The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:41, 3 April 2008.

---

[edit] To Kill a Mockingbird

previous FAC

Check external links

Someone remind me not to work on a book that has been read by nearly everyone in the English-speaking world ever again. But here I present one of the best-selling books of the 20th century, and love it or loathe it, its impact is duly noted in the article. I recognize its length at 71k, but I have been sensitive in what needs to be deleted and kept. Occasionally an article deserves that much space, and this is one of them. The novel has a lore that surrounds its creation, adaptation, and influence on culture. There is a previous nomination, linked above, numerous peer reviews: another one, and another, and one more, from WP:Novels and general Peer Review, and (here's my Oscar speech) it has recently had input by Awadewit, WillowW, JayHenry, citation cleanup by Maralia, and dual copy edits by LOCE members Scartol and Galena11. Thank you in advance for reading the article. I intend to do everything I'm capable of to get it featured. Self-nominator, major contributor --Moni3 (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Warm support A wonderful article for a wonderful book, and one of Wikipedia's finest. Well-referenced, well-illustrated and well-written. Kudos to the major contributor; perhaps she'll tackle Dracula next? ;) Willow (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you and maybe two other people have read it, I'll get started on it right away! Thanks for the support, Willow. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I thought this one was ready a month ago and it's gotten nothing but better since. This article is important enough that 73k is okay. Maybe the best article on 20th century literature on Wikipedia. --JayHenry (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support full and unconditional. I've searched for a suitable superlative with which to praise this important contribution to the Mockingbird literary analysis canon, but without success. I can't wait to see the article on the Main Page. You should be very proud of this achievement.--GrahamColm^Talk 15:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think it's a fine article, but I have doubts about using IMDB (ref 112) to cite information for the movie, it's not a very reliable source. Also, ref 88 is seriously messy. Maybe consider integrating into the prose? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref 112 is used to cite what Oscars the film won and was nominated for. Are there particular guidelines as to what IMDb is appropriate for and what it is not? Citation 88: how do you suggest I note the many lists the book has appeared on? It has strongly been suggested that the lists not be part of the article prose, but footnoted. I wanted to provide the contexts of the listings and their sources as well. --Moni3 (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's relatively acceptable to cite imdb for awards, but you can cite the AMPAS Official Academy Awards database at [1]; they don't seem to have perma links to search results, but a simple search on TKAM pulls up both all the nominations and the wins. Maralia (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For ref 88, is it possible for you to integrate the links, like this: "It is listed as #5 on the Modern Library's Reader's List of the 100 Best Novels in the English language since 1900, and #4 on the rival Radcliffe Publishing Course's 100 Best Board Picks for Novels and Nonfiction." It's not the whole thing, but I think it would be a lot neater this way. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 20:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated, per your suggestion, IMDb reference changed to AMPAS reference (thanks, Maralia). --Moni3 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to support. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

• Support: I did a copyedit/review of this back when, and I believe it's made some impressive headway since. Kudos to Moni3 for her diligence and dedication to this gargantuan task. – Scartol • Tok 00:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I'm incredibly impressed with Moni's dedication to this article and I'm so pleased to see how it just keeps getting better and better. This is a worthy novel and an equally worthy labor of love to become Featured. Great work! María (habla conmigo) 01:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Terrific article; great content, background, and other related information. Hello32020 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support excellent, I tightened one link, couldn't find anything else even to tinker with, Jimfbleak (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've read this article in several incarnations now and I am always impressed with its continual improvement. Moni3 has put an incredible amount of effort into this article and that effort has borne fruit - this is a wonderfully lucid and exhaustively researched article that will provide an excellent explanation of TKAM to millions of users. Awadewit (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent, comprehensive article with elegant prose that certainly satisfies the criteria for promotion. That said, I do have some questions about things that are bugging me.

1. This article uses pictures from the motion picture under the license of no copyright. Is there any verification for that? I find myself doubting that a movie would be released without copyright, but I may be mistaken there.

2. I have a problem with the Theme section of the article. I have a personal conflict on including this in an article: on the one hand, I want the article to be as comprehensive as possible, but on the other, I don't think that Wikipedia should be including people's speculations on the symbolism and things that I personally believe ought to be left to the reader. While the information in the Theme section is properly sourced, something just seems wrong about interpreting themes for people: has wikipedia become sparknotes? I suppose that's all I have to say. Great job on the article, all, I'd love to see it on the main page someday! Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Err...Scartol told me the film's copyright ran out. I neglected to ask him where he got that information. Shame on me. (If you're reading this, Scartol, where did you get that information?)

