Newbery Medal is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on June 3, 2019. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Newbery Honor page were merged into Newbery Medal on 21 January 2009. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
It would be helpful if there was some notation as to which two titles are out of print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fledchen ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
It might be a good idea if the list was ordered in the opposite direction (i.e. most recent books first). This would correspond to the other children's literature award lists. Driekie 07:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Would adding honor books make sense as many publishers include those medallions on the cover, suggesting prestige attached to those as well? Barkeep49 01:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Newbery Honor redirects here from January 2009, citing the discussion immediately below. See Talk:Newbery Honor, 2004 to 2008. -- P64 ( talk) 16:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I propose moving Newbery Honor page to here. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Perhaps this will help:
-- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 23:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 07:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking at the organization of the article, and it definitely looks like it's made from 2 articles merged together. Tables aren't really my strength, so this might not work, but...what about arranging the lists by year, so that the Medal winner, and the honor books appear together? For example:
2009 The Graveyard Book
I don't know how to make the medal-winner stand out from that, though. Joyous! | Talk 03:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have another question: is it preferable to have all those red links in the article, or just take the links out so the text is black? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 07:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No, only the ones for which good significant information can be found should be made into articles. Two sentences is pretty useless. I'm all for it if the articles will be nice and have substance, but I'm vehemently opposed to creating stubs just for the sake of creating stubs. Also remember that many of the older ones were given Newbery Honor retroactively, so they do not have the notability of others. I am very glad that you wish to bring the list to FL status; I am happy to help and actually wanted to do so for the Wikicup, but I'll let you ca. As it is a list, not an article, it does not qualify for GA. Reywas92 Talk 16:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I reinstated the redlinks, per WP:RED. Checking even a few of the oldest ones, it is obvious that the vast majority are notable authors for whom a decent article can (and should) be written. We don't remove links until the pages are created, we keep the redlinks to encourage the creation of these pages and to invite readers to become editors. Fram ( talk) 10:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As a random example, I created Marian Hurd McNeely. Despite her entry in this list originally being misspelt as "Marion" instead of "Marian", it wasn't too hard to find sufficient info for a decent start-class article. It will probably be in general easier to find info on authors who aren't dead for eigthy years, but even those redlinks can relatively easy (using only basic Google searches) be turned into an article. Fram ( talk) 12:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This is mentioned, but when I followed the link, I couldn't find any-thing like it at the linked site. Is it legit? Kdammers ( talk) 12:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The controversy section should be transformed into a "Reception" or "Critical reception" section, incorporating views from a wide spectrum. See WP:Criticism. hgilbert ( talk) 01:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't read Newbery Medal books to little kids, but the teens that I've read them to at night in our summer camp have loved the stories, and were eager to continue each night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.170.18 ( talk) 03:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think too much importance has been given to the criticism that the Newbery books are "books that adults choose for children". Of course they are! I firmly believe it is our responsibility as experienced readers to guide children in their selection of reading material. As a 5th grade teacher for 10 years, my students for the most part gravitated to the most popular series novels of the day. As "literature", these were very weak. I used Newbery books as novel studies with my students and through this exposure, they began to appreciate the qualities of a "good" book. Many began reading books by the same authors or sequels. Some even started looking for Medal and Honor books to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.79.142 ( talk) 01:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I came here researching awards, hoping to compare other selection processes to that of the Hugo Award; unfortunately the Newbery page is unclear on the ALA process, despite this being one of the most famous literary awards. I found a page ( http://blog.schoollibraryjournal.com/heavymedal/2008/10/21/more-on-the-newbery-nomination-process-2/ ) after googling, but someone better associated with the process could explain it much better than I. Wyvern ( talk) 05:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Newbery Medal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
There's a useful article here with background on the controversy, that shows it goes farther back than people tend to realize. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8058/librarytrendsv44i4i_opt.pdf;jsessionid=995C2BFE9EA0617CD917242980249E50?sequence=1 I don't have time to deal with it, but someone else may want to. Tlqk56 ( talk) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
From 2000 the American Library Association has the Newbery Medal for children's lit and the Michael L. Printz Award for young adult lit. (I haven't checked how closely they match in other respects.) Our Printz article says "teens" in the lead and "ages 12 to 18" in the details, which approximates junior/senior high school students.
From 1922 to 1999 there was the Newbery Medal alone. What "level" were the winning books? In particular, did the medal recognize some books that librarians recommend or libraries stock for primary students and some for senior high school students?
From another perspective, what has been the impact of the Printz Award on the books considered for the Newbery Medal, especially on the Newbery winners? Are some books considered by judges for both awards? How many 20th-century Newbery winners would be considered only for the Printz in this millenium? Did a perceptible shift toward younger readers during the 20th century motivate the Printz award? ( Michael L. Printz Award#History is essentially silent.)
