approval of the white reaction, and a disapproval of the black reaction. It is important that this is avoided. --HighKing (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So the words "favorably" and "less positively" are what need to be taken care of that will end this? Just to make sure before I try to take care of it and there's more to take care of. --Moni3 (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these are the terms with a sentiment that are unsupported by reference. --HighKing (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)The current text is an improvement on what was there. Thank you all for your input. It is unfortunate a mountain was made out of a molehill. --HighKing (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph claim dispute

Claim: "writers have noticed that although white readers react favorably to the novel, black readers tend to respond less positively"

Evidence

• A teaching guide for the novel published by The English Journal cautions, "what seems wonderful or powerful to one group of students may seem degrading to another". - This does not explicitly state that the "one group" is white and that the other group is black. By placing this quotation in this paragraph, however, such a distinction is implied. Perhaps a stronger quotation could be chosen?
• A Canadian language arts consultant found that the novel resonated well with white students, but that black students found it "demoralizing". - This supports the general claim.
• A student who played Calpurnia in a school performance summed up her reaction this way: "It is from the white perspective, from a racist kind of view. You don't see much about the African American characters; you don't get to know them on a personal level.... But it definitely has a [universal] message behind it. I know it's basically about racism but that's not all that you can get out of it." - This supports the general claim as well as other statements about the book's themes made in the lead.

There are at least two pieces of evidence in the article, with an implied third, that support the general claim. Choosing a stronger quotation from The English Journal would bolster the claim even further. Considering the lead statement is rather totalizing, however, might we consider something like "some white readers" and "some black readers"? Awadewit (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The references you're quoting:

• Teaching Guide - good reference, meets requirements.
• Canadian language arts consultant - name of Carol Ricker-Wilson, quoted in the LA Times. I do not believe she's qualified to be quoted in this article or the lede? The LA Times article actually doesn't even quote her, so I would question the suitability of this article if there are better references. In the absense of better references, if she says that the black students found it "demoralizing", then that's what the lede should say. "Demoralizing" does not mean the same as "acting less favorably", especially to a reader not familiar with the original article.
• A student who played Calpurnia? Seriously? Tiana Dudley, who was 16 at the time, surely fails the requirements as a reference. Furthermore, she does not comment on reactions of either white students or black students. --HighKing (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As Moni3 can tell you, there actually isn't a lot of scholarship on TKAM. In the context of what is available, I think the language arts consultant is acceptable. I wouldn't use a student as a source on which to base an entire claim, but having a quotation from an actual student when the general claim is about students is not a bad idea. The quotation serves as an example of the larger claim. You are correct that the statement does not explicitly state she is black, but I assumed that is why her quotation was being included in this section. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflicted ;)

In such cases as these, I always tend to resort to the original sources, and make the summary in the lead fit as closely to them as possible. In this case, I haven't read the sources yet, but judging from my cursory read of the discussion above, perhaps we could say

The book is often challenged for its use of racial epithets, and criticized for having stereotyped, two-dimensional and powerless black characters. Although white readers generally react favorably to the novel, interviews with black students indicate that they can find the book "demoralizing" and written from a white perspective.

How about wording like that? Thinking fondly of the smell of roses, Willow (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Maybe we might replace "powerless" with "passive"? I'm trying to grasp the sense of the sources.

I agree with this type of wording so long as a reference can support "demoralizing" and "written from a white perspective". --HighKing (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it would be good to keep the discussion general in the lead. Do we even need the phrase "Although white readers generally react favorably to the novel"? Maybe we can take the discussion out of the white/black dichotomy (surely there are white – and latino, and asian, etc – students who also reject it). How about we make it: "Some students reject the novel for its simplified characters and limited perspective."

I also like Awadewit's sugestion of finding a better (or several) quote(s) from the EJ article. I'd be happy to help if I could find a copy of it. (I'll see what I can see in my local libraries.) Scartol • Tok 12:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Maybe this article would be useful? Maybe someone with better access than I can .. well, access it? =) This one too. Scartol • Tok 12:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WillowW's suggestion works for me. Awadewit (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bestseller

Why is TKAM currently (Oct 2008) on the top of the NYT Best Sellers List for Trade Paperbacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.69 (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are you looking? I'm not seeing it on the current list. --JayHenry (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Black characters in TKAM

RE the paragraph containing "...its black characters are rarely explored as fully as the white characters.[59] ...the book can be viewed as marginalizing black characters.[60]"

It might be useful to point out that as a young girl in the 1930s the author is unlikely to have intimately known many blacks. This would make it almost impossible for her to write about their (hypothetical) psychological response to the fictional events of the novel. So these criticisms amount to a demand that she abandon Scout's POV and the author's dictum to write about what she knows, and just make things up.

GuyCGordon (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a valid point of view. Have you read this from a reliable source? I can check mine to see if one of the writers or scholars put it forth. Unless a reliable source brought it on, however, it would be original research. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a valid point of view, but I don't know that I agree. After all, the book does contain some nuances with regard to the black community – the lady who objects to "white chilluns" coming to the black church – so I think it's possible to have both depth of black characters and a focus on Scout's POV. Just my US$0.02. Scartol • Tok 17:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

english

what does heck tate give as the reason for the attack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.208 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is this novel/play funny?

