Children's literature Start‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: history watch purge Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{ WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

Novels: Fantasy B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Fantasy task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Wouldn't the title be better as "Peter Pan (character)"? - Branddobbe 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think so - if you just put character, people would think 'character'-what? Fictional character is more descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukino ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Appropriate tile - "literary" character as opposed to "lierature". Page moved. — Blue 。 15:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

"In some variations of the story and some spin-offs, Peter can also be quite nasty and selfish. In the Disney adaptation of the tale, Peter appears very judgmental and pompous (for example, he called the Lost Boys 'blockheads' and when the Darling children say that they should leave for home at once, he gets the wrong message and angrily assumes that they want to grow up)."

This seems to be interpretation--and rather subjective. Agree? Disagree? 71.111.220.191 ( talk) 05:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see Talk:Peter Pan (disambiguation) to discuss how the title "Peter Pan" is disambiguated. - JasonAQuest 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I like the Peter Pan illustration at the top of the article, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to use in this context. As a work of art apparently created for this article, it's the visual equivalent of original research. Made-for-WP visuals are appropriate for illustrating objective information (e.g. maps, diagrams, topics where photos are too risque), but when it comes to illustrating a fictional character, it's tantamount to saying "This is what I think the character looks like," which is the submitter's opinion. I'd be much more comfortable sticking to interpretations of the character previously published by others elsewhere. (Using the illustration in Template:Peter_Pan is a different matter, and aside from the fact that it doesn't scale down as well I'd like, I think it's fine in that context.) - JasonAQuest ( talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You're right. I've swapped the illustration with one in the public domain from an early print of the novel. It would be better if we had a more iconic colorful version, but at least this one is historical and not original research. There are a few more illustrations like this one in the book, maybe they can be used in other articles or elsewhere in this one. -- Linda ( talk) 04:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

This article has been tagged for "clean-up", and I agree. The main issue I see is that the rather long sections about Peter in this-story or that-story spend a lot of time telling the story. I think that sort of plot information is better left to the articles about those stories. This article should focus on who/what Peter Pan is, his personality, his appearance, his abilities, who his friend/enemies are, etc. Wherever possible, the focus should be on the things are true in all (or at least most) versions, and when talking about "facts" that come from anyone but Barrie, the source should be noted (random example: "In the Disney movie, Peter wears brown slippers"). And of course try not to get bogged down in trivia like what color his slippers are. :) Any thoughts? - JasonAQuest ( talk) 05:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, here's where I answer and maybe disagree with myself. :) Since the Peter of Kensington Gardens is so different from the other appearances, he should probably be described separately within this article. The same may be true of the Peter of Hook (e.g. he grows up!) I just don't want to get to the point that we create a section for every work he appears in, then try to fill those with factoids from each one. - JasonAQuest ( talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I have an idea for this... I agree with you that most of the plot info should be moved to the other articles, with just a short overview here. I think it would be good to organize this page by having a main section that describes the most famous Peter Pan, the one who's in the play and the book, and he's sort of the same one in the Disney film. Then after that, we could have separate shorter sections to describe the way he is in the other ones, when he's a baby in kensignton Gardens and when he's grown up in Hook, and when he's in the other sequels and stuff. Those parts would only need to mention the differences. The important stuff about Peter Pan is the from the play and main novel. Those are the works that really struck a chord with people and made the basis for all the other stuff to be possible.

Then it might be good to have a section about how the inspiration of the character from the Davies boys.

Lots of stuff that's in this article now seems like just someone's ideas about it, and there sure is a lot about the scarlet book! Later if we have analysis of the character, it would have to come from references and not just be made up. I have some books about that and I will add some when I can find the time.

