Talk:Peter Pan

Title

Wouldn't the title be better as "Peter Pan (character)"? -Branddobbe 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - if you just put character, people would think 'character'-what? Fictional character is more descriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukino (talk • contribs) 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate tile - "literary" character as opposed to "lierature". Page moved. — Blue。 15:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

POV/Original Research?

"In some variations of the story and some spin-offs, Peter can also be quite nasty and selfish. In the Disney adaptation of the tale, Peter appears very judgmental and pompous (for example, he called the Lost Boys 'blockheads' and when the Darling children say that they should leave for home at once, he gets the wrong message and angrily assumes that they want to grow up)."

This seems to be interpretation--and rather subjective. Agree? Disagree? 71.111.220.191 (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Please see Talk:Peter Pan (disambiguation) to discuss how the title "Peter Pan" is disambiguated. - JasonAQuest 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

I like the Peter Pan illustration at the top of the article, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to use in this context. As a work of art apparently created for this article, it's the visual equivalent of original research. Made-for-WP visuals are appropriate for illustrating objective information (e.g. maps, diagrams, topics where photos are too risque), but when it comes to illustrating a fictional character, it's tantamount to saying "This is what I think the character looks like," which is the submitter's opinion. I'd be much more comfortable sticking to interpretations of the character previously published by others elsewhere. (Using the illustration in Template:Peter_Pan is a different matter, and aside from the fact that it doesn't scale down as well I'd like, I think it's fine in that context.) - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I've swapped the illustration with one in the public domain from an early print of the novel. It would be better if we had a more iconic colorful version, but at least this one is historical and not original research. There are a few more illustrations like this one in the book, maybe they can be used in other articles or elsewhere in this one. --Linda (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this discussion was to move this article to Peter Pan --Lox (t,c)

I've requested that this article be moved to just Peter Pan as the character is the most widely understood meaning of the name (not the play or the novel... neither of which is properly titled just "Peter Pan" anyway). - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose There have been 3 movies that used the name (including one of the most famous animated movies of all time). Also, you shouldn't have redirected the target article here. You moved the article that was at "Peter Pan" to "Peter and Wendy", then redirected it here. IF the move request passed, an admin would do that. If anything, Peter Pan should be the disambiguation page since there are multiple things that have a legit claim to the name. TJ Spyke 02:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the first part of the move based on previous discussion; I didn't realize that it would require admin involvement to finish it. If you think that Peter Pan should be the disambiguation page, you're welcome to propose that, but it wasn't before this (proposed) move, and I don't think it should be. The name is far more widely used in reference to the character than it is to any given movie/play/novel about it. As precedent, I'd point to Superman, Popeye, Godzilla, King Kong, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Tarzan ... all characters who've had multiple movies (and other works) named after them, but the article by that name is for the character itself, because the character transcends those individual adaptations. - JasonAQuest (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• • If this move request fails, I will request that "Peter Pan" be the disambiguation page. Thanks to Linda, I can add the peanut butter brand as a possible (however likely) target for someone typing in the term since I forgot about it (i've never eaten that brand before). TJ Spyke 11:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for other uses, just take a look at Peter Pan (disambiguation). No one's disputing that they exist, but they don't affect the argument that the character is the clear primary use of the name. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support move, keep disambiuation page separate. For the reasons above and in the prior discussion on the disambiguation page, I agree that the page about the character should be titled Peter Pan. That is the character's name, was the first use of the term, and is used in many literary works. The play had multiple titles, and the book was initially Peter and Wendy and had other titles later. The Disney film is very famous, yes, but it's not the origin of the character, it's a derivative work. Also, Peter Pan (disambiguation) is the correct name for that page, because when someone types "Peter Pan" into the search box, they are hardly ever looking for peanut butter or a silent movie, they are looking for the boy who would not grow up, and here he is on this page. --Linda (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Peter Pan the character is the unambiguous primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - all usages are based upon this one, the more famous one. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - per The Evil Spartan; Peter Pan is the primary topic and other uses appear to stem from this --Lox (t,c) 08:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article improvement

This article has been tagged for "clean-up", and I agree. The main issue I see is that the rather long sections about Peter in this-story or that-story spend a lot of time telling the story. I think that sort of plot information is better left to the articles about those stories. This article should focus on who/what Peter Pan is, his personality, his appearance, his abilities, who his friend/enemies are, etc. Wherever possible, the focus should be on the things are true in all (or at least most) versions, and when talking about "facts" that come from anyone but Barrie, the source should be noted (random example: "In the Disney movie, Peter wears brown slippers"). And of course try not to get bogged down in trivia like what color his slippers are. :) Any thoughts? - JasonAQuest (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's where I answer and maybe disagree with myself. :) Since the Peter of Kensington Gardens is so different from the other appearances, he should probably be described separately within this article. The same may be true of the Peter of Hook (e.g. he grows up!) I just don't want to get to the point that we create a section for every work he appears in, then try to fill those with factoids from each one. - JasonAQuest (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea for this... I agree with you that most of the plot info should be moved to the other articles, with just a short overview here. I think it would be good to organize this page by having a main section that describes the most famous Peter Pan, the one who's in the play and the book, and he's sort of the same one in the Disney film. Then after that, we could have separate shorter sections to describe the way he is in the other ones, when he's a baby in kensignton Gardens and when he's grown up in Hook, and when he's in the other sequels and stuff. Those parts would only need to mention the differences. The important stuff about Peter Pan is the from the play and main novel. Those are the works that really struck a chord with people and made the basis for all the other stuff to be possible.

Then it might be good to have a section about how the inspiration of the character from the Davies boys.

Lots of stuff that's in this article now seems like just someone's ideas about it, and there sure is a lot about the scarlet book! Later if we have analysis of the character, it would have to come from references and not just be made up. I have some books about that and I will add some when I can find the time.

This is a big job with so many articles, but I think they're getting better and it's going to be really cool after a while. --Linda (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. About moving the plot info to other articles - that might be a good reason to keep the separate article for Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens and not merge it into The Little White Bird, because the Little White Bird plot that's not in the Peter Pan section is totally different than the Kensington Garden part. In the LWB article, when we do the plot part there, we could put a link to the other article if people want to read that plot. If we put them all in one, it could get really long. I guess that could be OK too, but then again it might get complicated. I've been planning to start describing the plot of the LWB soon too. --Linda (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've moved all of the plot synopsis material to the articles for the respective works... maybe going farther than was needed, but I don't think the "what happens" stuff is necessary except if it specifically tells you something about Peter, and in that case, it should go in another section. So if there's an example of something he does in Scarlet that tells you about his personality, put that under "Personality". I think we can get by for now without separate sections for the various works, as long as we identify where (if not P&W) each piece of info comes from. (e.g. "In Peter Pan vs. Godzilla he demonstrates the ability to grow very large and shoot flame from his mouth.") - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that today, I think it's better like this! --Linda (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Wendy Trilogy

Was there a compelling reason why The Wendy Trilogy reference was removed from the Popular Culture section, considering that it is about both Peter and Wendy? No discussion was had here regarding this edit. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out when this happened? I went back through six months of edit history and didn't find what you're talking about. - JasonAQuest (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure and have asked that the person who drew it to my attention (in conjunction with discussion of a questionable request for deletion of the artist's own page) let me know if they are aware approximately when it was removed. Honestly, I think it ought to just be added back, as TWT has its own page and is definitely a notable Peter Pan pop cultural reference, but I am waiting to hear back from the person who spoke to me about it, as they may have a better idea of when it disappeared to help you pinpoint it. I somewhat fail at reviewing edit histories when I'm not sure what I am looking for. :D --Parcequilfaut (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't question that it warrants a mention here (or perhaps in Peter and Wendy). I'm not quite so sure about the article about The Wendy Trilogy itself, which cites only the artist's web site and doesn't establish independent notability, and may need to be folded into her article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think it would be better suited? Here, or Peter & Wendy? I commented on the merge at the S.J. talk page. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not really about the character of Peter, but an alternate take on the story of Peter and Wendy.

