Talk:The Giving Tree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article needs an infobox template!

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] Commentary

For shame! This is one of the greatest children's books ever and the page is half-completed at best! JD79 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just came across this page and I added to it a bit. It's hard because the book itself, like any good work or art, is subject to intrepretation. The encyclopdia's neutrality rules and all make it difficult to really view pour much of your own views into it. In which case, we are left with a rather simple tale. Prestonp 06:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Made some changes.

Note: This is my first ever edit to Wikipedia - be gentle.

I came across this page today and it was half complete. I made some small changes and added some text. I wanted to move the external links in the article to a sub section but was unsure how to do this. 17.184.103.158 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC) think_balance

Do you know what the 'YL' carved in the side of the tree might stand for other than the obvious 'female's' initials?

Young Love? John 19:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea. I love that. Young Love. Prestonp 05:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to book text

I deleted the link to the supposed text of the book, because it's not the actual text, but merely an abridged version - a lot is left out. The Giving Tree is not yet in the public domain. Keldan 13:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Bush?

Why is the trivia about George Bush's visit to a Florida school in there. It'd be like having a list of trivia of any time a photo in a newspaper has included a specific toy. In fact. I've deleted it. If anyone can come up with a legitamite reason for it to be in there, feel free to re-add it. --Quadraxis 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't this the book the kids were talking to him about on Sept 11? When he sort of just sat there, stunned by the news? I'm not sure, myself, but that does associate the book with an image that has quite a bit of cultural impact. Of course, if I'm thinking of an entirely different book, please disregard. --74.110.191.193 23:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison to "A Boy Named Sue"

Shel Silverstein also wrote a country song about a man who names his son "Sue" and promptly deserts him. In other words, he guaranteed that his son would be strong and self-sustaining (Sue had to fight his way through life because of his name) and then made himself completely unavailable. The exact opposite of "The Giving Tree." Someone ought to publish both in a book to stimulate some discussion. Cranston Lamont 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed this commentary from the article. - Freechild 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I put it back because it does give some insight into the author's thinking. Prestonp 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Are there any outside sources putting forward the "A Boy Named Sue" comparison or the "Mother Nature" interpretation? Both of these appear to be WP:NOR problems right now. --Klork 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I have now removed (again) the original research tag. The entire notion of research is completely absurd in relation to poetry. Poetry is, by it's nature, open to interpretations. As with other forms of artwork, it will resonate with some and not with others. Your formalism is not necessary nor is it productive. Would you really want a page with little content have less content to appease you? Prestonp 14:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As the person who first added the "Boy Named Sue" section, I'd like to suggest that there is no original research in it; just a simple statement that Mr. Silverstein wrote these two very different stories about parental relationships and responsibilities. People might be inspired to draw their own conclusions about the importance of this issue to Mr. Silverstein. Cranston Lamont 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the commentary. That Silverstein is making a statement about parenthood at all is an interpretation (i.e. it could be about simple friendship). This is an interpretation based on an interpretation. This clearly violates the spirit, if not the letter of WP:NOR:
“Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources. Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately. NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies. Since NPOV, V, and NOR complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three”
At least with the initial interpretation, you have an actual source. I'm going put in a See Also section with a little blurb. If you can find a published source that makes your same comparison, feel free to revert my changes. Despite the contention that this "give[s] some insight into the author's thinking," we cannot really know that until we have a source.--ProfessorFokker 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing it. It's completely irrelevant to the article. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Giving Tree.jpg

Image:The Giving Tree.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 insure 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) 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)