Talk:Peter and Wendy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peter and Wendy article.
Article policies
Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This article is part of WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to children's and young adult literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project.
Children and Young Adult Literature Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do:

Contents

[edit] Legal/Copyright issues

Wow - there is so much content on the copyright of peter pan on this page, that it almost warrants a page of its own. Kabads

Nah, just use ==headlines==. --Eloquence

Is it legal (in Wikipedia terms at least) to have a link which takes you straight to an electronic text which breaches copyright? Is the online version of Peter Pan 'kosher'? Adambisset 03:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe the Project Gutenberg text is lawful (in the U.S. at the least). I think the text of the article is misleading, or at best poorly documented in some of its claims. I'm not very familiar with UK copyright law, but the legislation cited seems to be saying, "yes, the copyright expired, but the hospital is entitled to royalties regardless," making it more of a pseudo-copyright. That's a matter of semantics; the effect remains the same. But the assertion (apparently taken from the hospital's web site) that it remains under copyright in the U.S. until 2023 seems contrary to U.S. law (which I am familiar with) which states that anything published before 1923 is (without exception) already in the public domain. And finally, the claim that a sequel would establish a new copyright in the characters is not my understanding of how U.S. character copyrights work. (If it did work that way, Disney could renew their copyright in Mickey indefinitely without having to get Congress to extend copyright terms every couple decades.) I am going to research this further and correct/clarify the article, as necessary. Tverbeek 17:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish copyright from trademark. Copyright expires (eventually). Trademark does not. You cannot copyright a literary character, but you can trademark one. (This is why Tarzan continues to enjoy protection, even though the original Burroughs books have lapsed into the public domain.) The notable exception to the issue of character copyright is that Mickey Mouse is an animated character, and artistic design DOES attain copyright status.
While Disney would greatly love to hold copyright on the Mickey Mouse cartoons indefinitely, it's not going to happen. Someone will eventually be able to put out their own collection of public domain Mickey Mouse cartoons, but it will be interesting to see how they address the issue of package design since they can't use any of Disney's trademarked Mickey branding (like the silhouette of the ears) without being crushed into oblivion by Mouse House lawyers.
The issue of legal information on GOSH's website seems to indicate their deliberate or wilful ignorance of US copyright law. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act does not pertain in any way to the Peter Pan case because it does not have standing to re-grant copyright status to public domain work. Peter Pan had already long since been public domain, so GOSH's claims to the contrary are utterly without merit or basis in fact.
There's a bit more info on the publication history of Pan in the section below on the name of the book.Akahige719 16:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I've revised this section based on my research, mostly putting the hospital's claims into context, and dropping the claim about sequels renewing copyrights, which seems like mere wishful thinking. As for whether a link to the text online is permissible by Wikipedia standards, considering that Wikisource itself has it online as well, I'd have to say that it is. :) Tverbeek 21:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual themes

Some compentators see the story as containing sexual alegory. Wendy's sexual awakening, and Peter's Freudian feelings for a mother figure, along with his flight, and conflicted feelings for Wendy and Tinkerbell, each representing differnt idealized women, loom large in the narative."
Sorry User:The_Trolls_of_Navarone, but if you can´t tell me the names of the commentators I can only see this as a joke [you may have a point, but I´m pretty sure the Autor didn´t write it as an allegory :D ]
P.S. Do try a bit harder on your spelling please :)
Sean Heron 21:40, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Appologies for the spelling, but there's actually a lot of commentary on this by serious critics - I'll try to pull some out for you. The Trolls of Navarone 07:17, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The Case of Peter Pan, Or, the Impossibility of Children's Fiction (Language, Discourse, Society) by Jacqueline Rose
Hauntings: Anxiety, Technology, and Gender in Peter Pan ANN WILSON
Here are two - honestly, it's such a common theme in literaty criticism of Peter Pan, I'm surprised you took it for a joke - if you don't like the paragraph I wrote, perhaps you want to take a crack at re-working it? Even the name 'Pan' comes from a lewd Greek God of debauchery typically shown with a huge penis. Thanks, The Trolls of Navarone 07:32, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for going to the trouble of finding some commentators :)
I must admit I hadn´t actually read any interpretations of peter pan myself, but the "sexual themes" just seemed to be so out of place (its just as long as the storyline!) that I couldn´t take it seriously, sorry. I also find the title somewhat over the top.
But anyway, as you say, I shouldn´t moan, I should give it some work. Until I´m a bit more motivated and less tired than now, I decided to put back your section back in [minus the spelling mistakes :) ] So keep watching this place, should change soon!