P.S. The British Carnegie Medal (from 1936) remains alone covering books for children or young adults. Recently I have visited WorldCat library catalogue records for dozens of winners. Some records include "senior high school" recommendations. I don't know that any winning book is or was recommended for primary students (grades 1-3 in my US experience that predates middle school). There is virtually no overlap with the Nestle Smarties Prize category 6-8 years (for illustration, without knowing whether that Nestle category focuses on picture books). -- P64 ( talk) 17:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
(continued not much later) The ALA now has awards specifically for children's "information books", the Sibert Medal from 2001, and young adult "nonfiction", the YALSA award for Excellence in Nonfiction for Young Adults from 2010. (Let's hope for a permanent name soon.)
The latter must be irrelevant here. Regarding the Sibert Medal, however, my remarks "Children : young adults" pertain as well to fiction and information books, not to mention straight nonfiction. Does the Newbery focus entirely on fiction from 2001? Was there increasing focus on fiction during the 20th century which motivated the Sibert? I see that the inaugural Newbery winner was a nonfiction tome and I suppose there were several "information" medalists, which I understand to include fictionalized history. -- P64 ( talk) 18:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
One reference we use heavily (currently [ref name=newb], ref#2) is the 2007 edition (17th annual ed? [2]) of The Newbery and Caldecott Awards: A Guide to the Medal and Honor Books. That edition is valuable especially for its new [3] chapter 2, "The John Newbery Medal: The First Decade" by Barbara Elleman (2007, pp. 9-16), which accounts for four of our eight citations.
The official webpage for the current edition ( "Web Extra") includes some archive of "distinctive essays" from previous editions, now four essays including Elleman's.
-- P64 ( talk) 19:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
0. See also #Redlinks (2009–2010 and 2014) --whose indentation I adjusted for readability and where I interjected (2) and replied at the bottom.
1. Does anyone know how many of our bluelinks are WP:REDIRECTs or unusual WP:PIPEs, with targets that are not the suggested biographies and book articles? If we have maintained this table adequately, there are no biographies and book articles for those bluelink writers and books. For instance, David Kherdian is one redirect.
2. Some bluelink titles may be redirects to book series articles. For Joey Pigza Loses Control, a redlink surprising to me, we do have the book series and fictional character article Joey Pigza. About half what it does is ID the series contents with two bluelink and two redlink titles. (We have one WP:STUB and one {{ All plot}}.)
a. If people consider redlink titles useful because they communicate that we have no corresponding book article, and sufficiently useful to retain (see section #Redlinks), then I suggest a listing such as this:
b. There may be similar cases where this is valuable:
-- P64 ( talk) 22:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I really have no idea what this sentence is trying to say so I pulled it. Can anyone else figure it out? HullIntegrity ( talk) 16:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Others argue that child appropriate books are important, not unpopular assignment of award winners.
[1]
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Newbery Medal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there Ravenpuff. I see you've been editing this article over the past couple of days - welcome. I am not sure if you're aware but this article recently became a Featured List, meaning it went through an in-depth review. As a steward of this article, obviously wording can be tweaked and I don't get too riled up about most MOS things so I don't think the period being outside the quote is correct in this case but I would suggest that the current winner not be in the LEAD. While using the as of template is a good way to monitor content which could become dated, in general the table is summarized and introducing something which could become outdated, as opposed to most of the article which is rather timeless, makes me uneasy. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
"As of 2020 no change has been made.<ref name="manual" />" [4]
The source cited here is from 2009. It tells us nothing about a proposal made in 2015. It certainly does not tell us whether anything happened by 2020.
Yes, it is nearly impossible to cite a negative. The addition actually say that a Wikipedia editor is not aware of or was unable to find any indication that the change was made.
What we know is that a proposal was made in 2015 and there was some reaction to the proposal, both for and against. That's what the article says.
Maybe it was voted down. Maybe it was ignored, never to be heard of again. Maybe it went on the back burner for a while and is now under active consideration. Maybe it was passed, with an effective date of June 1, 2020. Maybe we missed an article mentioning any one of these. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"But it's important that we tell readers..." Is it important that we tell readers that we guess nothing happened? If it's important, a reliable source will discuss it. Until we have that, we have an unsourced claim. Yes, it made it through an article review. At that point, there was nothing/no one challenging the claim. - SummerPhD v2.0 05:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The section currently says the selection process is secret, there was a proposal to change this and there was both support and criticism of the proposal. All of that is sourced. The source you linked to does not add anything, unless we start cobbling together bits and pieces from the sources along with an assumption to come up with "no change has been made".
The source does not explicitly say no change has been made. The only way to arrive at "no change has been made" from the sources in the article is to look at the proposal, pull up the rules before the proposal and the rules (currently cited using 2009 rules as posted in 2013) compare the two sets of rules, not find the proposed change or anything you think is the change, assume nothing changed in between and add the synthesis to the article.
