Talk:The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 1, 2004.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Contents

[edit] older entries

Are there any Theosophical connotations to be defered from this book? If anyone knows in detail of them, they would be a good addition to the article.

New Wikipedian here, just wondering if the lack of discussion vis-a-vis the political aspect and undertones of (book, not movie, obviously) "Oz" was intentional or an oversight? If the latter, I'll volunteer to change it, but I want to make sure it's not breaking a sacred rule or somesuch. :)


From Josh Griff:

Is it true that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a political story about industrialization in the late 19th century? My history teacher seems to believe that it is. He says that silver choose of a girl means silver in US economy, powerless man behind the screen represents presedents of 1800's, and brainless scarecrow that gets brains is an American farmer. It all certainly makes sense but I always thought that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is nothing but a fairy tale. Thanks.


Wally (forgot this before, apologies)

Sure you can add that. In fact, there were political undertones to the movie too, particularly with reference to the Isolationist/Interventionist debate before World War II, but that is another story. Danny 01:04, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Baum always insisted that there were no political undertones, and that those who tried to make out that there were, were seeing things in the text that he did not intend. RickK 01:53, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps he said it, but I think it goes without saying that he wasn't writing a tale just for little children - shortly before he wrote it, he was holding candlelight processions for William Jennings Bryan, who was pretty much spear-heading the free silver movement, the allusions to which (in the book, at least) seem pretty transparent. However, if Baum did reject that than it should be noted, but the political interpretations ought to be discussed, the same. Wally 04:58, 20 Dec 2003, (UTC)

Definately. I'm starting to write that right now. --Alex S 19:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good job on the allegorical stuff, Alex, major kudos. But one last lingering concern; mighn't it perhaps be a good idea to note the specific allegory beyond just the characters? For example, remember the fact that in the book, Dorothy goes to a huge length to follow the Yellow Brick Road to the Emerald City (which I interpreted as Washington, D.C.) to see the Wizard, who turns out to be powerless and the entire journey a complete lark - Dorothy, if we recall, is told that had she clicked her heels thrice in the silver slippers, she'd have been returned immediately, seemingly making the point that persisting with gold was an utter snipe hunt and that instant silver = instant reward?

Just a thought. Let me know your perception. Wally 01:19, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deleted: "Since the copyright expired in 1956, some publishers have produced the book under other titles such as The Wizard of Oz (e.g. Puffin Classics, ISBN 0-14-035001-2)." This is misleading. The book was being sold as "The Wizard of Oz" as early as 1913 (this from "Bibliographia Oziana" by Hanff, Greene, Martin, Greene and Haff). Also, the whole political allegory on populism is a famous MISconception. I'll leave that in, as it is widely "known", but add info on the history and debunking of this allegory. --Woggly 02:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the following passages from the article, as they are based on a misconception, the history of which I have described in the article. Whoever wrote the following was very thorough, and this is undeniably and interesting piece of writing, but factually misguided. As I expand this page, I'll think of a way of reincorprating these passages into the article in less misleading way.

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz can be seen as an allegory for the state of U.S. politics at the turn of the 20th century. It is a strongly pro-silver work that describes the wonderland that the United States could become with the adoption of a bimetallic system. Many of the events and characters of the book stand for political events and ideas. In the original introduction of the book Baum wrote that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was "a modernized fairy tale". Even the title alludes to a political reality - oz. is an abbreviation for ounce, an unit familliar to those who fought for a 16 to 1 ounce ratio of silver to gold in the name of bimetallism.
The Kansas of the book depicts the hardship of rural life in America at the turn of the 20th century, right after the Panic of 1893. Dorothy is swept away to a fantasy version of America that represents the country's potential. Dorothy's silver slippers (they were changed to ruby only in the film) and their relationship to the yellow brick road represents the potential of a bimetallic, gold-and-silver system to better the US. Other allegorical aspects of the book include:
*Dorothy, naieve and simple yet sweet at heart, represents the American people
*The Wicked Witch of the East represents Eastern money power, the big banks and businesses of the East; her opression of the Munchkins stands for the opression of the average American at the hands of these Eastern financial forces
*The Emerald City represents a greenback version of Washington D.C.
*The Scarecrow represents the American farmer - although thought to be unintelligent, he possesses a strong common sense
*The Tin Man represents the American industrial labor - like the farmer, he is thought of as heartless but in reality has a strong sense of cooperation and love
*The Cowardly Lion represents reformers, particularly William Jennings Bryan
*The Wizard of Oz, like the Wicked Witch of the East, symbolizes the political and economic power that runs the country. Although he has immense power and prestige, in the end he is a charlatan and more pathetic than awe-inspiring. This depiction is a reflection of Baum's belief that the spirit of America lies in its working classes and their values. Specifically, many see the wizard as representing President William McKinley'