From my left nostril, apparently. I suppose I read it from several different sources, all of them dubious. I succumbed to the "hear a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" type of thinking. A thousand apologies for the misinformation. – Scartol • Tok 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the themes, all that can be presented in the article is what has been written about the novel in literary and scholarly journals. For this particular book I also included legal journals and education resources, since the bulk of what has been written about it is from these sources. I understand you're not opposing, but the article doesn't tell the reader what to think, just what has been presented by scholars. I happen to take a vastly different view on many of the issues in the article, and prefer my own interpretation. That, and elements of literature are required for FACs on novels. I appreciate your comments, support, and time you took to read the article and present your views here. --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would like the defend the inclusion of a "Themes" section. Literary scholars, the experts on literature, discuss themes and symbolism far more than they discuss plot. Leaving out a discussion of these key topics would mean that the article did not discuss the "meat" of the book and did not represent the published work of experts. The article would not be comprehensive. I understand that the above editor wants readers to think for themselves and I would hope that they would still do that after reading this article. However, literary scholars can often offer insight into texts, particularly because they are trained to point out rhetorical elements that readers often miss in the "heat of the reading moment" and because scholars take the time to investigate historical and cultural connections. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking a little into the copyright of the images issue. The To Kill a Mockingbird (film) article states in the last sentence of the lead that it is in the public domain, but this has no citation. The conversation of whether or not it is in the public domain is carried out on the talk page, with, in my opinion, no solid consensus being reached. Some say it is, some say it isn't, and I can't read the links that one of the editors on Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird (film)#Copyright gives, so I can't decide. I think that, if there is any doubt, then the images from the movie should not be used in the article since the licensing is dubious at best.

About the themes, I've checked out some other FA's about books, and some don't have theme sections (The Lord of the Rings especially, considering that deep themes that are in this book, A Tale of a Tub, Make Way for Ducklings) but some do (Mary: A Fiction). I guess that my main problem was with the "Death of Innocence" part of the themes, which seems to be out of place in an encyclopedic article. The best way to deal with themes that I found was in Uncle Tom's Cabin: not too much, but says what needs to be said without going overboard. I do understand that the themes of this book are uber-important, which I found while reading this book, but I don't think that an in-depth look at theme here is appropriate, no matter how well sourced. Perhaps an overview like in the UTC article would work, maybe with links to other websites or books that interpret the themes and symbolism, but I think anything more than that just isn't right for this article. If this could be worked out, I would be even more enthusiastic in my support. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings should really be taken to FARC, for many reasons (e.g. the last time I checked it didn't discuss the trilogy's contribution to the development of the fantasy genre), but I haven't had the stomach yet. A Tale of a Tub does discuss themes - it just doesn't have a section called that (I should know - I just added notes to that article). It is difficult to say what is "going overboard". Since themes are essential to any discussion of a novel and these are the themes discussed in the published scholarly work on this novel, we must discuss them. Perhaps what you mean to say is that the "Themes" section should be smaller, more concise? Perhaps this is really a discussion about size and summary style rather than about the inclusion of a "Themes" section? Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to work in the themes like in A Tale of a Tub. Either that or, like you said, I'm thinking that it should be smaller and more concise. If people want analysis of the themes in this book so bad, then there is certainly enough material to warrant a [[Themes in To Kill a Mockingbird]] page. I just don't think that the main article is the right place to be going in depth into the themes: sure, they are very important to the understanding of the book, I completely agree there, but is a complete critical analysis really necessary in the article on the general history, effect, plot, etc. of the book? And the issue of copyright still lives... Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we need to work out precisely what you think the problem is with the "Themes" section. Is it a problem of organization? Do you think the article is poorly organized (i.e., do you think that the material cannot be understood because of the order in which it is presented?) and thus the "Themes" section should be reorganized along the lines of A Tale of a Tub? Personally, I do not see this problem in the article. If you do, however, perhaps you could explain why you do. If you think that the article goes into too much detail in the "Themes" section, perhaps you could point to areas of that section that you believe are too detailed? It would help all of us here to better understand your concerns and would allow us to address them. At this point, it is difficult to address your concerns. (I don't know the minutiae of copyright - hopefully someone else can handle that issue.) Awadewit (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Please, Awadewit, remember that I support this article as is: I'm just wondering whether it could be improved. The article as it now stands is 73,937 bytes (or whatever the unit actually is). At User:Bmrbarre/TKAM, I have put in a version of the page which removes the Themes section. That version is 48,585 bytes. That is a difference of 25,352 (if my calculations are correct), which means that right now, the Themes sections takes up a bit over 34% of the entire article. 34%, people, is a lot for any one section to take up. This seems to be hypocritical considering that the Theme section, which is one of 10 sections, starts off with "Despite the novel's immense popularity upon publication, it has not received the close critical attention paid to other modern American classics." I think that the theme section should be cut down considerably, eliminating unnecessary details that should really be saved for a seperate article on the themes in TKAM. The themes ought to be mentioned: that is a must. But I think a brief overview and a link to an article specifically about themes in the book would reduce the heavy emphasis on themes in the article. Also, with the themes taking up such a large amount of space, I think that perhaps Wikipedia:Article size should be checked out. I regrettably don't have the time to sort through 25,000 bytes of info on themes, as I have an essay on religious symbolism in The Metamorphosis due tomorrow and it needs some work (sorry, real world comes first), but I hope that my throwing out there the idea of an unnecissarily long part of a very good article being trimmed gets something done and improves the article, bringing it closer to its full potential. Sorry I can't do more, Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