Copyright

The longest term for Copyright in the world is the Berne Convention- life of the author plus seventy years. This would put the book in the public domain for the whole world. The less illuminated JasonAQuest states otherwise. Unless there is an objection I intend to change the entry to the correct information.Allknowingallseeing (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter Pan is a special case, though. While the book in presently in the public domain, royalties (particularly, and perhaps only from stage shows) are still still owed under - specially exempted/created - in the UK. Great Ormond Street Hospital was given the author's rights in 1929, which was reconfirmed in his will (see here). Prime Minister Callaghan had the "1988 copyright act amended" specificially to create these special circumstances. So there's technical accuracies on all sides...!

See the Guardian for "The various uses of Peter Pan that have given the hospital money throughout most of the years since Barrie's death in 1937, will continue in the UK at least thanks to former prime minister Jim Callaghan." Although it is mitigated immediately after by the potentially clarifying/confusing "[act amended]... to give the hospital the unique right to royalties from stage performances of Peter Pan and any adaptation of the play forever."

The legal technicalities of that 'any adaptation' seem perhaps to vary, but GOSH's position is quite clear:

:"The copyright first expired in 1987, 50 years after Barrie’s death, but former Prime Minister Lord Callaghan successfully proposed an amendment to the Copyright Designs & Patents Act of 1988, giving Great Ormond St the unique right to royalties from stage performances of Peter Pan (and any adaptation of the play) as well as from publications of the story of Peter Pan, in perpetuity. (CDPA 1988, Schedule 6, Section 301).

In 1996 copyright term was extended to 70 years after the author’s death throughout the European Union, which meant Peter Pan enjoyed revived copyright until 31 December 2007, after which it entered the public domain in Europe. The CDPA (of 1988 (see above) will therefore prevail from now on in the UK so that GOSH will continue enjoying the benefit of Barrie’s gift.

Thanks to different legislation in the US, the play (and stage adaptations) is in copyright there until 2023. [claims GOSH].

The relevant section of the CDPA is here, which affirms that the copyright has now expired (at least, in the UK), but that GOSH retains an interest royalty-wise. Disney disagrees with GOSH's 2023 date.

It's royalties and copyright confusion first and foremost; and wrangling over extensions second. But a summary of the various positions should definitely be given - and GOSH should certainly be in the article. ntnon (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Allknowing is simply misinformed. The Berne Convention sets minimum terms (generally life+50) not maximums; signatory countries are free to exceed them, and dozens of them (including the EU) do. Mexico's term is life+100, and in the United States, copyright can be 95 years after publication or even 120 years after creation, which can obviously be more than 70 years after the author's death. Furthermore, the fact that GOSH claims that Peter Pan is still under copyright in the US (a position I personally find implausible, but that's simply my POV) makes a statement to the contrary incredibly inappropriate. - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See also here. It's a little odd that GOSH is only mentioned on this page in regards to their statue, too, and not with regards to rights and royalties. ntnon (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The copyright applies (or doesn't) to the entire work of Peter and Wendy (not just the character), so it makes the most sense to cover it in that article. Perhaps a reference to that coverage would be helpful here. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem of what happens when the less illuminated rely on teh internets for facts. Jason is wrong- Peter Pan is public domain in the entire world. There is no way in hell that it isn't in the USA and in the UK the GOSH extension ended in DEC 2007. If you were better illuminated you would know that that was why your heroic friend Alan Moore's porn book LOST GIRLS was allowed to be sold there in Jan 2008.Allknowingallseeing (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a citation of your claim that the work is PD worldwide. The citation you deleted from Peter and Wendy documents GOSH's claim of copyright in the US, and you have not provided any legal citation that refutes it. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Personality

The article doesn't take into account the work on Barrie and the du Maurier's in Captivated by Piers Dudgeon where he hypothesises (rightly in my opinion) that Peter Pan represented some of the darker aspects of Barrie himself. Originally Peter was the villain of the story, not the hero he has generally been treated as later, and this is stated in the article on Hook - but not here. Barrie may have transferred the copyright to Ormond St Children's Hospital out of guilt, not generosity. This article should at least include these points as theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermeswiki (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide citations for this analysis, please go ahead and add it. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What, no Blues Traveler?