Great - my paragraph definately needs some work! The Trolls of Navarone 05:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since I've come to the conclusion that people see sexual matter is a problem--positive or negative, whichever--in the story of Peter Pan, may I ask just how old is he? It's obvious that he's a boy that refuses to grow up, but since sexual matters have been meddled into his life, he couldn't be that young, right? The same goes for Wendy. And if he already has thoughts about sex (I wouldn't think too explicitly. I mean in a mild way) and woman-man relationship, it would mean that he has grown, right? Wouldn't that completely oppose who Peter Pan is? 202.73.122.227 23:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The name of the book

Wasn't the book called Peter Pan and Wendy ? Julianp 01:12, 13 May 2004 (UTC) Peter Pan the character was born many years before the novel "Peter and Wendy" and actually before the first draft of the play. He originated in one chapter of Barrie's novel "The Little White Bird" (1902) written for adults, but dedicated to the eldest of the Llewelyn Davies brothers. That one chapter was the most popular, and so he printed it on its own, under the name "Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens." The play Peter Pan was first produced in 1904, and was produced every Christmas season in London for a long time after that. "When Wendy Grew Up" was a one-act addition that is pretty essential to understanding the psyche of Peter. It was performed once, after the final show of the 1908 season (Feb 22). It is included with the novel "Peter and Wendy," which was published in 1911. The text of the play was published in 1928, but the extravagant stage directions and narrative tone show it to be a work for individual reading, not performing. Barrie didn't die until 1937, which was unfortunatly for him after the deaths of two or three of the Llewelyn Davies boys, including his personal pet favorite Michael.


Assumably, the 1911 date corresponds to initial publication in the UK. If there was a time lag between initial appearance and publication in other countries (as there almost always was), Gale makes no mention of it. The etext at Project Gutenberg, Peter Pan, is subtitled (or alternately titled) Peter and Wendy, which would mean that publication in the US occurred early enough for the work to have gone into public domain (hence, pre-1923). (Though the legal work for determining public domain status is scrupulous, the great deficiency of the Gutenberg project is that they include no publication history for any of the work they produce.)
This information is equally important to the issue of copyright status (see section above).Akahige719 16:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Driscoll as Peter

"This voice was thought be many to be a rather mature choice, and not in complete accordance to the preferences of audiences." This statement is completely unsourced, and seems to present a personal opinion padded with weasel words to justify including it. Who are the "many" who thought this? What were the audiences' preferences, and how do we know them? (I don't recall being asked, but maybe that's because I only saw it in re-release; did movie-goers in 1953 fill out comment cards?) And even if verifiably true, how is it noteworthy that a movie didn't completely meet the audience's preferences? Tverbeek 00:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy

66.37.230.151 (talk · contribs) added the following to the article, which I reverted and copied below. -- Longhair | Talk 01:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Existing content

Barrie is sometimes said to have "invented" the name Wendy with this story. In fact, the name was already in use in both the United States and Britain, but was extremely rare. The Peter Pan stories popularized the name, at first in Britain. Wendy is related to the Welsh name Gwendydd (pronounced Gwen-deeth), and was used by Barrie at a time when Welsh names were making a resurgence in England.

Added by 66.37.230.151 (talk · contribs)

Before the above assertions can be accepted as fact, whoever wrote the above paragraph should provide evidence for them in the form of a written record referring to a woman named Wendy born in the United States or the United Kingdom before 1902. Otherwise it would seem to be wiser to accept the statements in given name dictionaries published in the United Kingdom (Withycombe, The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names; Dunkling, Everyman's Dictionary of First Names, and Hanks & Hodges, A Dictionary of First Names) that Wendy was a name created by James Barrie from the baby-talk phrase "friendy-wendy." Of course, even if one can find isolated examples of women called Wendy before 1902, that by itself doesn't prove that Barrie was using a pet form of Gwendydd instead of independently creating the name.

The way I heard it, Wendy already existed as a nickname for either Wendell or Gwendolyn, but Peter Pan popularized the latter, making it forever a girl's name.

Ancestry.com shows around 18 women named Wendy who were born before 1902 in Britain and the USA. See http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3001355&postcount=230 for a list. Zooterkin 05:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

jan 08 2006 (gmt +10 i think) I changed the page back to what it was before someone wrote peter pan is gay all over it, as it is my first time editing any page i dont relly know if ive done it right but judging from what it was before i cant imagine I made it anyworse. Sorry if I did though.

You did it just fine. Thanks for pitching in to help. By the way, if you type ~~~~ at the end of your comments, Wikipedia will automatically add your address and the date/time.