Baum himself, in the 1896 elections, actually supported McKinley! I'll be back... --Woggly 03:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That was me. I left a message about this on your talk page. --Alex S 22:39, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I can live with what's up there right now, though I will return to tweak a bit and pad out the "anti-allegory", if you don't mind. Somewhere online there's an article by a University of Georgia professor who took the time to trace the entire paperchase of who quoted whom leading back to Littlefield, I need to find it and reread it. Anyway, please don't think for a moment that I view you as "crazy" for putting it up there. The allegory theory appears in some very reliable-seeming sources, I know as a fact that it used to be taught in at least one Harvard class. It just happens to be a little off. :)
Also, somewhere online, there's an equally intricate article detailing how "The Wizard of Oz" can be seen as an allegory for Europe on the Eve of WWII - except that the book was written almost 40 years earlier, and the numerous people at MGM who made the movie were not the kind of people you'd expect to plant subtle allegories in their films... --Woggly 09:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Of course, I'd love to see more "anti-allegory" stuff, especially a quote or interview from Baum himself. If I have the time, I'll look for one myself. Anyways, I know you don't view me as "crazy," I was just joking around. That's the thing about the internet - it's hard to communicate humor on a keyboard. And yeah, as with any great book, there are going to be theories and "deeper meanings" found within it that definately aren't there. --Alex S 16:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I think the case that Baum was a pro-McKinley man - actually, much of the new assertions in this article, too - are tenuousat best. For one thing, there is strong evidence within the poem offered in refutation that it is both sarcastic and satirical in nature - he refers to the "'honest money' men" using scare quotes, which would specifically denote that he did NOT think they were honest money men, in fact trying to cheat the public as so many suggest. Most characteristic of this, however, is repeated use of the phrase "when McKinley gets the chair". In American popular culture, this is not at all a metaphor for election - as a matter of fact, it's a metaphor for being executed by electrocution (the electric chair)! Therefore, he's suggesting not that things will be solved when McKinley is elected, but when he is killed! This interpretation would also strongly support the widely-held pro-Bryan view of Baum (some even suggest he attended Bryanite candlelight vigils in 1896), as well as satisfying your assertion that Baum's political commentary was unusually heavy-handed! Not only that (also since "gets the chair" has never to my knowledge been an American metaphor for anything but execution), but everything else can be clearly viewed as a sarcastic critique of the gold standard faction, who were often moneyed classes who belittled the free-silver group as a "rabble", "mob", etc. and Bryan as a dangerous demagogue. Looking at it in that light, it's quite tongue-in-cheek.
In addition, returning to the work of his that's overtly anti-Standard Oil - a member of the intelligentsia of that mind would have been unlikely to the point of silliness to vote Republican in the late 1800s. Not only that, but his second love's mother was a nationally known feminist and suffragette, not a position associated with either McKinley OR the Blaine Republican Party! (http://www.literarytraveler.com/spring/west/baum.htm ) Were that not enough, Baum lived for quite some time in South Dakota, a state with many of the same problems and issues as Bryan's Nebraska, and one Bryan carried overwhelmingly in his campaign (see Bryan article here at Wikipedia). Given all that, I think we can conclusively dismiss the idea that Baum was a McKinleyite or even a Republican.
What's more, though, many would argue that the imagery in in WOZ is just as heavy-handed as you mention in his other stories; besides, it's not uncommon to put deep political, psychological or philosophical points in the form of a childrens' text - CS Lewis did it in the Chronicles of Narnia books (http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/12/28/baum/index.html, also Wikipedia's CS Lewis article). I've always been rather of the mind that the connections are past that which can be described as circumstantial, and some of the sites backing your point of view seem to be just personal websites, not professional assessments (namely and especially here: http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/faq02.html#15 ). We can't make such a sweeping judgment with such little moral force.
Were that not enough, your assertion (accepting it as true if one may, and despite my reservations I can easily see how it could be confused and people might just see what they want) has driven the article wildly into the realm of POV. Not only do you offer a refutation of the idea that it's an allegory without either supporting information for the allegory or at least a rebuttal, but your language seems to openly belittle the very idea. Worse, no really defensible explanation is offered as to why it couldn't be an allegory, besides quoting anonymous scholars saying it's not true and voicing Baum's rejection. The first is self-defeating; as to the latter, it's not as if an author always wants his exact intentions to be apparent, and will even go to great lengths to hide it - Joe Klein repeatedly offered denials when asked if he was the "A" of Primary Colors fame, a position he later confessed to! McKinley supporters were big businessmen and very powerful (especially in the west, and especially in the newspaper and goods businesses that Baum often ran), and Baum was a crappy enough businessman without having enemies. This would be a likely explanation as to his vehement denials - he could positively not afford to draw the ire of major businessmen (see Literary Traveler article).
Therefore, I think the article as it stands needs a serious revisit in light of these facts. We can't really say it's true or not that it's an allegory - there's significant public debate, and the author's dead, and his refutation is of only dubious reliability given the interpretation offered. The article is much better with the extensive discussion, and it almost convinced me the allegory was nothing, but therein lies the problem. Wikipedia's not designed to convince anyone of anything, only to lay out the facts and let them speak for themselves. The article is persuasive rather than expository, and in this form cannot stand. Wally 01:59, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't see the Literary Traveler article, as the link is not working at this moment in time. But I must say I was a bit shocked to read your reference to Baum's first and only wife and beloved lifelong companion as his "second love". What have you been reading?
Have you followed the link to David Parker's article? He is not anonymous, and I think his article is so well researched, well written and well balanced that I didn't even want to start getting into rephrasing it, I just gave the link. If you've read that, and still believe The Wizard of Oz to be an intentional parable, then you baffle me.
As for the idea that Baum suggested McKinley be sent to the electric chair, this seems preposterous in light of Baum's other writings. I'm sorry, I completely disagree with your interpretation of the verse. I feel that you are forcing your opinion on a text that obviously states the exact opposite, and I strongly suspect that you are not familiar with Baum's style or with details of his biography.
Your interpretation also disagrees with that of another of the so-called "anonymous scholars" - Michael Patrick Hearn, named in the article, is not an anonymous scholar. Michael Patrick Hearn is widely considered to be THE leading scholar on Oz and Baum.
Or how about this quote, from Baum biographer Katherine M. Rogers: "Littlefield's political interpretation of The Wizard is belied by Baum's known political views. Far from supporting the Populist Party, Baum opposed it as detracting from the strenght of the Republican Party, which he supported editorially in his newspaper and by his votes throughout his life, so far as is known; he opposed free silver as editor of the Pioneer and published pro-McKinley, pr-Gold Standard verses in the Times-Herald in 1896..." (Katharine M. Rogers, L. Frank Baum - A Biography, page 265).
Or this, from David Godwin, whom I'd never even heard of before right now when I followed a link that someone had added to the wikipedia article: "However, the Populist theory was well refuted in 1994 by David Parker in the Journal of the Georgia Association of Historians, the strongest argument being that Baum is known to have been a Republican." (The is the "Oz as a spiritual allegory" link).
Henry Littlefield himself, who is named in the article, has written a followup to his original article in which he supports the view that Baum was not a populist (and if I had the energy to start poking about in my upper shelves I could pull out the issue of The Baum Bugle where that was first published and quote it too). Other scholars I could probably quote on this matter include Martin Gardner, Nancy Tystad Koupal, Michael Gessel, Russel Nye...
In most serious and recent biographies of Baum, the populism issue merits barely a footnote, as there is so little in his life to support it. Baum was not politically active in the classic sense of ascribing to this or that political party. He had his own opinions about how the world should be, and the best way to understand what those were is to read what he wrote, not to judge by the platform of any single party, or try to guess based on when and where he lived!
On Wikipedia the populism issue has been given much more weight than it deserves. Other issues that do interest Baum biographers are hardly mentioned here: his support for women’s rights despite his satire of the suffragist movement, his dabbling in Theosophy, the two unfortunate editorials that he wrote about the plains Indians despite his clearly humanist opinions… All these deserve much more attention than the old Populism debate, and definitely more attention than they get here.
Therefore, while I agree that this article is not yet ready to be a featured article, I disagree that the main sticking point should be the Populism debate. The Populism debate is old news. In my experience, people who still think that Baum was a Populist are people who have not read much rigorous research about him. Sorry to be blunt, it's not a matter of POV, it's a matter of ignorance. I can find tons of material in support of my claim, if I dig enough - I sincerely doubt the "opposing side", such as it is, can do the same.
I intend on expanding this article, but I can’t do it in the middle of Passover break with two toddlers at home needing my attention! --Woggly 13:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about the Literary Traveler link; I errored in placing it. The article is working and can be found here: http://www.literarytraveler.com/spring/west/baum.htm
As for Baum's wife, that was a simple error on my part. When reading the article it referred to his wife as "the other love of his life" (the first being theatre, but I didn't pick up the reference so I assumed a short romance, and the others I read were on the story and not biography), so apologies for that.
The "anonymous scholars" bit was mostly a reference to the page cited, and I certainly wasn't trying to disavow the view held of the majority of scholars or belittle their work as a whole. However, the article I was quoting (and what "David Parker" article? The one I cited for being rather amateur was by Eric Glovaag) seemed to be, as I said, an anonymous, amateur scholar, and a fansite FAQ is not substantive information for an article.
As for some of the political critiques, such as Katherine Martin's, it suggests a serious lack of understanding of the American political situation at the time. To say that the Populists would take votes away from the Republicans, hence why Baum would oppose them, is probably the silliest thing I've read all day. As a matter of fact the Democrats' losses in 1896 and 1900 can easily be attributed to the Populist candidacy, as Wikipedia's own arguments on the subject would attest, and Populists would vote for Democrats barring their own - that's why W.J. Bryan was first nominated by the Populists, then the Democrats, in 1896! To say that Baum rejected Populists for taking votes from Republicans (as opposed to being against them) suggests that either the biographer did not understand American politics, or more, Baum didn't.
As for the poem, forgive me, but how else do you explain "when McKinley gets the chair?" That is not a standard American metaphor outside of the context I described, nor have I been able to find any use of it in America at any time period, then or now. However, your interpretation of the poem is reversed when looked at that way, and I see no defense of that interpretation. As for the articles he wrote that are pro-gold and pro-McKinley, do you by any chance have them onhand or know where they could be found online? I'd like to read them, and if they're there I'll happily cede the point.
I don't necessarily agree that the populism debate has been given more weight than it deserves; if it is, in fact, a general misconception, then it is our job to openly debunk it, and whether it's true or not we can agree that it's both long-lasting and popular, and whether or not it's justified by a reading of a Baum biography is irrelevant. We should first a) determine the veracity and b) explain it as such, and not belittle our readers by assuming they've read outside information and wording accordingly. Frankly, we must do exactly the opposite; provide them with that crucial information so they DON'T need any prerequisites. Our readers, myself included, read the article from ignorance to alleviate the same. Prominent issues must be prominently addressed; Ariel Sharon's article doesn't spend an extensive time on his Prime Ministerial record and then say, "Oh, and also, he's been accused of major fraud and corruption."
In whatever case, forgive me if I didn't say before (or worded myself too strongly), but you've done a fine job bringing new information into this article and adding new perspectives regardless of anything else. I just disagree on the structure and the POV issue, and that was my main point. That, and to suggest that the populism claim isn't totally unbased in reality.
With that, shalom and have a happy Passover. :) Wally 19:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the correct link, it seems, at a glance, to be a pretty good biography of Baum. (Better than the one currently up on Wikipedia, which I've made my project to update). Notice there's not a word there about the populism debate...
The David Parker article can be found online at: http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~dparker/history/oz/ozpop.html It's the second link under the heading "The book as a parallel on populism" in the article. Maybe the article needs to be rewritten so that this link gets better emphasis?
I admit that Eric Gjovaag's page may not be the best page to quote regarding the Populism debate. Eric is a primary school teacher, and his page is purposefully written in kid-friendly language. That, and the fact that it is an informal sort of fan site, may lead to the impression that it's an amateurish resource, but don't be fooled - this particular site is one of the most comprehensive Oz Web sites I know, with an excellent and detailed FAQ. If nothing else, it's a good jumping point to other more professional sources.
More likely Baum was the one with a flawed view of the political situation. He wasn't much of a politician, and didn't have the benefit of hindsight. As for "get the chair", I take it to mean, "get elected". Here's what I found in Webster's dictionary: chair as a verb, "3. to place in authority"; chair as a noun, meanings 2 and 3: "2. a seat of justice or authority; as a chair of state; 3. an office or position of authority, as a professorship or a judgeship". This strikes me as a far more plausible interpretation, also given the fact that Baum was vehemently opposed to capital punishment... I do have a book with some of Baum's editorials, somewhere in the junkpile of my study, but haven't been able to find it recently - However, the online David Particle article gives plenty of references that I'm sure are just as relevant. (I've just noticed my typo in the previous line and decided it's too cute to correct).
I don't think the Ariel Sharon example is at all a similar question. With Ariel Sharon, you're referring to a highly relevant and ongoing debate, with potentially huge consequences. With Baum and The Wizard of Oz, the issue at question is a curio, not much more than that. Lets say The Wizard of Oz in fact was a Populist manifesto. So, that would be interesting, no doubt, but not hugely consequential... Now lets say that a couple of decades ago, some people were very taken with the idea that the book was a populist manifesto, and since then they've been rebutted by other people who've actually studied Baum's biography. I'd say that's still interesting enough to merit a line or two and a few links, but should it take up the bulk of the article about the book? Not in my eyes...
As you'll see, once you've read David Parker (I'm being pushy, in case you haven't noticed), the populism link is not entirely without merit. What I personally object to, is people claiming with great conviction that "everybody knows Baum actually had a political agenda when he wrote his book". The opposite is true. However, Baum created a Utopia with Oz, and I don't think anyone can write a Utopia without getting political. I don't think he was using his book to try to influence people to vote for a particular party. I do think he was using his book to try to influence the way people look and think about the world, and in that sense, yes, it is definitely a political book. (But so are most great books...)
It's almost 2am here, this is the only time I've had online recently. Sigh. --Woggly 22:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have to admit, after having read your reply on the subject as well as looking at the articles in question, I am pretty much fully satisfied with what you've said. I disagree as to the Ariel Sharon comment, since I feel that both are major issues relating to the subject, but I don't want to quibble; as long as the populism bit gets a fair and sufficient treatment with notes both for and against, I'm satisfied (and you've said repeatedly it's still a work in progress anyway, so perhaps I'll give you a chance to do that before harping on something?). Please drop me a line when you're finished with your revision of this page so I can redo it, but my objections thus far are pretty much completely covered (providing the populism thing, again, is equalized), and I've so noted on the FA nomination page. Good show on taking this one under your wing, it deserves a good treatment. Wally 23:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is a good essay and I've added some details on identifying who's who. On the allegory debate. The allegory is widely taught in schools and is given in major history textbooks. Whether you agree or not it's a fact that most historians and experts on the 1890s accept the allegory of WOZ. Let's give illustrator Denslow more of the credit--he was a editorial (political) cartoonist who later broke with Baum so the Baumites tend to downplay him. Other leading political cartoonists saw WOZ as allegorical and it has been the base of hundreds of editorial cartoons about political matters, not to mention slogans like "we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto," which have become part of the political jargon. I replaced POV arguments about the allegory theory with a NPOV approach that considers alternative views, and emphasizes that the great majority of scholars, historians and economists support the allegory theme. I added ID's of Uncle Henry and Aunt Em. (The anti-allegory folks are baffled by the fact that the book contains so many different allegorical representations. Could all these be coincidences? Rjensen 06:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Richard Jensen 67.176.74.236 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plot detail