Blues Traveler isn't even mentioned in the "culture" section? There's a reference to Peter Pan mythology on almost every Blues Traveler album (quite obvious on the album "Straight on Till Morning"). Shouldn't this be mentioned? I could provide a more complete list if necessary. --Buddy13 (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some RS to reference in regards to this? Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's always this, a fansite that lists all the lyrics. I think that'd be sufficient to illustrate the major connections. --Buddy13 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Any secondary sources? I just want to avoid listing the minutae of every pop culture reference to Peter Pan ever. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better to have a source that describes the connections. Without that, we'd be engaging in original research. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Totenkindergeschichte

All web references to the "dead children stories" quote this Wikipedia article. If the connection is to be included, a reference should be cited; not original research.173.88.154.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC).

The article does identify the author of this theory, but unfortunately it doesn't say where (presumably one of his books) he presented it. Still, it's not really OR, just info with a poor citation. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

question

It seems like Peter is usually considered the "hero" of the story, the good guy in contrast to Hook's villain role. Why is that? Isn't Pan evil and barbaric for cutting Hook's hand off? Perhaps the "personality" section should also mention that he is quite cruel. Web wonder (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That section already notes some of his less "heroic" attributes, though I suppose more could be added. Whether he's the hero or villain is an interesting question, but would best be served by quoting sources since that's more a matter of opinion than fact. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

History of the origin of story leading to play of Peter Pan

The information in this article, The pain behind Peter Pan, from U.S. News might be of value to have in the history section, or in a separate origin section. It provides the family history from which the play of Peter Pan was derived, and from which Barrie originated his story, what happened to the family, etc. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/041108/8peter.htm Natural (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Total Vandalism

I apologise for not being able to rectify the situation, I've never posted properly on Wikipedia before, but this Peter Pan page has being totally vandalised with some sort of "paedo pan" joke and has lost all credibility. Could somebody who set up or contributed to the page please fix it? Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.25.194 (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism was reverted after two hours. You could do that by clicking "history" at the top of the article and finding the changes which introduced the bad text. After viewing the difference introduced by the edits, you can undo them. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To add on to the original-poster's suggestion to undo the vandalism, I think this page should be semi-protected due to the constant vandalism by various users, both registered and unregistered. I've had to revert several changes to correct the sheer amount of unhelpful edits these users create.

