Talk:Raggedy Ann/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pictures

In case I forget to upload some. We have some good pictures http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18190 on Gutenberger. gren グレン 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Animal Crossing

Would it be safe to include Nintendo's Animal Crossing video game series under popular culture references? From the moment I first discovered the game I immediately recognized that the appearance of the human character is inspired by Raggedy Ann. 174.59.218.34 (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Characters

Would it be possible to add details on some of the characters from the book series? FF3TerraAndLocke (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Marcella

Is it true she died of diphtheria, not smallpox? 198.53.137.96 (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

While looking into it, let's state for the record that Philadelphia magazine's article cites something at Snopes.com incorrectly. The writer is actually linking to a user comment on a forum at Snopes.com, so the entire piece at http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/02/23/strange-link-raggedy-ann-anti-vaxxers/ hinges on a reference no responsible researcher, and certainly not Wikipedia under WP:RS, would allow. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the dead, archived page at The Johnny Gruelle Raggedy Ann & Andy Museum doesn't confirm the claims for which its footnoted. Note the last sentence (emphasis mine):

Johnny Gruelle’s daughter Marcella brought him an old rag doll one day, and he drew a face on the worn fabric. Pulling a book off the shelf, he noticed two James Witcomb Riley poems, “The Raggedy Man” and “Little Orphan Annie.” “Why don’t we call her Raggedy Ann?,” he said. Or so the story goes.

--Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Anon IP edits

An evident anti-vaxxer tried to remove the neutral status quo version to use WP:SYNTH to make a claim that the smallpox vaccine killed Gruele's daughter, taking an out-of-context Gruelle memo from Patricia Hall's book. Hall makes clear, as cited here, that the vaccine was infected, and that the impure, infected compound likely caused the death — not the vaccine itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Two editors have reverted the apparent anti-vaxxer with an agenda. He has gone to 4 reverts already. He never made any attempt to discuss his issues on the talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You actually said, "edit-warring anti-vaxxer" in the Edit History tab. Whatever. Maybe you can explain to the encyclopeda what an "infected vaccine" is and which "compound" you are talking about. By the way, whatever my belief system may be (which you seem to be very confused about), I still have a right to contribute factual information from the historian's book. I realize it changes the bias you created in the article, but I thought that was the point of Wikipedia: to make it factual.

My apologies for not seeing the talk page.2601:285:203:EDF0:2CC3:15BB:89E5:4D7A (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Three or four editors have said your changes are not making it factual. You are pushing a point of view.

Common terms like "sky" and "tree" don't have to be defined; "infected vaccine" is self-explanatory: a vaccine that became infected. Maybe someone sneezed on the needle. Maybe the needle was sitting uncovered and got dust on it. Who knows? A million things can infect a million other things. Your complaint is as nonsensical as demanding a definition for "wrecked car" or "fallen tree". And incidentally, given that Raggedy Ann has unquestionably become an anti-vaxxer symbol, it's not interpretation but context to state that the death came from an infected vaccine and not the only other possibility: a non-infected vaccine. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You are basically saying that because other people "say" it's right, I should be peer-pressured into believing it's right? I don't think it matters how many people "say something is right" if it isn't right. There is no definition for an "infected vaccine" so I do not understand how you can argue that this is essential to the article. A vaccine cannot "get infected". The definition of infect is " to affect (a person, organism, cell, etc.) with a disease-causing organism. A vaccine is essentially an antigen cultured in a living host cell. It can get contaminated if that's what you mean. Saying "infected vaccine" doesn't make any sense to anyone, which is why in the edit history everyone is trying to revise it. "Contaminated small pox vaccine" would make sense to the reader. However, in Hall's book, she makes it very clear (pg87-92) that the Gruelle family believed it was a "bad vaccine" but when Marcella's death occurred, no one knew what really led to her death. So the article shouldn't read resolutely that she died from a vaccine, only that it was believed so.

2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76 (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

RE: "You are basically saying that because other people "say" it's right, I should be peer-pressured into believing it's right?" I don't think you understand the nature of reliable sources if you think that citing a standard journalistic source is "peer-pressur[ing]" you "into believing it's right". It doesn't matter if you personally believe it's right. If you read in your local paper that a fire broke out a 3 a.m. at 123 Main Street and that the fire marshal does not believe arson is involved, no one is "peer-pressur[ing]" you "into believing it's right". Beyond not understanding Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, it sounds as if you don't understand how journalism works.

Even if you were a doctor or a scientist, which I don't believe you are, your personal opinion about whether a vaccine can be infected is completely irrelevant. "Infected vaccine" is the term Hall uses. She doesn't say "contaminated" so neither can we. And I find it remarkable that you claim not to understand what "infected vaccine" means. There is no definition? Excuse me: Here is the definition of "infected" — which includes "contamination", so apparently you do understand it — and here is the definition of "vaccine". To say, "There is no definition for an 'infected vaccine'" is blatantly false.