I think the plot summary (a bit long for a summary at that) takes up too much of the article and gives too much detail. This isn't simply a spoilers issue, but rather that I'm uncertain of the function. I don't think it should be the job of an encyclopedia article about a book to cover the plot in this sort of detail. Agreements, disagreements, hate-mail? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:40, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

I probably agree, though I'd hate to be the one to dilute it. --Woggly 13:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

hey, this is my first article that i'm commenting on...i think that it was really good. i really like the wizard of oz story. i really don't know what to say cause this is a first....ok, i guess i'll go now...can someone give me some ideas of what to write about for next time? please...since i can tell that some of you are very advanced...thankx...bye... --Libra girl 19:33, 1 May 2004 (UTC)



The plot 'summary' certainly is more detailed than this wikinewbie would have expected. Perhaps its sheer size can be accepted and the author forgiven since the summary obviously incorporates details from the other Oz books.
To me, the amount of detail pales as an issue in comparison to my inability to understand the meaning of one of its parts. As long as we have a detailed summary, I think it ought to be understandable throughout.
I refer to the start of the 7th paragraph, which (IMNSHO) has lost several key words, or maybe even the end and beginning of two sentences.
"When they meet the Wizard of Oz again, he tries to put off Dorothy and her friends and only of threat of seeing the Winged Monkeys again (who under the Wicked Witch's command drove him from the Winkie Country in the first place)."
I have neither the personal knowledge nor available references from which to research the correction, so I'm limited to this comment.
Of course, if we're pruning instead of repairing, then the task may be simplified considerably.  ;-)  : Esrob3 18:30, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
I corrected parts of the plot summary that were incorrect, but did not change the length of the summary 129.188.33.221 00:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Caption

Regarding the reverted caption, Woggly, I've read all your previous comments; I realize that "political allegory" is discredited now, and probably just a popular misconception, but nevertheless it was suggested seriously at one point. That's all the caption said. We can remove the 'critics' if you like and just say 'some' have suggested, to give it less credence. The goal(Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions) is to draw people in to reading the article by giving them an angle they didn't know about. Deepak 16:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like the "some" better than the "critics". Sorry for reverting without adding a comment, I was pressed for time yesterday, and there was that bit of misinformation about Stan Laurel that I wanted to remove as well. --Woggly 05:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Customized Classics

"Customized classics" are a range of "editions" that put your picture on the cover, add a happy ending to Romeo and Juliet, and replace the names in the texts with the names of your choice: "Oh, Brad, Brad, wherefore art thou Brad?" You can get a customized edition of Moby Dick, with either Ahab or Moby bearing your own name. I'm trying hard to suppose that such links are added in good faith, and not as vandalism. Try to imagine EB referring to this type of product in its articles about literary classics. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia too. I've removed one of these links from this article, just as I have removed the same user's nonsense text in Romance novel and Romantic fiction. --Bishonen 19:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Side of the Moon

There should be mention of the discovery that Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon can be played on a continuous loop along side the movie and produces relationships between the two.

This article is about the 1901 book, Please see The Wizard of Oz (1939 movie) for inforamation about the Judy Garland film. --[[User:JonMoore|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 04:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1910 Silent Film

I would support adding information on the 1910 silent ten-minute movie adaptation with the discussion of the other film versions. According to the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0001463/), it is based primarily on the 1902 stage show.

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Oz

I have created a new WikiProject about Oz: WikiProject Oz. I hope to create a community to help guide the continued development of the articles about the series and its authors, characters, etc. toward even more quality articles. If you are interested, please add your name under the "Participants section" and please leave any comments or questions on the project's talk page or my user talk page. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 23:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "The poem"?

Someone needs to edit the article for consistency. Apparently at one point a Baum poem was printed in the middle of the discussion of TWWOO as allegory and then removed, but no one removed the subsequent discussion of interpretations of "the poem". -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, a big chunk of text was deleted on November 18 by an anonymous vandal. I'll try to put it back, though I'm not sure it fits anymore. --Woggly 11:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The poem might also be a copyvio. You might want to confirm it's public domain before placing it here. 23skidoo 14:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Everything published before 1923 in US is public domain--prose, poetry and cartoons. Apart from some ethnics, almost all businessmen in Chicago were Republicans in 1896. In 1900 the great majority were (but some leeway was possible--Andrew Carnegie for example). As editor of a magazine for the ad business Baum was a pretty visible leader of the business community. Rjensen 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
But copyright can be renewed, can't it? I assume we couldn't quote from the Oz books because no doubt someone (probably Baum's estate) has renewed copyright. This is a jackpot film and TV producers have often encountered with regards to Sherlock Holmes. The assumption is the stories are public domain, but they are not. Same for the song "Happy Birthday to You". Odds are the poem is probably PD - unless Baum's estate did some sort of blanket renewal of copyright. 23skidoo 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
What is your basis for this assumption? The Wonderful Wizard of Oz has been in public domain since 1956: all the Baum Oz books are by now in public domain, they are all available online through project Gutenburg, they can all be freely quoted from. That's one of the reasons there are countless sequels, pastiches and adaptations of Oz books in print. See the International Wizard of Oz Club's FAQ. (And while you're at it, note the FAQ answer to the question: "Was The Wizard of Oz written as a political allegory?"... clearly, not everybody agrees with Richard Jensen!)--Woggly 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historic Artwork added; new evidence for "Allegory"

I have added a series of cartoons from 1880 onward that show a) where Baum & Denslow may have goten some of their inspiration; b) that political cartoonists before 1900 used cyclones, witches, scarecrows, lions and monkeys, etc. as political allegories--so why be surprised when Baum also uses them that way? (c) proof that political cartoonists saw and used the political analogies from as early as 1906. These are public domain images. Rjensen 12:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you are systematically destroying this article. You are so deadset on proving your marginal point that you are letting it take over the entire article. And you are sloppy in your spelling and style. This used to be an almost decent article, it now stinks. I don't even know where to start fixing it. --Woggly 19:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Destroying????? I am adding information, which is what Wickipedia does. I am not removing information. The article originally was a chapter-by-chapter precis of the book. Fine, That is all still there. What I am doing is showing the sources for the images of the Wonderful Wizard of OZ were built on the cartoon language of the 1890s. That is the Scarecrowe, the Lion, Tin Man, Witches, Munchkins were not brand new inventions by Baum and Denslow. Is that a marginal pont? Oh no, that is the core function of an encyclopedia. As the citations show this is NOT marginal in economics or history--they run journal articles and scholarly books that make these points, & hundreds of thousands of students read the textbooks that make the point. If you have an alternative history of say the Tin Man let's hear it. Sloppy in spelling and style? my apologies and I'm certainly willing to take advice. Rjensen 03:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, first I apologize for lashing out yesterday. This article has been frustrating me for a long time, and it came to a head yesterday when I really did not have time to deal with it. So please forgive me for the above comment. I also wish to clarify I do not have a personal complaint against Rjensen whose conduct has been fine; rather, I was bemoaning what strikes me as a gradual deterioration of this article. My "you" should have been "you people", if at all. I will set forth my complaints about the article in its present form and my suggestion for adressing them in a new section below. --Woggly 08:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote proposal - splitting the article

My major problem with this article, as I have previously begun explaining on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, is that there is too much focus on the whole allegory issue, and not enough on other pertinent, central and well documented aspects of the book. The missing material amounts to glaring oversights: nothing at all about the collaboration between Baum and Denslow, the interesting printing and publishing history of the book, initial critical reponse and later critical acclaim, influences and adaptations.

Looking through the edit history for this article, it is clear that the sections pertaining to the allegory issue are the least stable and most highly contested sections of this article. Clearly, the question of the allegory is of interest to many readers, and will continue drawing attention and debate. However, I'd really like to see other parts of the article flushed out and edited, rather than all the editors investing their energy in one argument.

I'd like to point out, that most of the seminal reference works I know of about "The Wizard of Oz", such as Michael Patrick Hearn's "The Annotated Wizard of Oz" a full bibliography hardly devote any space at all to the matter of the populism allegory, and yet have pages and pages devoted to other aspects of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". My point: by concentrating on one "hot" issue, this article is giving an unbalanced treatment of the book.

Here's my suggestion for resolving this: we should transfer the whole allegory controversy to a separate article, [[The Wizard of Oz as allegory]], and link to it from the main article about the book. (Ideally the history from the main article should be copied to the new article, I'll try to find out if there's a way to do this). That way the main article can focus on the abundant uncontroversial and interesting material pertinent to this book, and have at least the potential to be stable, comprehensive and FA-worthy; but the allegory controversy would still get the attention it deserves. There is clearly enough material to merit and independent, if controversial article.

Please vote on splitting this article.