SirLagsalott (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)SirLagsalott

Casting of female actors as Peter Pan

There's a thoroughly unfounded statement in this article that the reason a woman has almost always been cast as Peter Pan in stage productions since the first one has something to do with a scarcity of child actors. This isn't true at all and is frankly kind of a silly conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever. The reason a woman is usually cast as Peter is that the character flies a number of times during the show for several minutes at a time and therefore must wear a harness of straps underneath his/her costume which can be attached to wires on the flying rig used to lift him/her off the ground, and that those straps are very uncomfortable for a male actor to wear. It's far less uncomfortable for a female to wear such a harness which concentrates the pressure of the actor's full weight you-can-imagine-where night after night during a long performance run. Actually it can prove difficult enough for a male actor that he will often be able to handle being suspended in such a way for only a few minutes at a time before not being able to deal with it any more. I performed in a production of JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR for years in which a similar harness was used, hidden under the loincloth of the actor playing Jesus, to suspend him from a hidden hook on the cross for a few minutes at the end of each show. This caused the actor to cramp up enough to be unable to appear in a curtain call, so the show was and still is staged without one. Perhaps someone could phrase this comment more succinctly and politely for this article and make the appropriate correction! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkSavageJr (talk • contribs) 12:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the statement is unfounded at all. There were few child actors at that time and there has always been a strong tradition in the theatre for actresses to play the role of young boys in stage plays with plenty of evidence to be found about this tradition. It has carried on in modern day pantos (in the UK at least), where the principal boy is usually often played by a woman e.g. Aladdin, Cinderella, and, yes, panto versions of Peter Pan. Your experience of performing in Jesus Christ Superstar, while interesting, is not really relevant here.--Stelmaris (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The statement is very well supported, by numerous sources. The adolescent boy who played John in the first production (Michael was played by a girl) was rigged in a harness for flying, so it wasn't because a boy couldn't do that. Furthermore, the flying scenes in the play are actually quite short. (Perhaps ClarkSavageJr is thinking of the Broadway musical adaptation, where flying was a big part of the spectacle?) The UK panto tradition of casting a woman as the Principle Boy was part of it, but it was mainly due to the reason for the panto tradition in the first place: they wouldn't be able to find a child actors capable of carrying the two lead roles, and child labor laws restricted the hours child actors could work. Casting an adult to play Peter allowed them to cast adults for most of the other child roles and got them off the hook. They cast a woman instead of a man for the same reason they cast women to play all but one of the Lost Boys (non-flying roles, I might add): they looked more "boyish" than men would. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The "appearance" section here isn't specifically concerned with why Peter Pan was played by a woman in only the first production or in the past, it applies to the present also and I'm addressing that with my comment. I'm perfectly aware that boys, especially in fantasy-oriented and musical productions, were often played by young women at the time of the first production. But Peter Pan stage plays and musicals are still performed today, a hundred years later, and it's not solely because of "tradition" or a lack of available young actors that a young adult male is never cast nowadays. Though other stage versions of the story now exist, yes, I am referring to a degree to the Samuel French musical version which is what is most often performed now and what someone is likely to see if they "go see Peter Pan" at a theatre. I didn't suggest that it's impossible for any male to deal with wearing a harness, ever, either; the actors who play Michael and John in the show always wear them but their flying scene is very brief and their lines go only up and down, not side to side, so there's not as much resistance for them to deal with, and usually they ARE played by children. A younger, lighter boy can handle the harness better than an adult male but it's still far less of a problem for a female, especially night after night during a long-running production or tour. The harness may have been why Michael Jackson, obsessed with acting out the role in real-life, never even attempted the part of Peter Pan on stage. Nowadays also the idea that the part of Peter can be promoted as a star vehicle for a name female such as Cathy Rigby or Sandy Duncan is more the "tradition" than anything to do with British pantomime. And the fact that there are perhaps more young women interested in playing the part than, say, Justin Biebers out there who could handle it also affects casting of the role in addition to the business of the harness. Cathy Rigby has for years been producing the show with her own production company just so she could play the part -- no fair competition for male actors there! One cannot say that if an enterprising producer might decide to cast Justin in the role, and he subsequently were to quit after a short time because of the annoyance/difficulty of wearing the harness, that what I am talking about here is not a factor if not still the deciding factor in why virtually always adult women are still cast now that the "panto tradition" is no longer general knowledge (especially in America), as this male character. There is one adult male in a Broadway show that wears a harness and line now, and that is Spider-man. And it's no secret he's had no end of difficulty with his! At any rate I am commenting in relation to the practical present-day reality of casting the role of Peter Pan, not intending to specifically deal with history or especially romanticized history. If you're going to cast Peter Pan nowadays, star-casting concerns aside, you look at women for the part primarily because the harness is a pain in the neck for guys to wear, plain and simple. If the powers that be, who may or may not have the benefit of any real-life backstage experience (which is not always recorded in books and therefore can't be referenced in footnotes), choose not to find validity in what I am saying, so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.137.92 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume part of the reason is simply that Peter Pan needs to have an unbroken voice to convincingly play 'the boy who never grew up'. 109.149.9.143 (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hook "to a 10 year old I'm huge" quote

After watching this film (Hook) a few nights ago, I'm sure Hook says, "FOR a 10 year old I'm huge", opposed to, "to a 10 year old I'm huge", suggesting that he is also 10 years old (as do many other things in this film, where he can be seen having childish tantrums etc), and is only seen as being bigger because he's the bully etc. I think it makes much more sense this way also, as Pan is clearly older than 10 in pretty much all of this film, so not sure if this quote can be used to justify any points about Pan's age... Sorry if this isn't the correct procedure for suggestions, have never done this before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.46.181 (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Online Communities

Hey all, we are 3 students from Cornell University, editing this article for our Online Communities course. We look forward to strengthen this C-Class article.

Below are the changes we intend to make:

• Rephrase the appearance section to now be titled "Interpretations of physical appearance"

• Combine sections "major stories", "by Barrie" and "pop culture" into a new section titled "media", split into 4 subsections: literature, film, references, and shows.

• Change "History" section to "Origin".

• Include updated information on Peter Pan.

• Separate relationships into subsections: friends, enemies, and romance. Include additional details on specific relationships. Reference Peter_and_Wendy, http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Tinker_Bell.

• Maintain consistent format with bullets featured in every section.

• Cite personality descriptions of Peter Pan. (Quotes, etc).

• Update images for each section, sources include screenshots of movies from IMDB, book images from Cornell rare script library, and official Disney website.

Division of labor

• Xiao Xu, CS Major - Bullet points 1-4

• Brittany Berliner, Comm Major - Bullet points 5-7

• Hannah Kremer, ILR Major - Bullet points 8-11

[page] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaoxu193 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Xiaoxu193 Sounds great! Make sure you add the appropriate sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

- thanks NeilN for the advice! Do you have recommendations for the sources? 74.71.170.134 (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a great sounding project but I'm a little concerned that many of the points you want to cover are already covered in other Wiki pages so there would be an unnecessary overlap e.g.

• history, character descriptions etc in Peter and Wendy as well as Characters of Peter Pan
• Full detailed information of all adaptations of the story, including stage, movies, books, sequels, prequels, spin offs can be found on this page. Works like Andrew Birkin's TV drama and book already have their own detailed page
• No need to include extensive list of songs associated with Peter Pan here, as not only are they not directly relevant to the original work and character but are already listed in their relevant pages: Disney's Peter Pan, the 1954 Musical, the live action film and many other musical versions.
• Finally, remember that any edits or additions on this page should be be written in British English since it concerns a British literary character and work.

Thank you for bearing these points in mind and for your work on this project!--Stelmaris (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Stelmaris, thanks for the valuable feedbacks. Regarding the information that's already featured on other wiki articles, we believe it's useful to have a clear and concise overview of the information related to this character for Wikipedia users. It is frustrating for users seeking specific information to have to jump from page to page. We intend to create a user friendly page where users can access general information on the topic in one place. We'll be sure to link to the main articles these overviews. Ultimately by connecting users to related articles, our edits can increase contribution and readership.

Thank you for noticing the repetitiveness of the song list. We won't include that in our edits.

Lastly, to the best of our ability, we'll follow the language of the article. However, we're not experienced with British English. Can you elaborate on how to follow the British English.

Xiaoxu193 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Prof. Leshed:

First, I would like to thank Stelmaris for your invaluable feedback here! This would greatly help students in making meaningful edits and contribution to the article.

To the students: you have great ideas here for improving the article. I suggest that you follow closely the suggestions provided here by Stelmaris. Here are few additional comments:

• It could be useful to follow up on discussions that exist on the talk page here to see what kind of edits are required in the article.
• Make sure at least one of the group gets up to speed with the wiki language and standards to "wikify" everything that you are adding. The proposal should list which one of you is responsible for wikifying the article and your edits.
• Add the course assignment template to the top of the course page.
• Sign all posts on the talk page with four tildes ~~~~ to avoid unsigned posts.

Happy editing! LeshedInstructor (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

LeshedInstructor, we defintely agree with Stelmaris's feedbacks. Our primary intention is to clean this page up, making it more organized and comprehensible. We'll be sure to take the advice and not be too repetitive with the information provided. Xiaoxu193 (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Jared Kass: Hey Guys, it looks like Gilly and a few Wikipedians already got back to you! Stelmaris's feedback looks great, keep it in mind. As mentioned, be sure not to cover material that is found in other articles. Like Gilly mentioned, try and cover some of the tasks brought up earlier on the talk page. Additionally, you should post a template stating that this page is the subject of an educational assignment up top. Finally, if you plan on uploading any images, be sure to follow the guidelines laid out in the Wikipedia:Uploading images article. Please post any questions you have on my talk page! Jdk243 (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Jared Kass, thanks for your support. We indicated at the beginning of our proposal that it's for a class assignment. If we've more questions, we'll be sure to contact you on your page.Xiaoxu193 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It was a pleasure updating this page. Can anyone suggest further edits to get this article upgraded to a B-class? Even though our assignment is due this week, we'll continue to contribute to this article.Brittany Berliner (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Great work, Brittany. However, I have made some changes/edits to your contributions and also deleted the Disney images which (in my view) should not be included here, since Disney's Peter Pan has its own Wiki page. It would be great to find some other images, especially from the early editions of Peter Pan, contemporary with Barrie.Stelmaris (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Online Communities (final summary)

• Our substantial edits are primarily organizational and content revisions.

• Before editing, Subject headings didn’t align with featured content and information was scattered as opposed to clear and concise.

• we placed content irrelevant to popular culture in appropriate sections.

• Refining the popular culture section resulted in the creation of an additional subject “artistic references”.

• The popular culture section’s purpose is to list appearances and mentions of the Peter Pan character in media over the last fifty years.

• Added a section centered around information on artistic works related to the character.

• Provided subsections for relationship section, which now has subsections of “Family”, “Friends”, and “Enemies”.

Xiaoxu193 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture from London, Ontario

Someone keeps posting the picture of the little girl from London, Ontario but I deleted it because: the photo is primarily about the girl, not the statue; the statue itself is hardly visible in the shot; and it's out of place on this page. If you want to include a picture of that particular statue, by all means go ahead but please find a better one, do not post the same one again without first discussing, otherwise it will be removed again. Thanks. --Stelmaris (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Greatpumkin has reinserted the picture again, without any discussion here, and I've deleted it - again. My argument is that it sticks out like a sore thumb on the page, compared to the other pictures of statues, as it's more about the girl than anything else and really not notable at all. Please can you discuss here before posting again? Thanks.--Stelmaris (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

peter pane is so stupid no ones upon a time i hate him how — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.139.161 (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

peter pan story by angi viviana Murcia zuniga

one's a pan time there was a boy could peter he didn't have brother or sister he was by himself he lift in a wild forest . He saw a girl he told her what is your name said peter the girl said I don't know said the girl well said peter my name is peter.he told her do you have brothers or sister the she said no and I don't know my mother or my father my mom brought me when I was 1 moth old. peter said I am the same I dot know my mother or father they brought me when I was 3 year old.at the end peter gift the girl a name her name was Elle so peter said you do have a mother and a father I can take you .And all so you have brothers and sister you have 2 brothers and 3 sisters.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.238.102 (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Native Americans vs Natives of Neverland

To IP 100.9.152.158: I have reverted your edits again, for the same reason I explained previously. You might not care about the original work, but WP does and this page is all about JM Barrie’s creative work, as he imagined it and wrote it. You might well believe they were natives of Neverland, but that’s not the point: that’s just your own personal POV. The term he originally used (“Redskins” – and not “rednecks”) is racist by today’s standards but there is no doubt it describes a tribe of Native Americans. Neverland is an imaginary island of course, and Barrie stresses everyone has their own view of it but in his play and novel, it is populated by all sorts of characters (pirates, fairies, Native Americans etc) and animals (lions, bears, crocodiles etc) and none of these are meant to be native to the island. Please do not change it back again, as it’s only going to get reverted. (P.S. I would also ask you please not to leave offensive remarks on my user page as this is not constructive…) Thanks. --Stelmaris (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep I agree with Stelmaris - that was the term used for Native Americans [1], not natives of Neverland. Richerman (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Pan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228234725/http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/hamlyn/peterpan/ to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/hamlyn/peterpan/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ability to fly

As far as I know, Peter can only fly when he has a shadow or something. That isn't mentioned in the Abilities section. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

Someone keeps making ungrammatical and inappropriate edits to this page, and keeps reverting edits to post the same rubbish. Could we protect this page for a short while to discourage the anonymous editor(s)? Thanks--Stelmaris (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

In popular culture

The "In Popular Culture" section seems to have a lot of overlap with List of works based on Peter Pan. Shouldn't we use one or the other ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Christopher Steele credited

Hopefully I'm getting the formatting right and posting in the right place, but on the page for Peter Pan the link for "Christopher Steele" leads to the intelligence officer rather than the actor and I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to edit it myself, nor am I sure that the actor has a Wikipedia page. Regardless, it's the wrong person so I wanted to point it out. Thank you in advance to whomever fixes it. 68.80.1.241 (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I removed the link to the intelligence officer but the actor doesn't have a wiki page. --Stelmaris (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Peter pan 1911 pipes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)