Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the To Kill a Mockingbird article.
Article policies
Featured article star To Kill a Mockingbird is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
To Kill a Mockingbird is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Archive
Archives
/Archive1
/Archive2


Contents

[edit] plot

I have added some onto the Plot Summary section, mainly in the exposition. I'll try to work on it more later. You all do want the section expanded, right? Is it okay if I work on that, or should I wait until someone tells me to? Sometimes people can be a little up-tight about what they want in a given article. -Kanogul (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Also, what do you guys think about putting a quote from the book at the beginning of the article? I think that might be a pretty good idea. -Kanogul (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has been under some intense copyediting and scrutiny for preparation for a featured article. The plot summary should stay as it was. Quotes at the beginning of the article are not a good idea. --Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atticus=protagonist?

The quote in the second paragraph identifies Atticus as the protagonist, but I was always under the impression that Scout was the protagonist, since all the events revolve around her perspective (I even said she was the protagonist in my addition to the Plot Summary section. Am I wrong, or is the quote mistaken, or what? What needs to happen in either case? It may not even be that big of a deal, but I'd like to get an answer. -Kanogul (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Atticus is not described as the protagonist by the article, but by a legal writer. He has been the subject of more papers in legal journals than any of the other characters in any sort of writing, so it bears pointing out that fame in the lead. I've had to remove information about Atticus per the suggestions of other editors who are assisting me in preparing the article for feature, and Atticus has his own article, that I shifted some information to. --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more minutiae

Fantastic article! To avoid posting to the FAC page, can I inquire about this block here?:

"While attending college, she wrote for campus literary magazines: Huntress at Huntingdon and the humor magazine Rammer Jammer at the University of Alabama. At both schools, she wrote short stories and other works about racial injustice, rarely mentioned topics on these campuses at the time."
  • This sentence refers to "topics", but one topic, racial injustice, is given.
  • "... which was/were rarely..." would be clearer, so "mentioned" can't be read as a verb (which I did, when it occurred at the end of a line).
  • (The words I struck seem better placed in the bio.)

Changed my mind about a second point, that's all at the moment. Thanks, –Outriggr § 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Outriggr. And thanks for reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters

The list of characters has been deliberately excluded from the article. There is already an article on the characters in the book, and the detail of this article does not warrant a list without any descriptions. Much of what would be included in the descriptions is already explained in other sections, such as genres and themes. --Moni3 (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still think that the link for the charcter page should somhow be made more prominent, it dosen't reall belong under plot at all--71.141.142.214 (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Under what section do you think it would be more appropriate? --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats the problem, there really isn't a truely appropriet section. as charcters is kind of it's own aspect of a novel--Sonarpulse (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
When I started on the article a year ago, it did have a characters section. That list is now split off in its own article. A characters list should identify for readers who's important in the novel, but the plot summary, themes, genre, and reception sections already do that in great detail and the information is cited. Because the novel is taught in schools with lessons that tie in to tolerance and human dignity among others, the Themes section has been expanded significantly, at the expense of a list of characters that is located elsewhere. Do you think a list of characters would be able to explain them better than what is in the article right now? --Moni3 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Year TKAM takes place:

24.218.233.31 (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

TKAM actually happens in the year 1935. Evidence ofthis is found on pg. 205 during Atticus's closing remarks in court, he says "In this year of grace, 1935."

It's anachronistic. It takes place throughout three years, and clues point to years between 1933 and 1935 or 1936. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "it has been ranked by librarians before the Bible"

Sure, I can see that as a significant achievement, but doesn't that line sound kind of strong and blunt? I would think that it would be more appropriate to say "it has been ranked by libraians as number one" rather than "it has been ranked by librarians before the Bible" since a person reading this article might not know that the Bible is number two, and there are many other high ranking books other than the Bible that this book has defeated. Heck, for all a lay person would know, the Bible could have been at the bottom of that list, right? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong and blunt goes in the lead to make a point early about the impact of the subject. The article passed through a few comprehensive peer reviews to become a Featured Article. You can read them at the top of this page under "Article History". Since everyone who reads Wikipedia is a lay person, and I got no suggestions to change that, it has not yet arisen as a problem. How would you suggest making the sentence better? --Moni3 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Congrats on the FA. I noticed this sentence: "Tom Robinson's trial was juried by poor white farmers, who convicted him despite overwhelming evidence of his innocence, when more educated and moderate white townspeople supported the jury's decision." and wasn't sure what to make of it. It's not clear how the clauses connect and needs to be adjusted to be logically consistent. I didn't know what you were getting at or I would have fixed it. - Taxman Talk 15:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Mimus polyglottos