[edit] Support

  • For reasons given above. --Woggly 08:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree it should be split, BUT a summary of it should be left. Also, I think the split should be something more general, such as Analysis of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz or Interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Honestly, I don't think Wikipedia should be a place for opinions. I could think Wizard is a commentary on religion in the 19th century, but that isn't fact, so it is only my opinion. Jon 01:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, mainly because in its current form the article gives undue weight to the allegorical interpretation. Like Jon, I think that the political analysis should have its own article, with a summary on the main page for the book. However, I disagree with the notion that Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for opinions: it should be (and is) a place to record the verifiable, well-sourced opinions of important critics and commentators on any subject. (It's not a place for everyone's random opinion on every subject, but it's entirely appropriate for published opinions widely discussed to be covered in depth.) User:Rjensen's contributions appear to be well-researched and grounded, but they're outweighing all the other features the article needs to cover about the book and its place in American culture. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support The allegory theory is something originally created by a smart teacher to teach his students complicated politics, and was never meant to express the author's intent. It is a theory that is not inherent in the works, and is hotly contested. The allegory aspects should certainly be touched upon, and the fascinating work of Mr Jensen should be included in another article as influences on Baum's work, but the theory itself should not dominate the entire entry on the book. I don't know if I'm allowed to vote, since I didn't bother to register, but I'm absolutely for removing the huge section on allegory to its own article where it can get the attention it deserves. --24.19.239.157 23:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The allegory section is directly related to the main characters. It's not a side issue like say, translations. Is it Baum's interpretation? We don't know but that is not how literary criticism works. We do not ignore the interpretation of Hamlet just because Shakespeare never explained what his intentions were. Is the article too long? no. Is there material that is crowded out? no. So why drop the explanation of where the characters all came from--that will decrease how much the readers learn, which is the opposite of Wikipedia's goals. That is the goal should be the more information the better. And if you have something to say about the Wicked Witch, then write it up, but don't try to erase what many other people have discovered. Rjensen 00:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Support I haven't been following this debate, but if I compare the length of this article with those of books like Gravity's Rainbow, The Great Gatsby or War and Peace, this one does seem long. And it seems reasonable to have a short paragraph here mentioning the allegory aspects and have them reference a separate article with the details (or some other suitable breakdown of the information). John 04:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote Support for splitting the article. While the possible political allegory the story can be interpreted as is interesting and certainly deserving of inclusion, it has now become fully HALF the article. Split it off into something like Wizard of Oz as a Political Allegory or something. Also, with Baum himself stating it's not an allegory, all interpretations to the contrary are by their very nature original research, even if it's well-documented original research. Nezu Chiza 03:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Baum in fact never denied he used political images. In the 1902 stage version he had actors mention President Roosevelt, Senator Hanna, Mr Dooley, and John D Rockefeller, which certainly proves that Baum included politics in the 1902 version. The article does not say the book is an allegory. It says that Baum & Denslow drew on political images and ideas to create the book. No one actually disputes that--or do they? . Rjensen 03:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I never said Baum denied using political images. I said he denied writing the story as a political allegory, which he HIMSELF has stated. As for the 1902 stage version, nothing prevented him from deciding to use the story as he did after the fact. One has to wonder if you read others comments or just sift through them for what you think was said and respond to that? As to the article not saying the book is an allegory, one must also wonder if you use the commonly accepted view as to what an allegory is. Going by the definition "The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.", your additions to the article certainly seem to support the allegory idea. Whether or not the actual WORD is used in your writing doesn't matter. Remember, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck...and you're additions include a flock of them. Nezu Chiza 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Baum denied what? let's get a quote that we can discuss. I reject the statement that Baum denied his use of political symbols. Evidence please.. The Swartz book proves that Baum named President Roosevelt in the 1902 version, which is indeed covered in this article. And Baum did explictly give a political reference to the Woodman's Oil linking it to John D Rockefeller. Let's start with the Baum quote you rely on: What is Baum's statement??? Note that the parts of the article in question all deal with the main characters--surely that is what the book is about and the article is about--witches and scarecrows and Uncle Henry Rjensen 19:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Taken straight from this article itself "Baum, who wrote many followup Oz books without a political theme, laughed at the idea that the original story was an allegory for politics." Also, exactly when did I say he denied using political symbols? Once again, I have to ask whether you even BOTHER TO READ the comments. Because what you're saying certainly isn't anything I said. How do you interpret laughing at the idea the original story was an allegory for politics? As proof he wrote it that way? I'll make this challenge to you, though you seem inclined to ignore what's said so I doubt it'll be answered. YOU show ME a quote where Baum stated he wrote the original WOZ as an allegory. Just one teensy little quote about the beloved children's book. Just ONE.
Back to the original issue, however, I still support the suggestion of splitting the allegory/meaning section off from the main article. It seems you want it kept on the front page for personal reasons as opposed to following the common practice of splitting and adding links to large sections of articles once they get unwieldy. Isn't it enough to have the section on Wikipedia, albeit linked through the main article on WOZ...rather than not have it anywhere at all? Nezu Chiza 20:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Two points: 1) the article says "Baum...laughed at the idea that the original story was an allegory for politics." Is there a source for that? I don't think so. We should drop it unless someone has an actual source. Second, the article should be about the characters in the book, & the plots. It now does that. People want to REMOVE information and not add anything. All these traditionalists have noit had a single thing to say about witches, scarecrows, tin men, lions etc --instead they want to remove information about the characters. They want an encyclopedia of ignorance, where readers will NOT learn about the scarecrow. They reject all the books and aricles written byu scholars. As I say they have their own article on "The Land of Oz" which deals with the many sequels. If you want Ozma go there. If you want the real WOZ go to this article. Rjensen 21:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You're mistaking one-sided research as being about the characters. Talking ABOUT the Scarecrow means talking about what he did in the books. The majority of what people want moved(not removed) is what some people THINK is original(albeit well-researched and documented throughout the decades) ideas as to what each character can symbolize, means, whatever. Nobody is saying that the information should be taken away. Just that it should be moved OFF the main page. Nezu Chiza 22:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


I must say there is an amazing amount of un-WOZ spleen on this discussion page. It comes from people who read all the Oz books when they were kids and want to kep those memories sacred and who oppose new information. The job of an encyclopedia is to explain things. If there are alternative explanations, we give both and let the reader decide.

For example: SCARECROW Explantion 1= farmer. Explanation 2 = don't know TIN WOODMAN Explanation 1 = worker Explanation 2= don't know Yellow Bric Road #1 = Gold #2 = don't know Silver Slippers #1 silver money #2 -- well they're not ruby Witches, monkeys, Uncle Henry, Munckins etc etc and so on for 20 or so items. On the one hand a real explanation rooted in actual cartoons and editorials and news of 1890s, and on the other hand: Don't Know. So what do we call an encyclopedia that is all don't knows?? Let's not call it Wikipewdia. Rjensen 23:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Due to you failing to understand the proposal at hand despite numerous attempts to explain it to you, I rest my case. Rest assured that nothing will be deleted, nothing will be lost, all your suppositions and explanations will still be accessable at the click of a mouse button. I'll hope that one day you come to understand the difference between splitting and deleting on Wikipedia. Nezu Chiza 16:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Oppose

The article is in fact not too long. The allegory material is not peripheral but central to questions like "what does it mean." I have been adding cartoons that illustrate the sources Baum & Denslow drew upon. This again helps answer the questions, how did the book come about? How is it that all those allegorical images so heavily used by political cartoonists in 1890s reappear in the book? Maybe the solution is simple. Spin off these sections, which are all peripheral to the meaning of the 1900 book:

  1. 4 Other Oz Books
  2. 5 Translations
  3. 6 Stage and screen adaptations
  4. 7 Other adaptations