I've had to change this article due to vandalism again. Is this a common issue? Wendoline 04:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word "butt" that seemed to be randomly placed at the begining of paragraph 2. I assumed it was a pointless act of vandalism. Mystyc1 03:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Themes" section - original research?

While I love the "Themes" section and think it is very well-written, there are no sources whatsoever. For example:

"There is a reason why there are only lost boys and not lost girls. Girls have more sense then to be arrogant; they see the significance in growing up and maturity."

While I might very well believe this, it violates the standards for inclusion if we are just offering our own opinions. Are there any volunteers to rewrite this section so that it is properly sourced? Nandesuka 18:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter himself gives us the answer in both the play "Peter Pan" and the novel "Peter and Wendy." The Lost Boys are actually lost, much in the same way one loses an umbrella. "They are the children who fall out of their perambulators when the nurse is looking the other way. If they are not claimed in seven days they are sent far away to the Neverland to defray expenses. I'm captain." ..... "Are none of the others girls?" [asked Wendy] "Oh no; girls, you know, are much too clever to fall out of their prams." (Peter and Wendy,Oxford World Classics edition, pp94-95)

[edit] Did Peter really find a new nemesis in the original book?

"Peter, with the callousness of youth, quickly forgets Hook and finds a new nemesis, but as Hook made a stronger impression on the public, most sequels brought him back one way or another."

From a quick look at the end of the Gutenberg version, it appears there is no clear information he did. While Hook is clearly gone since Peter Pan forgot about him, there's no mention of him having a new nemesis simply that he had new adventures and forgot the old... Nil Einne 12:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexism

While it's clear that Peter Pan potrays various sex stereotypes I would have to say the way the discussion of sexism is written now seems to indicate it is only the potrayal of woman that is a bit unfair. I'm sure some commentators must have noted that in fact the potrayal of men is not any better even though different. The potrayal of women as mature (and smart) people who recognise the importance of growing up (and don't fall out of their prams) whereas the men as immature people who don't recognise the importance of growing up and are silly enough to fall out of their prams hardly seems fair to either men or women (but I think many would feel it's potrayal of men is worse). The love/smitten angle while clearly unfair on women, seem rather unfair on men as well since Peter Pan is too immature and silly to notice the problem or acknowledge his feelings. Nil Einne 12:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time qualify to be added to "other references in entertainment"?

In The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, the Kokiri are a race of children that live in the forest named after them, all possess fairies, wear green tunics, and never age. They do not show themselves to the outside world, as they believe they will die if they leave the forest. Although not all of them are male, all the boys also wear green caps. They seem to be a pretty obvious reference to Peter Pan, so should this be added to "Other references in entertainment"? 71.198.181.226 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in responce to "Themes"

I don't think he wanted to stay a boy just to avoid the responcibiliies of adulthood. He may just want to be that way just to have fun. Bud0011 02:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Article about the character Peter Pan

I created a new article Peter Pan (fictional character) to cover the information about the character separate from this article. I also changed the header to reflect the book rather than the character, and added the infobox. Both the info here as well as the other article need clean up. Please help. Bytebear 01:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dating Peter Pan

I've added a theory on the setting[s] for the book. Before anyone deletes it entirely - something I'm seeing a lot recently - I'm hoping some of you put up your thoughts on my theory. [User: Stripey]. what am im talking about. wtf!!!

[edit] Character histories

Much of the information on the characters in the Characters section is not from Barrie's Peter Pan but from Peter Pan in Scarlet. Granted it is an authorized sequel, but that new information should be cited as such. Of the few little bios that make mention of when the characters grow up in Scarlet, that caveat is not put in the right place to separate Barrie's world from Scarlet's. I propose to move all information from Scarlet to the section on Scarlet, so that all the information left is from Barrie's world alone. Because all other sequels, prequels, and adaptations use these characters—and use them differently—it will be easier to understand what happens in which book, as well as give more respect to Barrie's work. Thoughts?Cheeselouise 04:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I will remove this excess. It is alread captured on the PP in S page so no merge needed.Obina 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, someone using the IP 69.0.41.239 changed Michael to a girl. I reverted the changes, but someone should check up on other changes 69.0.41.239 made to other pages, usually in need of being reverted as well.Cheeselouise 05:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reviews

Full cut and paste text of the reviews have no place in the article. I shall remove and add back one of the references.18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page splitting?

I think this page need to split. Is it about the novel or the megabrand? To get better, it needs to be split into a few articles - perhaps one on characters, one on theatre, and one on expansion /sequel stories. . Do you agree?Obina 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, clearly, the musical and its TV versions, and other major topics, should be split off. -- Ssilvers 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I realize it's a bit late to make this point, but while I agree that splitting the sequels and adaptations off is appropriate, there's no need (and frankly, I see no advantage) to split them off into two separate articles. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 film: imbalanced criticisms

Yes, I'm demanding citations for these overstated supposed critical complaints, whose inclusion seems more like fanboy whining in disguise. Mixing fantastic sceanarios akin to Chronicles of Narnia, the comedic high-adventure of Pirates of the Caribbean, and the bittersweet romance of Moulin Rouge!, the surprisingly beautiful 2003 Peter Pan film adaptation easily squashes Spielberg's ridiculous deviation, yet I see no mentioning in the article of critics' opinions for that film, where you'll notice that Robin Williams likewise has an American accent (to say the least) and the "romantic aspect" is applauded. To call a spade a spade, I suspect these negative comments were added to the page by the same American prudes who were oblivious to the original story's theme of young sexual awakening and were thus caught off guard when expecting a fluffy Disney rehash. I found Captain Hook's abrupt outbursts of violence far more shocking than these two kids sharing a first kiss; it's not surprising that American audiences would give a casual pass to the killing but are mortified at anything remotely sexual, despite its tactful innocence and emotional resonance. As far as Jeremy Sumpter's lone American accent goes, I thought it underscored his alien separateness from the other Lost Boys, affecting greater pathos in his not belonging to the group, as when left outside the window at the end.

EDIT: Actually, on consideration, I don't think those criticisms should be included in this article at all. As with the overview of Spielberg's Hook and other listed incarnations, the paragraph here should only describe the movie, not reactions to it. Observe how no other section of the page relies on reviewer opinion, whereas for the 2003 film alone we're told almost nothing of the movie other than a listing of the main players before launching immediately into critique and bean counting. The individual Peter Pan film page is even worse, wrongly taking for granted that readers should have prior knowledge of the original story, and weaseling with an interspersed checklist of differences from the source material alongside speculative criticisms of why the movie may have failed to capture the box office. Apart from the opening sentence, all references there to the book/play should be pushed to the bottom of the article, made to follow an independent synopsis of the movie itself — see the Akira (film) page for an example of article structure, separately listing at page bottom the differences seen in the film adaptation, not kneaded into the plot synopsis. ~ 172.130.114.106 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jane/Jayn

The last person to edit this article before myself changed the name 'Jane' to 'Jayn'. I checked my copy of the book, and Barrie used the spelling 'Jane', so I reverted it. However, this edit does not resemble vandalism to me. Is the spelling 'Jayn' used in a related work such as Peter Pan in Scarlet and should thus be mentioned in this article? Shui9 05:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No; it's spelled Jane in Peter Pan in Scarlet as well. Mukino 04:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Trivia Section