This article discusses the symbolism of the book's namesake in the section To Kill a Mockingbird#Death of innocence. The characteristics of the real-life species Mimus polyglottos are discussed. This includes its frequent singing of different songs (true, sourced in TKAM, sourced in scientific literature) and a mention that it does not harm anybody (false, reference in TKAM, references in scientific literature). In response to concerns about insufficient sourcing (that being the only concern noted in the edit summary), I provided more than adequate sourcing.

After the sourcing for this single one-sentence statement, now the new concern noted is that this violates WP:SYN. The policy, "Synthesis of published material which advances a position" basically describes what we do on Wikipedia. We take published sources to support a position, so maybe the wording on this could be changed. At any rate, the sources given do not need to be interpreted to support this statement. You could probably pick any 3 sources, and it still would suffice. The claim is that they are aggressive towards animals and humans. Every single source mentions that they are aggressive. There's no original research here and no need for the reader to jump to any conclusions because the sources are pretty explicit - except maybe the Youtube one, which, for someone who has never seen a Northern Mockingbird before, might not be sufficient, but this source is really just a cherry on top of the rest of the sources.

The only other part of WP:SYN that I see which pertains to "but where is the sourced correlation to the book?" is a very short half sentence: or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article". But this is not really the meaning of this policy. You would have been much better off citing WP:POVFORK, though this is only a guideline and not a policy. However, a one-sentence statement which is directly related to the previous statement wouldn't even qualify as a fork, as this applies usually just to new pages.

Since the title of the book has the word "Mockingbird" in it, and in this section the use of this mockingbird (Northern Mockingbird, which is the only species of Mockingbird in the U.S. South, where the events in the book occur) as a metaphor, AND two/three mentions of this bird's behavior occur in this section, AND there is a direct quote from the book and paraphrasing of another quote which both describe the animal's supposed behavior from the point of view of the characters ("who explains that mockingbirds never harm other living creatures." and "...is to kill that which is innocent and harmless..."), it seems relevant to mention the contrast between the portrayal in the book and the real world situation. The mentions of the behavior and the direct quote open up the door for this contrast. If these were taken out or were not present in the first place, you might have a case. However, I think that would not be helpful to the article, as it is also not helpful to delete a sourced statement relevant to this discussion of the Northern Mockingbird as a metaphor.

It is misleading to portray the Northern Mockingbird as innocent when it is probably the most aggressive bird in the U.S. South. In the book, that's fine. It's fiction, it makes some wonderful points, and uses this metaphor skillfully. But in an encyclopedia, we can point out other related facts. Not every single statement has to be related to the title directly (though I know the general goal of Wikipedia is for statements to relate back). I mean, a picture of Harper Lee with President Bush, the fact that she went to the University of Alabama, that she worked for an airline, or the fact that she befriended Truman Capote are certainly not directly related to the title but help give some point of reference, as does the very important fact of where she grew up.

Hey, but since you asked for a link between the book and the aggressive behavior, check out the texasnature.blogspot.com source (which was also published in the Houston Chronicle). It has the quote directly from the book about the commonly held belief that it is wrong to kill a mockingbird (title), mentions the urban legend/commonly held belief the Texas legislature adopted a resolution to that effect, and mentions its aggressive behavior all in one source. I'd say that's related.

I was going to add another source, but looking at what's there, it seems sufficient. I'll restore what I had there, because I believe I've addressed your concerns. If you have suggestions on how to modify the wording or something else, please consider tweaking instead of reverting. I realize that people who've worked on a FA don't want to see the article change much (I know, I worked to source every single statement in Houston, Texas to try to get it to FA status), but even FAs can never stay constant forever and being reverted even after concerns have been addressed is equally frustrating.


P.S. Looking out the window right now, I see a mockingbird attack another bird about every 5-10 minutes.