This way the article will tell: Contents of book; sources of images and ideas; meaning of plot, identification of characters. As for the Hearn book, he has lots of interesting points but he stubborly refuses--even in latest edition--to understand that America in 1890s was overwhelmingly political, as were Baum and Denslow. Here's a book about political revolution and battles between good and evil forces for political control and Hearn ignores all of that, as if the little child in him was unpolitical. He needs to read some history, I suggest. (He might start with my "Winning of the Midwest, 1888-1896" for example. Rjensen 09:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah - so you are Richard Jensen. Nice to meet you and good to have you on Wikipedia. You've been writing about this topic since before I was born. If I understand correctly, you are not actually opposed to splitting the article, merely arguing about which part of the article should remain on the main page, and which should be spun off to a subpage. Here I firmly disagree with you: a Wikipedia article about a book should primarily deal with established fact. A highly contested interpretation should not be the sole content of the primary article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. An article ABOUT the controversy is acceptable, but turning the main article about the book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz into a stage for your own contested theory is not. --Woggly 10:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. It is not true however that I was there when the book was published--not even the movie! The thesis is not actually controversial. Some people see it, some people do not. The people who see it have a great deal to say. The people who do not stand mute. They do not have alternative explanations for the symbolism. The article should be about the most important topics, and the peripheral issues of translations, or stage adaptations, for example, are trivial. Rjensen 11:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course you weren't around when the book was published 105 years ago. I was merely referring to the fact that you wrote "Winning of the Midwest" in 1971, whereas I was only born in 1974... As for "not seeing it", that's the whole point. The difference is that those who "see" the allegory are pointing to disparate elements in the book and saying, "here is a picture that somebody painted"; whereas those who "don't see" the allegory would say, "this is an inkblot test - there is no guiding hand here". It is in fact quite a heated controversy. --Woggly 12:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me say I really enjoy working on Wikipedia. Is there a "controversy"? Not much of one. The "antis" don't make any arguments is the problem. I just looked through Hearn. He apparently never references the cartoons of the 1890s. So he did not see Cleveland as a Lion, or chattering monkeys. He did not see how the cyclone was used as a political metaphor, or how the scarecrow was used to represent farmers. He seems unaware that the tin man had been around for 200 years! So let's try this: why don't you sketch out what the "anti" argument consists of. I think it's just cold "I can't see a thing") and not at all heated. PS I'll add another tin man cartoon: President Harrison as Tin Man, no less. (the reference is to his support for a tin tariff in 1890). Rjensen 13:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
You are once again evading my point. I'm not here to debate whether The Wizard of Oz was written as a parable on populism. I'm here to say that either way, this is only one aspect of the book, and should not dominate the Wikipedia article. Have you realised the absurdity of the current article not even mentioning that forty odd sequels were written? --Woggly 13:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
By all means mention that 40 sequels were written! Also mention that none of them contain the allegories. But this article is about the 1900 book, and its contents. All of the allegory material relates directly to the characters of the 1900 book and their actions. If someone wants to write an article about book #12 in the series, why go ahead! There is an entry on Land of Oz already. I say keep the kiddly stuff and stuffed dolls there and let the adults and serious students chew over the 1900 book here. Rjensen 09:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
"let the adults and serious students" So, anyone who disagrees with you isn't an adult or serious? Classy. --24.19.239.157 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The Oz books article is the proper article for people who want to talk about the 14-vol (or 40 volume) series. This article is about the 1900 book and it's far more complex and interesting than the 13 sequels. The stage shows apparently dropped the political allegories, but the movie version kept them. So people interested in the more adult topics--like politics and the history of imagery--should spend their time here. People who are interested in the children's story should be in The Marvelous Land of Oz or The Oz books articles--they do a fine job. Rjensen 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
You have utterly failed at one task that is absolutely critical if you want your allegory stuff to stay in the main entry and not a side entry. You have failed to prove intent. You have shown a whole bunch of possible influences, a whole bunch of tenuous connections, but you have utterly failed to convince that Baum intended to write a political tract and not a children's book. In fact, the evidence is strongly against him writing it primarily as a political tract. The article as it stands implies that he wrote it primarily as a political tract, which is false. Thus you are destroying the article about the book by including all your "adult" allegory stuff. It is NOT the proper place for it, because the work itself is not the source of the allegory.
In addition, your dismissive attitude of Baum's other works shows that you don't actually understand his work in the context of the author. That pretty much makes any argument you present suspect. You have come into this with a certainty that your opinion is correct, so much so that you consider anyone who disagrees with you to be lacking adult or serious views on the work. Then you've presented your opinion as fact. You are defacing the article with your opinion, and it should be removed from the article immediately. --24.19.239.157 19:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of our internal debate