The first sentence on the second paragraph states that although the novel deals with rape and racial inquailty, it is reowned for its humor? I am reading the novel now and I'm also an extra for the play Mocking Bird, and it's really not that funny at all. I personally think the story drags on and on; the novel is really boring to me. Maybe I haven't read the funny part yet and haven't seen it in the play. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12missdramagirl (talk • contribs) 14:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Literary scholars consider it humorous, as did book reviewers. To each his own. It might help for you to read it when you are not assigned it if that is the case. For some reason, when a teacher assigns something, it makes it dull, tedious, stupid, and archaic. If you read it on your own the quality improves immensely. --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The part where Scout is walking around inside a papier-mache ham costume without eyeholes doesn't strike you as humorous? --Dystopos (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Maycomb?

Why does Maycomb redirect to this page? There's no mention of this name either here or on the characters page. Rojomoke (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Maycomb is a fictional place that doesn't exist besides in the book, so, if there isn't a page for maycomb, this seems to be the logical place to redirect Maycomb. - Jezzamon (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Vadalism?

The part in the article talking about the origins of Dill states two name for what should be the same person. I can only think that this is vandalism, but have I just read it wrong?Jezzamon (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Truman Persons was the name of the boy who lived next to Harper Lee. When he got older, his mother remarried and he took the name of her new husband, Capote. Is that what you're referring to? --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct Plotline?

According to many people including SparkNotes. The climax of the book is when Tom Robinson is convicted, which makes the main conflict of the book the understanding of racism and the confidnece in equality that Jem and Scout posses. By the way in which the novel was taught to me,and the way by which most people I know agree, is that the Climax of the book was when Boo came out and fought off Bob Ewell, thus making the main conflict making Boo Radley come out.

If any one has decisive evidence for either plotline, it would be helpful to know. Also, are there any direct quotes or interviews of Harper Lee that would identify her intentions for plot and subplot?

Tymo77 (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Tymo77

The climax is not identified in this article. The plot summary is very simple, explaining with as little detail as possible who the main characters are the major points of action.

Several reviewers and literary scholars have noted there were at least two stories going on in this book. Some claimed there were three or more. This article merely reflects what these reviewers and scholars have published about the book. Though SparkNotes may be useful in getting information quickly, it is not considered a sufficient source for a featured article. I believe it simplifies issues too much, but then as a study guide, that is what it is supposed to do.

I am not sure what you are asking for in decisive evidence. The article covers the body of publications about To Kill a Mockingbird. It matters very little how I consider the book or how it was taught to me, and I do not intend to be rude when I say the same for you or any other editor. Articles should only reflect what reliable sources have said about the subject. Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research discuss this in depth.

The article does, however, state that Lee has refused to comment on the meaning of the book. If you are interested in Lee's views, I suggest reading Mockingbird by Charles Shields. It was quite a good read. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

the mockingbird

It should be added, that Boo Radley is the "Mockingbird" which appears in the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.137.161 (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the "Death of innocence" section. --Moni3 (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Conservative/Liberal

The section "Autobiographical Elements" contains the following sentence: "Although more conservative than Atticus with regard to race, he gradually became more liberal in his later years.[12]"

This statement makes an assumption that "conservative" encompasses a belief in racial inequality, which is inaccurate. The statement introduces a political discussion where it is not appropriate. A better way to write the sentence would be:

"Although less inclined to support matters of racial equality than Atticus, he gradually became more disposed to racial equality in his later years."

I think you're confusing the adjective "conservative" meaning a tendency to reject change, with the current political identity of a Conservative. Admittedly, contrasting this with the adjective "liberal" also mirrors the opposing political identity, but the statement is accurate and reflects the issues that conservatives and liberals argued about between the 1930s to 1960s (and still do, to some extent). Race has dominated the political landscape in the US since the construction of the Constitution. A.C. Lee lobbied to have the pastor of his church removed when the pastor advocated for civil rights for black Americans. He came to change his views about race and civil rights later in his life. --Moni3 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• You are absolutely correct, Moni3, but I think the suggested re-wording may be clearer. --Dystopos (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How is Aurthur "Boo" radley a mockingbird?

--71.201.3.156 (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)I am doing a 5 paragraph report on To Kill A Mockingbird. The topic of the report is 'Explain Boo Radley as a mockingbird in the story, using examples and detailed analysis.' What are three paragraphs I could write? I already have the reasons why Boo was a mockingbird but I need two more subjects. Please help!!!

Qualms with the article

It also becomes clear that the friendless Mayella was making sexual advances towards Tom and her father caught her in the act. <--------- this sentence does not make sense

What is unclear about it?

He was hidden until virtually forgotten and died in 1952. <--------- this sentence needs reworking

What is unclear about it?

Critics and reviewers note one of Lee's strongest elements of style is her talent for storytelling, which in one review was called "tactile brilliance".[23] Later, another scholar wrote, "Harper Lee has a remarkable gift of story-telling. <----------- storytelling or story-telling... pick one (whichever is correct)

One is a direct quote and should not be altered.

Yet, Scout still reveres Atticus... <------------ add a comma after 'yet'

neighbors <----------- replace with neighbours (Wikipedia En uses British English, as far as I can remember) 58.174.49.225 (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not the case. British English is used with British topics. American English is used with American topics per Wikipedia:MOS#National_varieties_of_English.

Thank you for reading the article and I anticipate your replies. --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed... 58.174.49.225 (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)