Regards. Ufwuct (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page, but I'll reiterate here. Information about the characteristics of mockingbirds belong in the article about mockingbirds, not this article. Because this is a work of literature, you would have to find literary scholars who tie the aggressive behavior in mockingbirds to the themes of the novel. Without the tie-in to the work of fiction, biological and behavioral information about the birds themselves belongs in the article about the birds themselves. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would "have to find literary scholars who tie the aggressive behavior in mockingbirds to the themes of the novel"? Just because it is a literature article, why does that mean that a source has to be from a literary scholar? What policy is that? I'm pretty sure there's not one. The sources only have to be verifiable and reliable. The sources given were reliable for the facts they were supporting. That's sufficient. Ufwuct (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
And by that standard, if I were to put this material in the Northern Mockingbird article, how would I be able to contrast the depiction of their behavior in TKAM with their actual behavior? I would not be able to use the TKAM book itself or sources from literary scholars to mention their depiction in TKAM, because, I must deduce, sources in that article would have to be from ornithologists(?????) Ufwuct (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that kind of source doesn't exist either, otherwise it would have been in the article already. I consider the information on the characteristics of birds to be tangential at best, and belongs here no more than a discussion of the social impact of rape outside of the novel, legal arguments that don't have anything to do with the characters, or tomboys in general. Everything must tie back in to the novel. It's already more than 71 k, and I had to remove information about Atticus Finch and some examples to illustrate cited information about the book to focus the article as much as possible. This is difficult to do with a book as this that is about many issues. I worked for nine months on this article, and I invite you to read its history at the top of this page under "Article History". Some very good editors have added their input and advice. If you like, I can recall them to this discussion so you can get the input of people who are actually much more knowledgeable than I about literary studies. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not about making the article longer. But there's a statement that the complete opposite of reality (though it is a fiction book), and it seems odd that there can't be some short amount of text - one sentence in this case - that would link to that animal's behavior elsewhere on Wikipedia (like the Northern Mockingbird article). The idea of Wikipedia is to create links to other article on Wikipedia and not have orphans (Wikipedia:Build the web). We don't want a self-enclosed world of articles on literature. Though there are a lot of wikilinks in this article of course, because it's an FA, including marginally relevant ones like University of Notre Dame, George W. Bush, and Chicago, what would tip someone off to this species' behavior so they'd read about it elsewhere in a less-cluttered article? The Northern Mockingbird link probably doesn't do that for most. They probably think WTHIT?
I might be okay with not having the entire sentence but having a few words mentioning it, with a well-placed link and also changing the word "explains" in "explains that mockingbirds never harm other living creatures." Even though this is a fictional character saying this: a. it's not in quotes, b. "explains" implies that the statement is true. Can anybody find the exact quote? Ufwuct (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to be open and creative here, by thinking how a phrase might be added to a sentence such as:
Confused, Scout approaches her neighbor Miss Maudie Atkinson, who explains that mockingbirds never harm other living creatures, although in reality they have been shown to be outwardly aggressive to other birds.(ref) She points out that mockingbirds simply provide pleasure with their songs, saying, "They don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us."
That reads quite badly. It screeches the flow of words to a halt and were I to see that in an FAC, I would ask for it to be removed. It doesn't have anything to do with the discussion of the themes. I understand that one of the priorities of Wikipedia is to provide links to other articles of interest, but the primary purpose of it is to provide an accurate, well-written collection of free articles. Lee was clearly using the bird as a symbol, which is cited in the article. In a discussion of the figurative embodiment of the innocent, inserting a literal statement about mockingbirds implying the lack thereof is confusing and distracting: what then is the point of the Death of innocence section, that, despite what literary scholars have written about Boo Radley and Tom Robinson, they had an aggressive side and perhaps deserved their punishments? Similarly, someone could claim in a discussion about Mayella Ewell that 25% of women in the U.S. are raped or sexually abused by their fathers. While that might be true, it doesn't tie in to the novel. This article isn't here to illustrate the behavior of mockingbirds (though if you're interested in taking the Northern mockingbird to FA, you can and should contact jimfbleak or Casliber - they do bird articles all the time), but to discuss the novel's characters, themes, and other literary elements that try to explain why the book has been so powerful and popular for so long. --Moni3 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)