Deleted the trivia section. None of the points listed were significant or relevant to Peter Pan. Such a famous literary figure is of course referenced several times in popular culture, but to list every instance would be folly. If the reference to Peter Pan is important to the popular work in question, it should be mentioned in the article dealing with the popular work itself. However, many of the points on this list was very obscure, and do not merit mention anywhere on Wikipedia. For those of you who disagree with me, please read Wikipedia:Trivia before reverting my edit. If you really DO wish to include a popular culture/trivia-section in this article, I suggest it be written in prose form on the general impact of this charachter on popular culture rather than as a list of meaningless trivia. However, such a section would likely be original resarch.Dr bab 22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was the person who recently restored that section (twice!), assuming its deletion was either vandalism or else some prudish parent's effort to bury the many sexualized (or otherwise unsavory) derivations of the original story by removing the entire list, thereby attempting to circumvent WP's "no censorship" policy. While I agree that references in pop music lyrics are mere trivia, other items listed are culturally significant, or are productions directly related to the topic. Examples that you claim are not relevant:
  • Very likely as a piggyback to the Mary Martin production, the Overtones, a radio drama group consisting of Carol Beth and Rickey Rood and a small orchestra, recorded a 45rpm two-part adaptation of the Peter Pan story for Cricket Records. The script and music were entirely original and were based on the book, not on the Disney film or the musical.
  • In 1980, Petula Clark starred in Never, Never Land as a woman whose niece, captivated by Barrie's tale, runs away and takes refuge with a group of "lost boys" squatting in a deserted London townhouse.
  • The 1987 Joel Schumacher film The Lost Boys featured several teen actors as ageless vampires, loosely styled after the lost boys of Peter Pan.
  • In 1989, British pop group Five Star performed a medley of Peter Pan songs "You Can Fly", "Never Smile At A Crocodile" and "Second Star To The Right" for a BBC Television special celebrating the works of Walt Disney.
  • The 1997 comic book mini-series The Lost by Marc Andreyko and Jay Geldhof starred a vampiric boy hustler named Peter who leads a small group of vampire boys, and lures a girl named Wendy to join them.
  • Pop singer Michael Jackson proclaimed in the 2003 documentary Living With Michael Jackson, "I am Peter Pan."
  • The 1990s animated series The Mask included a character named "Skillet," who didn't age, dressed in green, could fly, and had a detachable shadow. However, he was a villain, and sent his shadow out to absorb the youth of other people. Skillet's name was presumably based on "pan" as a cooking utensil. (It should be noted, however, that the character also borrows elements from Superman villain Mr. Mxyzptlk as well.) As well, the voice of "Skillet" was first voiced by Jason Marsden, who supplied the voice of Peter Pan in the animated series Peter Pan and the Pirates.
  • Peter Pan plays an important part as a background character in the 2002 novel The League of Heroes by Xavier Mauméjean. The story is set in an alternate universe in which Neverland has materialized in Kensington Gardens. The fairy folk are commonplace in London, as are pirates and Indians. Peter Pan is considered an enemy of the repressive government and is pursued by the League whose members include Lord Admiral Hook (Captain Hook), Sherlock Holmes, and Lord Greystoke (Tarzan).
  • In 2003, New Media Entertainment released Neverland, a modern punk version of the Peter Pan saga with homosexual undertones. It features Wil Wheaton as John Darling.
  • Finding Neverland, a 2004 film starring Johnny Depp as Barrie and Kate Winslet as Sylvia Llewelyn Davies, was a somewhat fictionalized account of their relationship and how it led to the development of Peter Pan. It was based on the 1998 play The Man Who Was Peter Pan by Allan Knee.
  • New Line Cinema have greenlit a movie project entitled "Pan," written by screenwriter Ben Magid, which casts Peter in his most controversial role yet...that of a psychopathic killer stalked by a John McClane-style Captain Hook in the present day.
  • Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie's 2006 graphic novel Lost Girls stars a grown-up Wendy Darling along with Alice of Alice in Wonderland and Dorothy of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.
  • In Greg Bear's Anvil of Stars, the boys on the spaceship are called 'lost boys', and the women, 'wendys'.
To delete the whole section rather than selectively editing it seems an act of laziness. The section was not labelled "Trivia" -- that is your own critical projection being advanced to justify your deletion. There's no WP rule demanding that prose form must be employed to connect a disperate listing of facts, and attempting to lump these assorted items in essay format, as you suggest, would in fact be more confusing to the reader.
Other than the Overtones recording (which could conceivably be added within the "TV" paragraph), and the graphic novel by Alan Moore (already mentioned in the "Controversy" section, but now left without links thanks to your edit), none of the remaining items can be made to fit within the body of the article since they don't qualify as either prequel or sequel , or are not intended as direct adaptations. Also, notwithstanding personal opinions about Michael Jackson, failing to provide a minimal mentioning of his notorious facination with the character (Neverland Ranch, etc.) is to miss a rather large cultural boat. Due to its wide popularity, the Kingdom Hearts video game (not included in the abbreviated list above) might also merit referencing, if not in this article than in the WP page for Disney's Peter Pan movie since the game involves many Disney animated characters. ~ 172.129.6.126 08:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I support the removal of the trivial section. Please read Wikipedia:Trivia. If individual items are to be re-added, please work them into the article. See: Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles. To those who love a subject, any detail is of interest, but the Wikipedia guideline is that "Keep in mind, however, that 'trivia' content is not exempt from our rules and style guidelines." which include compliance with importance and WP:RS. Buddhipriya 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Of the points listed above, while all of them refer to peter pan in some way, they are not relevant to peter pan. The stress must be that any item contained herein be relevant and important to the subject of the article. As an example, consider the following item: "In 1989, British pop group Five Star performed a medley of Peter Pan songs "You Can Fly", "Never Smile At A Crocodile" and "Second Star To The Right" for a BBC Television special celebrating the works of Walt Disney." I fail to see how an eighties pop-group performing some peter pan songs, at a single event, carry any relevance to the peter pan article. If this was a huge event, for example leading to the breakthrough of the band, it would merit a mention on the bands own article. As it is, it is not important to the band, hence it is certainly not important to peter pan. A second example: The film you mention, The Lost Boys, is clearly influenced by peter pan, if only by its title. The article on The lost boys should (and does) include information on this link. That peter pan is important to The Lost Boys however, does not imply that the Lost Boys is important to peter pan.