There are 4 groups interested in the book: 1. People who live in the Land of Oz. They devour all the Oz books. Baum deliberately dropped the political allegories after vol 1, so from the perspective of the entire series, Oz is not political and the allegories are meaningless. 2. Historians who spend their lives with gold and silver, bankers and farmers, Bryan and McKinley, in the most intense political climate America has ever seen. To them the 1900 book comes as a stunningly successful summary of the political history of the 1890s. This does not care about the sequels, or translations. a. A famous political scientist, W Dean Burnham, belonged to group 1 and 2. He read my chapter and was stunned: he had read all the Oz books and never saw the allegories (because he started somewhere in the middle of the series). But he became a convert to #2.  3. Movie fans, who are surprised there was a famous book. The movie is true to the 1900 book (not the sequels), and apart from the ruby slippers it keeps most of the political allegories and enhances some of them (Miss Gulch as the Wicked Witch, for example.) 4. Wikipedia Editors. They need to serve all three constituencies, and I think the article does a good job. I suggest it is not “controversial” to include information that does not interest group #1 (the allegories) or group #2 (the translations and adaptations). Anyone can skip over sections as they choose. Rjensen 05:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Baum himself never inserted any allegory into his works intentionally. It was a later invention. The fact that the Wikipedia article on the book is dominated by information that had nothing whatsoever to do with the book as published is a disgrace and another reason for people to consider Wikipedia as unreliable. Count me as one who thinks the whole stupid allegory nonsense should be split off into it's own article, as it has nothing to do with the actual book and everything to do with the way people read too much into literature at times. --24.19.239.157 06:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
How do you know that? Answer you don't. You have been using your imagination. Maybe this is like the intelligent design debate--all these amazing coincidences were the result of blind chance? You actually believe that Baum and Denslow were UNAWARE of the political environment of the 1890s even though Baum edited a political newspaper and Denslow drew editorial cartoons? They were UNAWARE that farmers, cyclones, lions, monkeys and tin men etc were commonly used as political symbols? Boy were Baum and Denslow stupid! You have to assume a level of stupidity and ignoranxce on the part of Baum & Denslow that would be astonishing indeed. Careful about the charge that all the scholars and experts are stupid and somehow YOU know the truth. That's called a POV and it's a no-no in Wikipedia. You might try a bit of tolerance, like the sort Dorothy shows when she is told the amazing things that happen in Oz. Rjensen 07:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I know because, unlike most of the folks who make up the allegory nonsense, I've actually read Baum's works. There is no allegory there. If people can look at a curved line and two dots and see a face, how much easier is it to see a political allegory where there is none. As some of the arguments above attest, you could easily make the case that Baum was arguing just the opposite of what you think he was arguing. The fact is, you don't know Baum's politics. You are ascribing politics and motives to Baum and Denslow that you know nothing about! I guess you were there, in Baum's house, and discussed all the allegory with him? Because unless you were, you are making the whole thing up. Amazingly, you still believe it, and you are willing to imply ignorance on my part in order to preserve your fantasy.
I thought Wikipedia was about facts. But it appears I was wrong. Wikipedia is about presenting the opinion of the majority, however false it is. The allegory stuff was added later, and therefore should not be in an entry about the book itself. It is not a part of the original work. Having the entry dominated by a falsehood makes the entry false. No amount of whinging about how you know for certain there is an allegory, because you've made up a bunch of connections that had nothing to do with the original work, will ever change that. As long as this entry has more about the made-up allegory than the book itself, the entry will never be useful or true. --24.19.239.157 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
What was Baum's motivation. He said he was trying to write a "modernized fairy tale." So let's look at his modern sources. He used the politicized elements at hands: witches were political symbols in the 1890s. So were scarecrows, tin men, lions, monkeys, little people, wizards, baloons and cyclones. Isn't it striking that "Uncle Henry" was a the best-known political farmer in America. The entry contains PROOF of that in the non-oz illustrations. So what we have is Baum using modern political images to create a new "modernized" fairy tale. In other words, Baum STARTED with allegory. He did NOT invent the scarecrow, tin man or lion, or witches or munchkins. He BORROWED them from the political cartoons of the 1890s. I do not claim some deep spiritual kinship with the Land of Oz that you have. I am an empirical research historian. I have evidence. Where is the contrary evidence that he did NOT borrow them? Did Baum ever say that? No he did not. "Falsehood"--oh my, what nasty language and so un oz-like. All those university professors of history and economics have been spreading falsehoods for 30 years. Isn't that odd?? So let's talk about the book: I say that the scarecrow represents the farmer. Do you agree or disagree? tinman = industrial worker? Which identifications do you think are false--ALL of them? some of them? Please tell us, don't keep your secret knowledge locked up. Rjensen 20:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Grow up. Accusing me of having "deep spiritual kinship" with the books simply because I've read the works of Baum (and don't dismiss any that I don't like as insignificant) is a childish statement. You are the one who refuses to look at the entire body of evidence, instead cherry-picking your examples from a single work of a very prolific author.
I have never ONCE said that Baum did not borrow the aspect of political cartoons and drawings of his day, nor have I stated that they didn't influence his writings. That argument is a straw man that you've created so you can happily knock down any opposing arguments without listening to them. What I have said is that Baum didn't write the book as a political tract. He wrote it first and foremost as a children's book. I, personally, do not believe the story was meant as a political allegory at all. And if it was, it was an afterthought and not the main reason he wrote thebook. There is no solid proof that it was a political allegory, only the conjecture of people who came in long after the fact and never once actually talked the man to find out what he really believed.
Destroying the Wikipedia entry on the book by dominating it with your personal opinion about what a man who lived 100 years ago believed is a falsehood. Defending yourself by then making fun of your opponents in the argument is only more evidence that your opinion, and it is an opinion and certainly not fact, should not be allowed in the entry. --24.19.239.157 22:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
"DESTROYING" the entry?? I did not remove anything. I added new material. But now you agree that Baum took the main characters from the political symbols of the 1890s. As for it being my "personal" argument, that's simply false. You really ought to read the scholarly literature that has appeared in University press books and in leading academic journals. Your current argument seems to be that Baum wrote this as a children's book--and that a children's book CANNOT have politics in it. Well we agree on part one, but who says we can't have politics in a children's book? Baum was in fact selling the book to adults and a few years later made a stage adaptation that was sold not to a children's audience but to an ADULT audience. Is there "solid proof" that the 1900 book is an allegory. Yes. The illustrations prove that the following characters were modeled after politically charged examples from 1890s (mostly cartoons): the Lion (esp in sense of cowardly politician), Tin Man (heartless worker), Scarecrow (especially in sense of lacking brains), Yellow Brick Road (gold), Silver Slippers (silver), cyclone, monkeys, Emerald City ("White City"), little people (Munchkins), Uncle Henry, passenger balloons, witches and the wizard. Every single one is solidly anchored in political material that Baum and Denslow knew well. I suggest they are not minor characters but comprise the heart of the book. Take them out and you have only Dorothy left. My point is that Baum took a dozen or so political images and made them into a modernized fairy tale. Many different scholars have examined and debated each image. There is a consensus about most, but no consensus in a few cases like the Wicked Witch of the West, or the monkeys or the poppy field. The movie of course made the political point by having the same actress play her as played the evil woman in part 1 (recall she owned half the county and was cursed by Aunt Em, except she was too Christian to curse.) Many editorial cartoonists have used WOZ as inspiration for their political cartoons. Are they all wet too? I think the doubters-and-deniers are really thinking mostly about the other Oz books, which did not rely upon politicized images. They have their own wonderful entry to build upon. Rjensen 23:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Again you miss the point. I see no reason to continue to argue with someone who cannot see the forest for the trees, but if you are an example of a person who writes for "leading academic journals" then I must say that academics has fallen far. Apparently current academics considers pure conjecture to be solid proof. And allows "scholars" to ignore any evidence (such as a huge body of work) that doesn't fit their theory, as well. No matter how many times you repeat your allegory theory, you cannot prove that it was L. Frank Baum's intent (especially as he specifically stated is was a children's story), and the burden of proof is on you as you are the person who is arguing that something is not what it seems. Well, I won't bother you further, but if your allegory fantasy continues to deface and dominate the entry on the book instead of being removed to another article as proper, then I will blame you for yet another falsehood on Wikipedia. --24.19.239.157 23:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps if we added a link to Intentional_fallacy? Of course the story is an obvious allegory to academic tempests in teapots. Or was that Alice in Wonderland? I forget.
Seriously, allegory (a contention by definition, btw) or no, it does now read like the rjensen show.

71.252.15.89 21:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 21:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)One from the disinterested wikibleachers

[edit] Neutral

1890 Cartoon shows President Harrison as Tin Man, because he wanted a tariff on tin. Proof that tin man was in use as political allegory in 1890s. Blaine is man on right

1890 Cartoon shows President Harrison as Tin Man, because he wanted a tariff on tin. Proof that tin man was in use as political allegory in 1890s.

Silver slippers were political too.... New York Times editorial ..North Carolina legislature had proposal to make golden rid the state flower. A silverite spoke up and suggested instead the "silver slipper" and it passed! Jan 11, 1899...about time Baum was planning the book. Rjensen 13:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks more like a crackpot knight than a tin man to me. ---- Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving material out

The material that relates directly to the characters should stay in this article. Perhaps the sections that actually talk about humans can be moved, i.e. Scholars' perspective on WOZ as political allegory. Note that the article as it stanbds is not crowding anything out. No one has tried to write a section on Oz's impact. (If they did, they might note that most of the impact came from the movie, and a lot of the impact is on the political metaphors we use... like the man behind the screen, or not being in Kansas anymore, etc Rjensen 09:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You're seeing things from a very narrow, political/historical perspective. The book had a huge impact on the printing and publishing industries. The way the book was illustrated, the number and quality of illustrations led the way for more illustrated books; the book was also influential on the entire fantasy genre and pivotal in the development of American children's literature. The stage production of "The Wizard of Oz" in 1904 influenced Broadway for years, leading to imitations like "Babes in Toyland". It's not all politics or pop-culture references. I've been wanting to write more since I joined wikipedia, I'm simply pressed for time. --Woggly 10:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
If you want to write about the impact please do so. A hypthetical future section is not a good reason to remove perfectly good material right now. Sor that matter it makes sense for you to write an entirely new article about the long-term impact of WOZ-- as you mention, not just the book but the stage show and the movie, juvenile lit and so on. But I suspect what you're proposing will have to be based on an original research project. Rjensen 11:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Chair??? No