One-third of an article about a work of literature devoted to its themes? That actually seems just about right to me. I'm sorry, Benjamin, but I'm not seeing any sort of reason to exclude scholarship on themes, or really any sort of reason to make it shorter, since it's a substantial portion of the available sources. We read books because of what's inside the covers, plots and themes. There's not a lot of literature that has no real themes, but a *great plot* (sorry, Mr. Grisham). It's absolutely essential information for understanding why people read TKAM. And it's not as if having a summary of how academics think about the themes of TKAM is going to prevent a reader from liking the book for whatever he or she sees in it. --JayHenry (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin, all I'm asking you to do is identify what part of the "Themes" section is too detailed. Now that you have calculated that 1/3 of the article is dedicated to the section, I have to agree with JayHenry. Themes are the core of a novel. I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. You have to give us specifics - what is too detailed? If, after your essay is done, you want to return to this conversation, I'm sure we would be willing to listen to your comments. We want the article to improve as much as you do. However, specific suggestions are always the best way to do that. Awadewit (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Awadewit, Jay and Moni on this one; it's long but it's necessary. Anyone who's sat in an English lit graduate course knows how tedious thematic discussions can become -- why should Wikipedia be any different? Seriously though, if length is the only issue, the entirety of it could be moved to Themes in To Kill a Mockingbird and then a smaller, condensed version of the section could be kept in the main article. I'm not a big fan of this, however, because it is immensely important to the scholarship of the work, and to all novels, and therefore should remain up front and center. What is important to note is that the themes listed are only a taste; last semester I wrote a short paper about TKAM's thematic use of mental and physical disability, for example. I guess we should be thankful that the section isn't longer than it presently is. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, perhaps I haven't been as clear as I should have been, so I'm going to summarize what I have said so far: I am worried about the use of photos with questionable licenses, and I believe that the theme section is too long and goes into too much detail. I believe that there are two possibilities that would remedy this latter issue: either the section could be cut down considerably, or the themes could be mentioned but not elaborated so much, with a link provided to a page entitled Themes in To Kill a Mockingbird, where the majority of what is now under the theme section would be moved to. I created this, which provides an overview of the themes, going into what I feel is enough detail without completely going overboard. If the stuff that is in the Themes section now were moved to the "main article" I have proposed, I feel that those readers seeking to know more about the themes can visit there, without completely losing those readers who don't want to know every detail and symbol in the story. I apologize in advance for my shoddy prose, but I'm sure it could be polished up some.

It just seems impractical to devote so much of the article to something which fully deserves its own article. I was recently involved in the (failed) Roman Catholic Church FAC, where the article served as an overview of everything involving the Roman Catholic Church. I bring this up because the RCC article linked to many other article that went into detail on issues that would have cluttered up and ballooned the size of the Church article. I think that is a good idea, and it would be helpful here. I apologize to anyone that has been confused by my statements and lack of detail, and hope that this idea will be considered rather than immediately dismissed. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As a sidenote, the definition of theme at the relevant article is "In literature, a theme is a broad idea in a story, or a message or lesson conveyed by a work. This message is usually about life, society or human nature. Themes explore timeless and universal ideas . Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated." I think that the themes as they are now in this article seem to heavily focus on the broad ideas and conspicuosly leave out what Lee is actually trying to say, something I have attempted to remedy in my version. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To separate the implicit from the explicit is much harder than you might think. Everyone has a different idea of "what Lee is actually trying to say". Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. That is what theme is, that author's message (or so 10 years of English teachers have taught me: perhaps they're wrong, though), and that is subjective, so perhaps there shouldn't even be such thing as a themes section.

Then your teachers misled you. What the author intended is only one aspect of the thematic content. And, in fact, literary scholars no longer focus on the "author's intention" - it is now called the intentional fallacy - because it is impossible to know what the author intended. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reset indent - I have to abstain from this portion of the discussion. I've worked on the article since August of 2007, devoting the majority of my research to the Themes section. To entertain the idea that it was unnecessary, extraneous, and gratuitous is deeply upsetting and troubling to me. I cannot at this time consider this proposal without an intense amount of emotion. --Moni3 (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As an editor who mainly deals with the creation of new articles (I'm up to over 40), I know how long it can take to delve into Google or books and drag out the information that you know is hiding there. Even beginning a simple article takes several hours and many internet tabs. The research contained in the Themes section is wonderful, and very enlightening for me, a teenage who had this book forced upon him quite reluctantly at first, but was soon fascinated as the story unfolded. I too recognized the importance of the social caste, the symbolism of the mockingbird as related to the loss of innocence, and the effects of wealth and class in this book. I would be extremely embarrassed and horrified if you were even entertaining the idea that any bit of this research is unnecesarry: every bit is, that is a fact. What I am trying to say is not here, not in this article. If anything, your wonderful research should have its own article, which I believe it deserves. It really kills me that you are being troubled by my proposition, as this was the opposite of the intent. I would like to reiterate the fact that I gave this article a support, and am merely trying to improve it, though you may perceive my intentions differently. I understand that you hate to see all of the research you have done moved, but please be open to the idea that this might just improve the article rather than detract from it. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 23:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not think a "Themes in To Kill a Mockingbird" page is necessary. Everything that can be said about that topic can be said in this article. As Moni3 has made clear elsewhere and in the article itself, there is actually not much published research on TKAM and its themes so actually expanding the amount of space on Wikipedia for that topic does not make much sense. Removing the "Themes" section would rip the heart out of the article - it would not improve it. Let me try to explain. Imagine two people in a garden who ate an apple. They were tempted to eat that apple by a snake. They were subsequently banished from that garden for eating that apple and condemned to death. The themes of sin, betrayal, life, death, etc. are what is interesting in this story - not the eating of a piece of fruit. It is themes that add to the meat of a story - without them, the plots are mere skeletons. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think poor analogies should be used as the reason to keep the themes in. As a kind of sidenote, the example you picked is quite misleading, since, as a religious person, I know that the eating of the piece of fruit was, in fact, the most important thing in that story.

Your response to this analogy (which I think works well) is particularly illuminating. First, it reveals that different readers focus on different parts of the story (e.g. Catholic vs. Protestant) - there is not just one interpretation. Second, you are focusing on a plot element and extrapolating meaning from it (that is a theme). I could go on here, but I think you get the point. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is not that much published information about TKAM, then why in the world does it take up 25,000 bytes of space, more than the vast majority of Wikipedia articles out there? I guess my mind fails to see how such little material can produce such a good deal of information...