As I said earlier, such an important literary character will serve as inspiration for several works, minor and major. I still feel that the peter pan reference belongs on the pages of those individual works. Again I refer you to Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles. Dr bab 07:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yawn to both of you for directing me to WP rules which I'm already long familiar with – I'm not new to the site, I just don't bother signing in because a bogus screen name is no more identifying than a random I.P. number, other than to persons interested in tracking my contributions (and why should they want to do that?). You should take your own advice to read those guidelines yourself as it explicitly states "Don't simply remove it"; there are also exceptions pointed out there for grouping irregular items into retitled subsections, or you could have trimmed tenuous items, removed the bullet points, or tagged the section with a "trivia" warning. The whole of the list is not contingent on the value of any single item being deemed too marginal, and if you're personally uninterested in ALL of its information, don't read that particular section!
The reason that the "Five Star" Brit-pop item was left above for consideration was due only to the Disney reference (paying tribute to their animated film), not the cover band itself, but feel free to chop it if it's too tangential. Similarly, reference to The Mask cartoon episode would have been a throwaway parody but for the fact that the same actor was simultaneously voicing the Pan character on Fox's cartoon series; the cheeky daring of that casting maneuver is what made it all the more noteworthy (at least to viewers of the day).
The listed items I'm most concerned with preserving are not "trivia" (despite your dismissal) but would more correctly be labelled "Derivative works", fitting into the article after "Sequels", exactly where it was already positioned. The Lost Boys movie, like several other fictional works in the list, taps into literary analysis of the Peter Pan character as a Pied Piper (e.g., panpipes) luring children from their parents, contrary to the benevolent forest figure from Greek myth – it's important for readers to be aware that Barrie's story offers these darker thematic interpretations which have been externally brought to focus more than once, as demonstrated by cited works.
Alan Moore's graphic novel, borrowing story characters in an after-the-fact tale, is no more or less a sequel than Spielberg's Hook, to which I could apply the very same argument you've offered for The Lost Boys: that Peter Pan is important to Hook does not imply that said film is important to Barrie's original tale. Prominent reference to Spielberg's film within the article goes unquestioned only because of sentimentality held toward it or the director, or as afforded by Hollywood's promotional machinery somehow insisting it's an adaptation. (...Are we to believe "Rufio" fell out of a pram in Kensington Gardens? That movie's diverse casting for its Lost Boys has an odour of Americanized political correctness.)
There seems to be a double standard in your criteria, or I leave it to you to explain the omission of Finding Neverland by comparison to Hook; technically, both films should be moved into the afore-suggested "Derivative works" category. As an even better comparison regarding handling of contemporary derivations, see how West Side Story (a modern reinterpretation, as per The Lost Boys,) and Shakespeare In Love (fictional bioflick, not unlike the Johnny Depp film here,) are noted in "Film Adaptations" for the Romeo and Juliet article. ~ 172.146.216.16 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously we do not agree about the relevance these items hold to Peter Pan. I feel that Peter Pan is important to The Lost Boys, but not the other way around, while you do not. You argue that Hook should then also be excluded, and I am inclined to agree with you on this point. I think most of the items you are concerned with could be listed as links in a See Also section. This would limtit the list to only include items that merit their own article, and make it more maintainable. The Peter Pan relationship would then be established in those separate articles. If the Peter Pan relationship is not important enough to be mentioned in the Article in question, there is certainly no need to include it here. Dr bab 22:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
Regarding the contributions by anonymous IP accounts, while Wikipedia certainly does allow it, you may also want to read WP:EQ, of which the fourth principle is "Please register yourself". Building constructive social relationships over time is also a goal, and registration helps with that. If you prefer using an IP address that is also OK, of course. Buddhipriya 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If someone had never heard of The Lost Boys film – or West Side Story in the case of Romeo & Juliet – how would they be expected to make the connection to such peripheral works, which on the surface may bear only a remote resemblance to the original material? Should they rely on rumours overheard on street corners or hopeful encounters on message boards? You're resorting to a self-referencing argument due to your own familiarity from immersion in Western culture, taking it for granted by saying, "Of course popular literature will inspire other material!", whereas a reader from (let's obscurely say) the foothills of Nepal would likely be left clueless as to the extent of the original work's cultural penetration, unless spending a lifetime leeching Western television signals. Conversely, imagine if the topic here were a fable popular among East Asians and they were to scoff, "These things are widely known!" Or how would anyone born after 1980 learn of the Petula Clark film without cross-referencing provided here, if not stumbling on it by dumb luck?