The poem was 1896, before the Philippines. The common usage by far was to "chair" a meeting. The idea that the poem suggests punishing the hero of the poem does not electrify me. Rjensen 04:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rewrite of allegory

OK, I have tried to make everyone happy by drastically reducing the allegory sections and structuring it in terms of the sources used in WOZ. Rjensen 01:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The rewrite is a big improvement on the page. Thanks, Rjensen. I still think that the article could use about half the number of editorial cartoons, since they relate only to one aspect of the article — it's the same undue weight problem. But the text is greatly improved. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This is very bad. Where once the article mentioned that there is a controversy around the question of whether the book was written as a political allegory or not, the article is now written to suggest that it is a known fact that the book was written as a political allegory. This is simply NOT TRUE. In fact, biographers of Baum AGREE that it that the book was NOT intended as a political allegory. Richard Jensen has been gradually replacing article content with his own original research, and bullying contributors who disagree with him. I don't have the time for the kind of massive rewrite this article requires, more's the pity - but I would like it known that, as a longstanding Oz fan with some expertise, I find this article in its current form highly objectionable. --Woggly 07:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I tried to solve the problem we have been debating by putting it into a non-POV context. Arguments about Baum's personal politics belong in the Baum article. As now presented the article does NOT claim that Baum intended any political message. What it does say is that Baum used political materials to make a children's book. Does anyone actually disagree with that??? You will note that literary scholars spend a lot of time looking, for example, at the sources Shakespeare used for all his plays. (He reused many plots and characters from other authors.) It does NOT weaken the greatness of Shakespeare to trace his sources. Nor does it weaken the power of WOZ to look at the sources. So what sentences are "highly objectionable"??? Let's be specific please. Rjensen 15:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oz anime

An anonymous user has recently added discussion of a Japanese animated adaptation of "Baum's four book Oz series", claiming that it continued to "the end of the series". The problem is that Baum wrote fourteen Oz books. Was this adaptation perhaps based on the first four Oz books? I'll revert the description to "four of Baum's Oz books" for now; if anyone knows more about this animated adaptation, they can correct it to a more specific description. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to avoid any confusion, there weren't 14 Oz novels, there were 29. After Baum finished, a woman (whose name I can't recall...) wrote 15 more. Trekphiler 16:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I said that Baum wrote fourteen Oz books. And the woman you're thinking of is Ruth Plumly Thompson. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
There were 40 by 1963, nicknamed the "Famous Forty". After that the publisher refused to publish any more, and only admitted the 40th because it was written by a Newberry Award-winner, Eloise Jarvis McGraw. The remainder of the books by later authors of the Forty are known as deuterocanonical. These begin with the seven Oz books published by the International Wizard of Oz Club up through 1993 through the permission of the original publisher, then Books of Wonder published A Runaway in Oz in 1995. Some fans labeled these the "Quasi-Famous 7" (I believe the seventh is Little Wizard Stories of Oz). After that it gets tricky. Is book #47 The Rundelstone of Oz (by McGraw and published by Hungry Tiger Press) or The Hidden Prince of Oz (by newcomer Wickwar and published by the Club) or The Emerald Wand of Oz (by newcomer Sherwood Smith but authorized by the Baum family).--Scottandrewhutchins 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese-- Oz no Mahōtsukai, or Ozu no Mahōtsukai?

I hesitate to change a title heading that links to an article without first discussing... but shouldn't the Japanese "オズ" be transliterated as "Ozu," rather than "Oz?" See the IMDB entry: "Ozu no mahôtsukai" Rizzleboffin 20:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split 2

We currently have 5 votes for splitting the article, and 1 vote against it. I think that's enough of a consensus to do the action, especially given the one nay-sayer seems to think that the material will be deleted from Wikipedia rather than moved as the current proposal states. Perhaps the only way to show him what the proposal will do is to actually DO it. Nezu Chiza 16:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Anyone want to bite the bullet and get the division started? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nekulturny

Given the usual plethora of references to quotes in songs by obscure bands, it's a bit refreshing to see none here. Still, I can't help wonder if mention of some use of the "Oz culture" in other media, beyond film or musical adaptation, isn't appropriate. I'm thinking in particular of the story arc in Angel, placing Cordelia in a hostile dimension (with the humorous heel clicking, "It was worth a shot.") (I confess bias; I was, am, a fan.) Include? Doubtless there are others... Trekphiler 16:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, there are so many that it's impossible to keep track of them all, and any attempt to decide which are the important references will inevitably lead to bickering. There have been references to Oz in literary works by Ray Bradbury, Robert A. Heinlein and countless others; self professed Oz fans include Salman Rushdie, James Thurber, Martin Gardner, Gore Vidal, even F. Scott Fitzgerald. Elton John wrote "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road". Andy Warhol drew portraits of Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch of the West. There have been Oz arcs in many American TV shows, including "Sisters", "Ferris Beuller", "Beavis and Butthead"... The Muppets have gone to Oz, the Seinfeld crew has gone to Oz, I've seen Christmas decorations of the Simpsons as Oz characters... and all this is not even the tip of the iceberg of American pop-culture and high culture references to the Wizard of Oz. It is probably one of the most often quoted works of American literature. --Woggly 08:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All politics removed

I moved all the sources to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz--Sources and Meaning Rjensen 23:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved that page to Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which is more in keeping with Wikipedia article naming standards. See Talk:Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz for reasoning and discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wizay goes wild

--72.79.78.215 01:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)yo. so you think you know everything about the wizard of oz? well gues wat.....

[edit] Differences between the movie and the book

  1. REDIRECT It would be nice if someone could contrast the movie and book. I mean, I was shocked to find out the Scarecrow does get a brain in the book. The whole 'You didn't need _________, you've had it all along" is one of the most famious lines in American Film.bi

[edit] Motivation

In the foreword of the edition I read, I recall that the intention of Baum was to offer a healthy American alternative to European fairytales with their violence and other bad things. --Error 21:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard of Id Reference

I have pulled a reference I made about the similarities between the names of The Wizard of Id and the Wizard of Oz until I find a source. However, all of the online biographies of Brant Parker or Johnny Hart make no mention of where the name came from.

Suggestions on helping me find a citation?

--KNHaw (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning

The plots summary in this encyclopedia article is helpfully labelled "Plot summary". Thus a further warning giving exactly the same information, but in ugly and distracting bold text, is unnecessary. I've removed it. --Tony Sidaway 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The disputes about the template are being conducted at the pages to discuss the template. Go discuss the matter there. Goldfritha 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Wizardofoz cov.jpg

Image:Wizardofoz cov.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale and image resized to be compliant with the fair use policies. Collectonian 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt was not President until Sept. 1901. The Book was published in 1900. It is highly doubtful that there is any connection between Dorothy and TR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tretzlaff (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 November 2007

True and removed. Probably left over vandalism, or may have come from a discussion of one of the stage adaptations. Not appropriate here though. Collectonian 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

I realize that there's a significant drive at Wikipedia to see controversy in every area, but why does this section include a religious opposition voiced by an incredibly small minority, and a literary criticism by a non-referenced, non-articled author? Seems like really reaching to me... 12.202.209.46 06:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snake as Tin Woodsman???=

The article says " For instance, in some countries where the Hindu religion is practiced, abridged versions of the book were published in which, for religious reasons, the Tin Woodman was replaced with a snake.[1] citing a website ahich makes that assertion without a supporting reference. This does not seem to constitute a reliable source. This should be removed unless a better reference can be found. How did the Hindo religion acquire an aversion specifically to Tin Woodsmen? Edison (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)