Because it is based on research and explained well, which the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are not. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have now iterated many times but will do again, I believe that the theme should not take up so much space of the article. While the information should be kept, I believe that its place in the article has become too long. At this point, it would be best to retain the basics on the article page, and link to another page, which would contain the in-depth analysis currently on the page. One could spend a lifetime analyzing the book, but the truth is that the average reader who, hopefully, will eventually see a summary of this article on the main page, will most likely not be interested in a complete analysis from head to toe of the book. There will be readers looking for this, and, if the themes are put out there in summarized form and a link is provided to more comprehensive analysis, then it seems to me that everyone wins. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am just not understanding the problem here. Again, if you think that the "Themes" section is too detailed, explain what sections are too detailed and the editors can try to fix them, but as I said above, simply saying that it is too long without explaining why except to say that it occupies 1/3 of the article (which other people have found acceptable) is not convincing. Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my tuppence says that if any book deserves a section that goes into some detail about "themes" (and I agree with Awadewit that they all do), then it is this one. To Kill a Mockingbird is a classic "issues" novel, which is why it's endlessly taught at high school. (And while we're at it, you can mark me down as support. This is a very impressive article.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I give up: I guess that I am the only one to see things the way I do, and as such I withdraw any issues I have with the theme section. I'm sorry I wasted your time and mine, and hope that the article will become featured. As a final statement I suppose that, per the intentional fallacy, I'm at a loss how the article can feature such sentences as "In a 1964 interview, Lee remarked that her aspiration was "to be ... the Jane Austen of South Alabama."[37] Both Austen and Lee challenged the social status quo and valued individual worth over social standing", "Scholars argue that Lee's approach to class and race was more complex "than ascribing racial prejudice primarily to 'poor white trash' ... Lee demonstrates how issues of gender and class intensify prejudice, silence the voices that might challenge the existing order, and greatly complicate many Americans' conception of the causes of racism and segregation", "Just as Lee explores Jem's development in coming to grips with a racist and unjust society", and "In exploring how each character deals with his or her own personal defeat, Lee builds a framework to judge whether the characters are heroes or fools." Of course, I'm probably interpreting the meaning of intentional fallacy wrong, but that's the sense I get of it. That said, my problem with the copyrights of the pictures has yet to be addressed, and I propose that, unless undeniable proof is provided that they are licensed correctly, they ought to be removed from the article. Cheers! Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I actually have a problem with the Austen material for a variety of reasons that I outlined on the talk page of the article, but it is published scholarship. I happen to think it is poor literary scholarship, but we are not here to assess the value of the literary scholarship, only summarize it (WP:NPOV). Second, using the shorthand of "Lee explores" or "Lee demonstrates" is indeed an issue if the article wants to avoid the intentional fallacy. We could replace all of these phrases with "To Kill a Mockingbird demonstrates" or "the text shows", etc. Scholars often do this or use the author's name, knowing that their readers understand the intentional fallacy. However, I don't think we can assume our readers understand the fallacy. I will leave it up to others to decide whether all instances of the author's name should be replaced. (I think someone else has raised the issue of copyright below.) Awadewit (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Support my copyedit issues have been addressed. Well done! Maralia (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - great read. Minor thing, no deal-breaker though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)

• Both Lee and Capote were atypical children: - sounds like a medical condition, any reason why it is a better word than unusual here?

Is atypical so...atypical a word? I didn't realize it sticks out so much. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A little, but that was about the sum of it - looks great otherwise. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - most impressive, I don't have any concerns myself. Gran² 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The license for Image:In Search of Atticus Finch book.jpg explicitly says use is allowed only “to illustrate an article discussing the book in question”. This article is about To Kill a Mockingbird, not "In Search of Atticus Finch". Further, how does the book cover significantly contribute (per WP:NFCC#8) to our understanding of To Kill a Mockingbird and to our understanding of Mockingbird’s impact on the legal profession above and beyond (i.e. significantly) the prose already included in the article? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1) Do you think that the image can only legitimately be used in an article about In Search of Atticus Finch?
• 2) Would a "significant" contribution have to include something about aesthetics? That is, would the only legitimate reason to include a non-free image, in your opinion, be if the article discussed that image as an image?

Just trying to clarify why the current non-free rationale is not sufficient. You know I usually work with PD images from long-lost books. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the objection here. The book cover is not needed on a section in this articles discussing the existence of this book that was inspired by a character from TKaM. If there was an article about the book, the image could be used there to aid identification, or to discuss the inspiration for the image (a source would be needed saying that the artist based the look for Atticus on... whatever). I've never read TKaM. Has it ever been illustrated? Those sort of images would be better fair use than this. The film images look OK, but only one or two - no more. If anything, I would say only one here, and use the others on the film article. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The film images are public domain (due to the issue of the film without a copyright notice), so fair use isn't a problem with those (or are you objecting to their use on aesthetic grounds?) Yomangani^talk 15:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a source that confirms or refutes that the film is no longer under copyright. Can you point us toward one? --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This page tells you what is in the public domain, and the film print does not have a copyright notice, but if you want a source that authoritively says "The film To Kill a Mockingbird is in the public domain", I don't think you will find one (though you won't find any that say it is copyrighted either). Universal did attempt to prevent its distribution from some free movie sites a few years ago, but was ignored and as far as I know their claim to copyright has never been tested in court. We even have a tag on Commons for this: {{PD-US-no notice}} Yomangani^talk 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I called the US Copyright Office, who assisted me by giving me their site here. When I searched for "To Kill a Mockingbird", I got 126 results. The woman I was on the phone with got 138 results, for some reason, but neither of us could find the film version. The film version would have the year of 1962 as the copyright date, although the music from the film has a date of 1963, is on the list, and has been renewed. So has the screenplay, with a copyright year of 1964. If the copyright was renewed, the number under "Copyright Number" would have RE in front of it. The woman I spoke with on the phone said only works that have been renewed 28 years after the original date would be on the list. The ultimate answer would be for me to request a search from them, which would cost me $150, take several weeks, and they would send me their response in writing. --Moni3 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But since it was issued without a copyright notice, and hence not copyrighted, it wouldn't be able to have the copyright renewed (which is probably why it isn't on the list). This is the problem with trying to get a statement that is is in the public domain: since nobody owns the copyright there is no incentive for anybody to put anything out saying "I own the copyright, get your grubby mitts off". I suspect the search from the US Copyright Office would also come back as "Not found" which doesn't get you any closer. Yomangani^talk 16:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So, what's the main issue? That the film isn't copyrighted or that it's public domain? There seems to be initial documentation of it not being under copyright. Right now the stills in the article are tagged as "Public domain because of missing copyright indication". Do I need to change them to reflect a more accurate, just "no available copyright information" with a link to the US Copyright Office? Or do they need to be deleted entirely? If that is the case, and the image issue below is determined that the other book cover should be removed, I'll have three images. Will this suffice for a featured article? --Moni3 (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• 75% of copyrights are not renewed, but I would err on the safe side and delete the images that are the cause of all this controversy. To beome an FA, IMHO, they are not essential. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 22:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the objection. While I understand the need to use such images with extreme caution, I feel that its use here powerfully demonstrates how influential the character has been. It shows elegantly the ripple effect of the book's impact more than words alone can. – Scartol • Tok 12:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

@Awadewit: 1) That is a requirement explicit to the licensing tag; my personal opinion isn't necessarily relevant. The article does not discuss the book in whole or even in part (although discussion in part would itself not be adequate); the use is unambiguously inappropriate even without considerations of NFCC#8. For what it's worth, I'm always open to considerations of context, but I don't believe it to be present in this article. 2) No. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

@Scartol: How does an image of this book "powerfully demonstrate" the influence of the character? It's merely an example of derivative media. We can't use fair use images as examples; they have to be the direct topic of discussion. Why is prose alone insufficient to adequately convey the importance of the character on the legal profession? I see no "ripple effect" being demonstrated; please elaborate. Elegant adjectives do not a sound argument make. If we assume your assertions to be true, the implication is then that the relevent and supporting prose is severly lacking, if not nonexistent. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what "significant" means - does anyone know? That is why I was asking if it was restricted to an aesthetic discussion for the book cover. In a sense, why would one ever need to use a fair-use book cover, except to discuss something on that book cover? How would that book cover significantly increase understanding unless the book cover itself is discussed, which would be an aesthetic discussion? Awadewit (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is derivative media, but not in the sense of a Pokémon spinoff; it shows that the character has taken on a status in the legal profession unlike most others in American fiction. (I don't know of a parallel.) I'll defer to others in terms of what is and is not acceptable for fair use; I'm just stating my opinion.

I'd apologize for using "elegant adjectives", but decades of incessant literary analysis have cursed me with a voluminous erudition. Thank you for noticing. – Scartol • Tok 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Resent indent- The still frame film images and the book cover of In Search of Atticus Finch have been removed. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support: excellent article. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Great article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.