This is a big job with so many articles, but I think they're getting better and it's going to be really cool after a while. -- Linda ( talk) 07:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

PS. About moving the plot info to other articles - that might be a good reason to keep the separate article for Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens and not merge it into The Little White Bird, because the Little White Bird plot that's not in the Peter Pan section is totally different than the Kensington Garden part. In the LWB article, when we do the plot part there, we could put a link to the other article if people want to read that plot. If we put them all in one, it could get really long. I guess that could be OK too, but then again it might get complicated. I've been planning to start describing the plot of the LWB soon too. -- Linda ( talk) 07:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I've moved all of the plot synopsis material to the articles for the respective works... maybe going farther than was needed, but I don't think the "what happens" stuff is necessary except if it specifically tells you something about Peter, and in that case, it should go in another section. So if there's an example of something he does in Scarlet that tells you about his personality, put that under "Personality". I think we can get by for now without separate sections for the various works, as long as we identify where (if not P&W) each piece of info comes from. (e.g. "In Peter Pan vs. Godzilla he demonstrates the ability to grow very large and shoot flame from his mouth.") - JasonAQuest ( talk) 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I saw that today, I think it's better like this! -- Linda ( talk) 05:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Was there a compelling reason why The Wendy Trilogy reference was removed from the Popular Culture section, considering that it is about both Peter and Wendy? No discussion was had here regarding this edit. -- Parcequilfaut ( talk) 22:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you point out when this happened? I went back through six months of edit history and didn't find what you're talking about. - JasonAQuest ( talk) 04:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I am unsure and have asked that the person who drew it to my attention (in conjunction with discussion of a questionable request for deletion of the artist's own page) let me know if they are aware approximately when it was removed. Honestly, I think it ought to just be added back, as TWT has its own page and is definitely a notable Peter Pan pop cultural reference, but I am waiting to hear back from the person who spoke to me about it, as they may have a better idea of when it disappeared to help you pinpoint it. I somewhat fail at reviewing edit histories when I'm not sure what I am looking for. :D -- Parcequilfaut ( talk) 05:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't question that it warrants a mention here (or perhaps in Peter and Wendy). I'm not quite so sure about the article about The Wendy Trilogy itself, which cites only the artist's web site and doesn't establish independent notability, and may need to be folded into her article. - JasonAQuest ( talk) 12:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Where do you think it would be better suited? Here, or Peter & Wendy? I commented on the merge at the S.J. talk page. -- Parcequilfaut ( talk) 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It's not really about the character of Peter, but an alternate take on the story of Peter and Wendy.

The longest term for Copyright in the world is the Berne Convention- life of the author plus seventy years. This would put the book in the public domain for the whole world. The less illuminated JasonAQuest states otherwise. Unless there is an objection I intend to change the entry to the correct information. Allknowingallseeing ( talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Peter Pan is a special case, though. While the book in presently in the public domain, royalties (particularly, and perhaps only from stage shows) are still still owed under - specially exempted/created - in the UK. Great Ormond Street Hospital was given the author's rights in 1929, which was reconfirmed in his will (see here). Prime Minister Callaghan had the "1988 copyright act amended" specificially to create these special circumstances. So there's technical accuracies on all sides...!

See the Guardian for "The various uses of Peter Pan that have given the hospital money throughout most of the years since Barrie's death in 1937, will continue in the UK at least thanks to former prime minister Jim Callaghan." Although it is mitigated immediately after by the potentially clarifying/confusing "[act amended]... to give the hospital the unique right to royalties from stage performances of Peter Pan and any adaptation of the play forever."

The legal technicalities of that 'any adaptation' seem perhaps to vary, but GOSH's position is quite clear:

:"The copyright first expired in 1987, 50 years after Barrie’s death, but former Prime Minister Lord Callaghan successfully proposed an amendment to the Copyright Designs & Patents Act of 1988, giving Great Ormond St the unique right to royalties from stage performances of Peter Pan (and any adaptation of the play) as well as from publications of the story of Peter Pan, in perpetuity. (CDPA 1988, Schedule 6, Section 301).