Other than its spot-on representation of mid-1980s zeitgeist, I have no special fondness for The Lost Boys movie (so don't think I'm defending it per se), but it does serve to illustrate the predatory interpretation of Pan in its vampiric parallels: an exclusive gang of ageless boys who can fly (revealed as vampires), enticing a youth named Michael at an idyllic, summery play-land locale (Santa Clara amusement park in the role of Neverland, iirc), as well as extrapolating the original story's sexual tensions. Ditto for the Jay Geldhof vampire comic. Given that vampire stories stem from a monstrous mythologization of sexual desire, the same underlying theme is seen to sustain the Wil Wheaton movie, and the predation angle is plain enough in the described psycho-killer film currently in production. ...We can't attribute all of these to a cannibalization of Joel Schumacher's movie; rather, they have a common origin in the source material's darker corners.
I'm not arguing that the relevance holds "the other way around", nor is such a thing required (except to your own thinking), nor even possible (short of exhuming and reanimating Barrie's bones via voodoo magic to pen a follow-up story incorporating those later works), but Peter Pan is their mutual springboard, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to make note of them in this root topic. Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): "[Articles may describe]...the influence of the work on later creators and their projects..."; or once again, see similar treatment given to any number of articles for Shakespeare material (many of which are simply itemized lists minus the conspicuous bullet points). Nor was I suggesting that Hook should be excluded, just that it be moved into a more honestly titled subcategory alongside other spin-off pieces.
@ Buddha: I already have an old WP account but contributing by name to a wimpy Peter Pan article would compromise my hardcore Wiki "street cred", haha. ~ 172.162.69.143 06:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I agree with you about Hook, so I removed it from the main section. There is an entry on it under "Sequels", were it belongs.
When it comes to other related work that are not direct sequels or prequels, what do you think about including them in the "See Also" section? Or do you feel that every related work should be mentioned in a Pop Culture section, and the connections to Peter Pan established? The danger here, as I see it, is that there are so many works that are related in some way, that this section could grow out of hand.
Perhaps a short popular culture section that mentions, for that poor ignorant from Nepal, that Peter Pan has in fact had a large impact on western popular culture? It could then give a few examples. Other related work (apart from said examples) could then be included in the see also section. This would tell everyone that Peter Pan has had a large impact, and give examples as to how this has happened. It would avoid that the "Popular Culture" section dominates the article, while people interested in finding out more about specific related works can read the relevant articles, easily found in the "See also" section. Of course, this would require heavy policing of the article to avoid the detoriation of the Popular Culture section to the state it was in when I removed it. What do you (both of you, and anyone else that might be interested) think?Dr bab 09:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
IMO the article should stick to the format exercised on other pages for fictional works. Many Wikipedia articles have extensive "cultural influence" sections without complaint (or at least without visibly tagged complaint), arranged into subsections, and longer than the checklist that formerly existed here. I don't see any danger of these references eclipsing the article in its currently developed form. [There are articles where the listed derivations nearly surpass the length of the main body of the article: Example. EDIT: In the article for the accompanying play, comprehensive annotating of Shakespeare's pop influence is apparently forgiven as educational, or tolerated for showcasing his modern endurance.]
The "See also" section is generally reserved for WP-linking to subjects most centrally related to the topic, not intended as a repository for every passing cultural reference. Lumping all miscellaneous items into the same section would lend them too much equal weight while simultaneously delivering too little information and would only invite future additions of random junk. WP's trivia guidelines suggest sorting such loose ends by subject to afford greater utility to their placement in an article.
Almost inevitably, any section dealing with influences in popular culture is eyed for criticism as "trivia" because pop culture by definition is perceived as disposable entertainment, at least until such time that its own sales pitch dies down and/or nostalgic rediscovery elevates its status to "Art" – by way of example, many old films now considered "classics" were initially met with underwhelming response (eg., Citizen Kane). Items to be included in pop culture subsections for any topic should be judged on their content relevance, not artistic elitism, and irrespective of whether or not they have an impact on the original property – I don't see how they could, other than possible promotional value influencing sales or facilitating social memes. ~ 172.132.129.11 19:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree with Dr bab that since we have just managed to clean out the trivia we should be cautious about creating any section that would be a trivia magnet. In general I do not find the Popular Culture allusions very noteworthy. If anything is important enough to include, it should be worked into the main body of the article in some logical way before creating a new trivia section under another name. Buddhipriya 06:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Blindly throw a dart at any WP article for a notable fictional work/character that you can think of, and you're almost sure to find references there outlining its influence on popular culture. At random: Superman#Cultural impact, Casablanca (film)#Influence, Star Wars#Cultural impact. Your personal dislike or disinterest in cited material isn't a legitimate reason for its exclusion and is not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. I maintain that the mass deletion here seems masked subterfuge intended to shuffle the naughty bits out of sight.
As an aside, I'll note another detail recollected of The Lost Boys movie: the gang of boys live in a secret underground lair (as in Neverland), identified in dialogue as the forgotten remains of a resort hotel that was buried under in a 1930s(?) earthquake. This always felt like an improbable piece of history for the film to establish until presently recognizing its purpose toward mirroring the original story. A later scene within the underground lair substitutes a bottle of wine (actually blood) offered for drink by the vampires in place of Hook's vial of scarlet poison. There are probably additional parallels but I've never scrutinized the movie searching for them. ~ 172.130.126.229 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding another movie?