Moreover, Gruelle's biographer states flatly that "the real-life Marcella Gruelle died, at age 13, from the ravages of an infected vaccination." Hall doesn't say she "believes" so. There is such a thing as a death certificate, you know. Hall is a reliable source — probably the most reliable source on Gruelle, having even interviewed family members for her biography — so given the context of anti-vaxxers irresponsibly having made highly public false claims about Marcella Gruelle and her connection with Raggedy Ann, it is absolutely necessary for the article to have Hall's biographer state definitively that lies about the article subject are false --Tenebrae (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I also don't agree with ending this section of the article with incorrect reporting by a newspaper. It doesn't make any sense that you say the WSJ is a valid and viable source for citations, but then you claim they are wrong. And this is what you cite? Why would anyone reading about Raggedy Ann care whether some journalist at the WSJ got the story wrong? Some misinformed journalist does not represent the entire rest of the population that knows the real story surrounding Gruelle's activism in the anti-vaccine movement. In fact, many of the organizations that used the doll for their campaigns at the time knew very well that the doll was a symbol of Gruelle's daughter--they were not using the doll because it was "limp." Because I'm sure the Raggedy Ann doll was so much more "limp" than the other dolls in the 1930s. That's ridiculous. But this article reads like you, the editor, are trying to bias the reader into thinking the "anti-vaccine" people are stupid. Please. It's only your journalist that's stupid. And where does your journalist verify his claim? Please point that out. Otherwise you are repeating something that isn't true.

2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76 (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

For someone who claims not to be an anti-vaxxer, I'm surprised to read your false claim that I am "trying to bias the reader into thinking the 'anti-vaccine' people are stupid. Please. It's only your journalist that's stupid." I am not trying to bias the reader. As for the "stupid" journalist, here's his capsule bio from the WSJ article: "Prof. Oshinsky is a member of the history department at New York University and director of the Division of Medical Humanities at the NYU School of Medicine. His book “Polio: An American Story” won the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for history." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And incidentally, many dolls of the time were made of rigid plastic or wood. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: This is incredibly disappointing. I see the IP editor possesses the idea that Raggedy Ann was inspired by Marcella (knew very well that the doll was a symbol of Gruelle's daughter). We cannot state this, because no reliable sources gives credence to this idea. In fact, the better course of action would be to remove any mention of Marcella's daughter at all—this is textbook WP:FRINGE ideology. To be clear, when I was supportive on the talk page, I believed the IP editor only wanted to remove some unsourced material, which prevents the whole imaginary connection from being brought up. I do agree, albeit for entirely different reasons than the IP editor states, that the material should be altered, but only to avoid giving undue weight to spurious connections. It's the same reason we don't have paragraphs disclaiming a link between our alien overlords and the government on President of the United States. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk)

@0xF8E8: Hi. I know I said this on your talk page, and I apologize for the redundancy in centralizing the discussion here. The reason I would opt to retain it is that Gruelle biographer Hall specifically notes that, "Marcella Gruelle's tragic death certainly gave rise to several legends", and The Wall Street Journal cite states in the footnote that the anti-vaccination movement's "most visible symbol was the smiling but entirely limp Raggedy Ann doll created by a popular cartoonist for his daughter, who had fallen ill and would later die, he believed, from a smallpox shot she received without his permission." My feeling is that, given those things, clarifying the circumstance of Marcella's death seems important for an encyclopedia article to include.

Alien overlords of the US government, and many similar examples of fringe theories, are very far removed from reality. But highly mainstream sources say that Raggedy Ann has become a symbol of the anti-vaxxer movement, which is fringe to us but mainstream in that it includes celebrities and significant serious media coverage. So it seems to me that an encyclopedia reader, wanting to know if that's true about Raggedy Ann, would come here to find out. Put it another way: The anti-vaxxers believe a fringe theory. But Raggedy Ann being a symbol of that movement is a fact and needs to be addressed. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Even though the Wall Street Journal mentions it had become a symbol of the anti-vaxxer movement, it doesn't address the spurious claim of Marcella's death being inspiration for Raggedy Ann. It's currently used in the article as an example of "repeating the myth" (which I'm not sure is the correct characterization; it just claims it's linked to the anti-vaxxer camp, not that Gruelle took inspiration when creating the doll). I agree maybe a mention of its use as a symbol is warranted, though I'm not sure the Origins section is the appropriate place. The reason I suggest removing it entirely is largely based around the fact that while clearly spurious and untrue, no sources really address it, only tangentially coming towards it through biographical history on Gruelle (Hall) or on the anti-vaxxer movement (WSJ). We could perhaps mention it as an anti-vaxxer symbol, but should we really address the spurious "inspiration" rumor if no other sources do? I totally agree with the desire to prevent the spread of misinformation, I just don't think the coverage mirrors the sources. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@0xF8E8: I think you're right about that sentence beginning "Regardless" being both tangential and not being supported by the footnote; embarrassingly, I think it was I who put the footnote in the wrong place. Fortunately, I think I see a simple solution. What do you think of:

Additionally, Hall notes, Gruelle did create Raggedy Ann as a tribute to his daughter following her death at 13; his patent application for the doll was already in progress, and the artist received final approval by the U.S. Patent office the same month as Marcella's death. Nonetheless, that particular myth was adopted by the anti-vaccination movement as a symbol, even though Marcella died from an infected vaccination, not from the side effects of the vaccination itself,

--Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: That should be largely alright. One minor nitpick; Hall does note all the supporting details here (his patent application was already in process, etc.), but not the theory specifically. That sentence is probably better phrased as Gruelle did not create Raggedy Ann as a tribute to his daughter following her death at 13; Hall notes his patent application for the doll was already in progress, and the artist received final approval by the U.S. Patent office the same month as Marcella's death. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@0xF8E8: That's actually a really good professional-editor edit. I oughta know ... I'm a professional journalist and editor, and I totally see the significant nuance you caught. Bravo! I'll add it now as per this talk-page consensus between the only editors discussing this specific passage. I think it also addresses one of the anon IP's concerns. I'll add the word "Additionally" at the start purely as a neutral transitional phrase for flow.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, this actually reads much better to me--although I still disagree with the positioning of the sentence to suggest it wasn't the side effects of the vaccine when in truth no one actually knows. But this gives me at least some information when I go to the article. For me, presenting the facts only as "myths" poses a problem. As a member of the general public, I come to Wikipedia to get confirmation of what is and what is not. Someone actually emailed me another blog about Raggedy Ann and the vaccine movement, as well as Gruelle's involvement in it. My natural instinct is to think "Is that right? Is that true?" But when I pull up the article on Wikipedia all I see is that Wikipedia saying there are "a lot of myths out there." But what is the truth? Well, this is not available. So I actually have to dive into PDFs of scanned library books by Google to uproot from library sources what exactly is the link to Raggedy Ann and the movement, what organizations were using the doll and made it a national name, why there was a link, how the old school movement was different than today's movement (how the small pox vaccine was commonly infected at that time, how many people were killed by the vaccine and therefore the rarity of the occurrence to his daughter, how the vaccine was removed by the government because it is a difficult antigen to safely inject, etc, etc). I've become a semi-expert on something I really didn't care to dive into just to get to the facts. It would be nice if when people are looking to verify the truth, that there is at least a sentence or two of the truth even if you want include what is myth. 2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76 (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

RE: Misstatement of fact. You misquoted me above. I did not say that Marcella inspired the doll's creation-rather, that her DEATH inspired the doll's use by the anti-vaccine movement. Please reread. Her death by vaccine--as you willingly concede--inspired the anti-vaccine movement to use Raggedy Ann as a symbol of primarily parental consent--if you remember the quote from Gruelle on "consent" that you deleted. Therefore this partial sentence still poses a problem "Nonetheless, that myth led the anti-vaccination movement to adopt Raggedy Ann as a symbol,[2]. You have still not cited your journalist's source for this. This is not why the anti-vaccine movement adopted the doll (because it was Marcella). The doll was adopted because of--AND AFTER--her death. Raggedy Ann became a symbolic representation of Marcella's experience, her life, her death. I will concede that there are blogs saying the doll was inspired by Marcella, but now you are saying the anti-vaccine movement's use of the doll was constructed entirely around a falsity--yet I see no actual proof of that anywhere from your citation. And it makes no sense either.

I still do not understand why you want to bias the reader about the 1930s anti-vaccine movement or what purpose that serves. Your "anti-vaxxers" ultimately succeeded in changing the legislation, up until present day, so a health department cannot go into a school and unilaterally inject anything into your children. Perhaps this isn't relevant to Raggedy Ann per-se, but Raggedy Ann clearly played an important role in the movement for people today to still be using her as a symbol (RE: vaccine CHOICE organizations). I would think it's important to be historically right on this point. 2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the credentials of your journalist, I could really care less if he were King Solomon if he cannot cite his sources for a hearsay argument. This is no proof of validity--at least in the world I come from. But then again, we don't have "media monologues" in my world either, else we would never get to the truth of a claim. Evasion strategies, like these, are called out on the floor. You actually just gave away your own source's bias by indicating his book, as well.

2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76 (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The world you come from is not one based on the same reality as the rest of us if you believe your own recent, amateur research makes you "something of an expert" who knows better that a member of the history department at New York University, director of the Division of Medical Humanities at the NYU School of Medicine, and 2006 history Pulitzer Prize-winner for “Polio: An American Story”. And let me note that Wikipedia takes a dim view of self-styled experts pushing their own viewpoints and theories. You clearly are a single-purpose account solely interested in getting an anti-vaccination point across, whether you describe yourself as an anti-vaxxer or not. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)