In 1996 copyright term was extended to 70 years after the author’s death throughout the European Union, which meant Peter Pan enjoyed revived copyright until 31 December 2007, after which it entered the public domain in Europe. The CDPA (of 1988 (see above) will therefore prevail from now on in the UK so that GOSH will continue enjoying the benefit of Barrie’s gift.

Thanks to different legislation in the US, the play (and stage adaptations) is in copyright there until 2023. [ claims GOSH].

The relevant section of the CDPA is here, which affirms that the copyright has now expired (at least, in the UK), but that GOSH retains an interest royalty-wise. Disney disagrees with GOSH's 2023 date.

It's royalties and copyright confusion first and foremost; and wrangling over extensions second. But a summary of the various positions should definitely be given - and GOSH should certainly be in the article. ntnon ( talk) 00:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Allknowing is simply misinformed. The Berne Convention sets minimum terms (generally life+50) not maximums; signatory countries are free to exceed them, and dozens of them (including the EU) do. Mexico's term is life+100, and in the United States, copyright can be 95 years after publication or even 120 years after creation, which can obviously be more than 70 years after the author's death. Furthermore, the fact that GOSH claims that Peter Pan is still under copyright in the US (a position I personally find implausible, but that's simply my POV) makes a statement to the contrary incredibly inappropriate. - JasonAQuest ( talk) 01:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

See also here. It's a little odd that GOSH is only mentioned on this page in regards to their statue, too, and not with regards to rights and royalties. ntnon ( talk) 01:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The copyright applies (or doesn't) to the entire work of Peter and Wendy (not just the character), so it makes the most sense to cover it in that article. Perhaps a reference to that coverage would be helpful here. - JasonAQuest ( talk) 02:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

This is the problem of what happens when the less illuminated rely on teh internets for facts. Jason is wrong- Peter Pan is public domain in the entire world. There is no way in hell that it isn't in the USA and in the UK the GOSH extension ended in DEC 2007. If you were better illuminated you would know that that was why your heroic friend Alan Moore's porn book LOST GIRLS was allowed to be sold there in Jan 2008. Allknowingallseeing ( talk) 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Please provide a citation of your claim that the work is PD worldwide. The citation you deleted from Peter and Wendy documents GOSH's claim of copyright in the US, and you have not provided any legal citation that refutes it. - JasonAQuest ( talk) 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The article doesn't take into account the work on Barrie and the du Maurier's in Captivated by Piers Dudgeon where he hypothesises (rightly in my opinion) that Peter Pan represented some of the darker aspects of Barrie himself. Originally Peter was the villain of the story, not the hero he has generally been treated as later, and this is stated in the article on Hook - but not here. Barrie may have transferred the copyright to Ormond St Children's Hospital out of guilt, not generosity. This article should at least include these points as theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermeswiki ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply

If you can provide citations for this analysis, please go ahead and add it. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 17:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Blues Traveler isn't even mentioned in the "culture" section? There's a reference to Peter Pan mythology on almost every Blues Traveler album (quite obvious on the album "Straight on Till Morning"). Shouldn't this be mentioned? I could provide a more complete list if necessary. -- Buddy13 ( talk) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you have some RS to reference in regards to this? Carl.bunderson ( talk) 23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, there's always this, a fansite that lists all the lyrics. I think that'd be sufficient to illustrate the major connections. -- Buddy13 ( talk) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Any secondary sources? I just want to avoid listing the minutae of every pop culture reference to Peter Pan ever. Carl.bunderson ( talk) 02:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Much better to have a source that describes the connections. Without that, we'd be engaging in original research. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

My point exactly. Carl.bunderson ( talk) 06:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You guys know that the OR crap is why Wikipedia sucks. Bureaucracy = bad. I mean, in my opinion, anyway. You can't even submit a screenshot or photo of something to prove it exists because it'd be OR. Odd policies abound here. -- Buddy13 ( talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply