Talk:Children's literature/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Quotations

Took out like five quotes that had nothing to do with children's literature and were not said by Children's lit authors. I left the ones that aren't particular to kid's lit but were said by kid's lit authors. Chicopac (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none of these quotes belong here. They should be on Wikiquote. I've deleted them, but here's a permalink to the old version if someone wants to copy them over (although they still need sources on Wikiquote). Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk about being bold! You sure removed a lot, but I think I like it better that way. And your Wikiquote suggestion is valid. Good, brave work. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you except my only experience with wikiquote is that it sorts it out by person, not by category. I've never seen a rule on Wikipedia saying quotes aren't allowed, and if it aggregates them in a way which otherwise would require finding each individual person quote, I think they're better suited to be here. If I don't hear objections or reasons to the counter, I'm reverting it. But of course, if there IS a rule against quotes on Wikipedia, or if there IS a way to search Wikiquote by category and there is a "Children's Literature" category, someone let me know. Chicopac (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You can Search for subjects or look up Themes from the sidebar in Wikiquote. I've now made a page with most of the quotations that used to be here - so add more if you'd like! Robina Fox (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic stuff! Thank you. Chicopac (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fictional children Categories up for deletion

Category:Fictional children has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

Category:Fictional child molestation victims has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

Both of these discussions have been under way since May 13, so if you wish to add your thoughts please do so ASAP. Cgingold (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

New article American Children's and Young Adult's Literature in the German WP

Check this out: de:Amerikanische Kinder- und Jugendliteratur. --Stilfehler (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That article is very impressive, not only on its own merits, but because it's surprising that the German Wikipedia would contain an article on this subject at all — especially one so extensive. MdArtLover (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A superb article, very encyclopedic - and shows the way forward for the treatment of the subject of children's literature in the English Wikipedia. We could do with a number of articles along these lines, which would enable this particular page to take an even more general and world-wide view of the subject. Robina Fox (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular contributions to children's literature - needs revision

This section is inflated and frequently attracts inappropriate entries. I suggest retitling it "Major contributions to children's literature worldwide" and having no more than two or three authors from each country, with each entry being only a couple of lines long. Bold - but overdue? Robina Fox (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The inappropriate entries are hard to avoid in an article with a list that's on a popular topic likely to be accessed by those new to Wikipedia. Choosing a limited number of entries would be difficult. Many of the books on the list were considered classics decades ago, but now are no longer widely read -- what would be the rationale for listing books that might not generate reader interest? Even if, for example, for the sake of discussion, all the selections were Newbery Medal winners, which would be chosen? I suggest deleting the section, and directing readers to List of children's literature authors, Children's literature canon, Children's literature timeline, List of 19th-century British children's literature titles, List of 19th-century British children's literature illustrators, etc.? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Article rewrite to correct vandalism

As of this writing 10 of 13 footnotes reference Nancy Anderson's books. This appears to be the work of a sockpuppet. A large number of the Anderson references were added on February 14, 2008 by editors who have no other Wikipedia contributions: USFgirl, DarbyBecky, Childlitgirls, Nangelochildlit, Misschildlit. Smfqchildlit's contributions also include overt vandalism (adding "Greg is awesome. It's online, therefore it's a fact.") The IP that appears to be involved was accused of sockpuppetry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:131.247.244.191) (traceroute to USF.edu, where Nancy Anderson is an associate professor)

In terms of Anderson: Her "analysis", as represented, has little in common with the extensive pages on children's literature in the "Encyclopedia Britannica" (11th edition). She seems to be an academic intent on pinning down classifications at the expense of...comprehensibility...utility...and...basically anyone else's point of view. (Those of you with academic experience, how many hundreds of essays and publications have you read that express different opinions?) That "There are ten characteristics of traditional literature" -- is a needlessly binding, ephemeral, academic opinion. Completely unacceptable is a quote from her about what "should be" in children's literature: "characters, point of view, setting, plot, theme, style, and tone".

The text of sections "Boundaries between children's, young-adult, and adult literature", "Basic characteristics" and "Authors and artist" should be rewritten to include references that reflect something besides topical works published in the last twelve years. More generally, the article should at least loosely reflect the content of other major encyclopedias. Comments? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the Anderson references were added by a student or students. I don't see that anything would be lost by pruning the lot (I assume they misrepresent the author in any case). On the other hand, I don't see any need to reflect other (non specialist) encyclopedias. N p holmes (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5