I was going through some old VHS movies of mine, and I found a Peter Pan animated feature which I don't believe has been mentioned in the article.

It's 50 minutes long and was produced by United American Video. I can't read roman numerals to save my life, so I don't know the date (it's labeled as being MCMXCII).

I didn't know whether or not it would be worth adding, so I decided to ask here first.

EDIT - Also, is the Disney vinyl version of Peter Pan worth mentioning? I own that, too. . .Don't know where it is, though. . .

Mukino 04:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A search for items produced by United American Video (as a distributor) at IMDB turned up this one, dated 1986 with a run time of 46 minutes: [1]. You could check the cast to see if it is the same item with a different date. The actual production company is listed as "Burbank Films Australia" so perhaps there was some timing issue in the distribution dates. Buddhipriya 04:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the cast is the same. It seems that UAV were just distributors, because before the opening credits it says "Burbank Films Australia Presents: Peter Pan". Mukino 05:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any mention of it in the article, so if it is an animated feature why don't you try adding it there with a brief description of it, with a link to the IMDB details. If it is a retelling of the standard Peter Pan story it would seem to be a variant of the better-known Disney animation which is discussed in the text. But perhaps the plot is not the standard tale? Buddhipriya 06:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The plot is the standard tale, but it deviates from the Disney version in that it uses different parts of the story that the Disney version left out. There were also major character changes to Peter as compared to the original book (the Peter in this movie is almost disgustingly polite). Also, the Lost Boys all go home in the end (save Peter, who, upon Wendy's request that he stay home with the Darlings, says 'No thank you. If we did, that would mean we'd have to grow up.' ('we' being a reference to Tinkerbell)). Mukino 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Since there are no references anyway, I shall remove the reference to critisms about sequeuls etc with out merging. If you want to add to the split off pages, please include refs.Obina 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I kept the lost girls part there were some refs - put on sequels page.Obina 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for indefinite pseudo-copyright

If this is in the article, sorry, but i believe it isn't. But anyway, what is the rationale for allowing the Hospital to collect royalties beyond what it would normally be entitled to? It doesn't seem appropriate, and it's hardly random, so I think the rationale would be very good to add. (Or if its already there, made clearer). Also, I assume everywhere else in the EU, it lapses into public domain on 2008-01-01, correct? - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This answer may be a little late, but if you check the entry for James Callaghan, I think you will have your answer. --Phil Holmes 13:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah ok. Thanks. But does anyone know if it has now lapsed into PD in the rest of the EU? - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 22:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Nm. It's in the article. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Please see Talk:Peter Pan (disambiguation) to discuss how the title "Peter Pan" is disambiguated. - JasonAQuest 19:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name change

This doesn't make sense. The most common name for this story is Peter Pan. Ask GOSH. Can't we reach agreement before we make this change?Obina (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I now see you discussed this somewhere else. Sorry I missed it. The right place to discuss was here though. I see you had one person agreeing with you and one not. Hmmm.Obina (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Reaching agreement before making any further changes would be a good idea. And can we discuss this without snide comments? The question affected more than one Peter Pan article, so Peter Pan (disambiguation) seemed the best place to discuss, and I put a note here pointing to it, so accusing me of hiding it is unfair. For the record, no one had disagreed when I made the move. "Ask GOSH" isn't a very convincing argument, especially since 3 weeks from now they won't even own the copyright anymore. But of course you're right that "Peter Pan" is a more common name for it... but it's also the most common name for the character, and I think it's pretty clear that more people know Peter Pan the character than know Peter Pan the play. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PeterPan2.jpg

Image:PeterPan2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)