While it is likely true that there was not a change to the rules by October 2009, the claim is not verifiable. The only way to make it verifiable is for an independent reliable source to actually state that no change has been made. - SummerPhD v2.0 19:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Newbery Medal is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on June 3, 2019. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Newbery Honor page were merged into Newbery Medal on 21 January 2009. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
It would be helpful if there was some notation as to which two titles are out of print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fledchen ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
It might be a good idea if the list was ordered in the opposite direction (i.e. most recent books first). This would correspond to the other children's literature award lists. Driekie 07:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Would adding honor books make sense as many publishers include those medallions on the cover, suggesting prestige attached to those as well? Barkeep49 01:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Newbery Honor redirects here from January 2009, citing the discussion immediately below. See Talk:Newbery Honor, 2004 to 2008. -- P64 ( talk) 16:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I propose moving Newbery Honor page to here. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Perhaps this will help:
-- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 23:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 07:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking at the organization of the article, and it definitely looks like it's made from 2 articles merged together. Tables aren't really my strength, so this might not work, but...what about arranging the lists by year, so that the Medal winner, and the honor books appear together? For example:
2009 The Graveyard Book
I don't know how to make the medal-winner stand out from that, though. Joyous! | Talk 03:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have another question: is it preferable to have all those red links in the article, or just take the links out so the text is black? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 07:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No, only the ones for which good significant information can be found should be made into articles. Two sentences is pretty useless. I'm all for it if the articles will be nice and have substance, but I'm vehemently opposed to creating stubs just for the sake of creating stubs. Also remember that many of the older ones were given Newbery Honor retroactively, so they do not have the notability of others. I am very glad that you wish to bring the list to FL status; I am happy to help and actually wanted to do so for the Wikicup, but I'll let you ca. As it is a list, not an article, it does not qualify for GA. Reywas92 Talk 16:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I reinstated the redlinks, per WP:RED. Checking even a few of the oldest ones, it is obvious that the vast majority are notable authors for whom a decent article can (and should) be written. We don't remove links until the pages are created, we keep the redlinks to encourage the creation of these pages and to invite readers to become editors. Fram ( talk) 10:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As a random example, I created Marian Hurd McNeely. Despite her entry in this list originally being misspelt as "Marion" instead of "Marian", it wasn't too hard to find sufficient info for a decent start-class article. It will probably be in general easier to find info on authors who aren't dead for eigthy years, but even those redlinks can relatively easy (using only basic Google searches) be turned into an article. Fram ( talk) 12:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This is mentioned, but when I followed the link, I couldn't find any-thing like it at the linked site. Is it legit? Kdammers ( talk) 12:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The controversy section should be transformed into a "Reception" or "Critical reception" section, incorporating views from a wide spectrum. See WP:Criticism. hgilbert ( talk) 01:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't read Newbery Medal books to little kids, but the teens that I've read them to at night in our summer camp have loved the stories, and were eager to continue each night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.170.18 ( talk) 03:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think too much importance has been given to the criticism that the Newbery books are "books that adults choose for children". Of course they are! I firmly believe it is our responsibility as experienced readers to guide children in their selection of reading material. As a 5th grade teacher for 10 years, my students for the most part gravitated to the most popular series novels of the day. As "literature", these were very weak. I used Newbery books as novel studies with my students and through this exposure, they began to appreciate the qualities of a "good" book. Many began reading books by the same authors or sequels. Some even started looking for Medal and Honor books to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.79.142 ( talk) 01:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I came here researching awards, hoping to compare other selection processes to that of the Hugo Award; unfortunately the Newbery page is unclear on the ALA process, despite this being one of the most famous literary awards. I found a page ( http://blog.schoollibraryjournal.com/heavymedal/2008/10/21/more-on-the-newbery-nomination-process-2/ ) after googling, but someone better associated with the process could explain it much better than I. Wyvern ( talk) 05:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Newbery Medal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
There's a useful article here with background on the controversy, that shows it goes farther back than people tend to realize. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8058/librarytrendsv44i4i_opt.pdf;jsessionid=995C2BFE9EA0617CD917242980249E50?sequence=1 I don't have time to deal with it, but someone else may want to. Tlqk56 ( talk) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
From 2000 the American Library Association has the Newbery Medal for children's lit and the Michael L. Printz Award for young adult lit. (I haven't checked how closely they match in other respects.) Our Printz article says "teens" in the lead and "ages 12 to 18" in the details, which approximates junior/senior high school students.
From 1922 to 1999 there was the Newbery Medal alone. What "level" were the winning books? In particular, did the medal recognize some books that librarians recommend or libraries stock for primary students and some for senior high school students?
From another perspective, what has been the impact of the Printz Award on the books considered for the Newbery Medal, especially on the Newbery winners? Are some books considered by judges for both awards? How many 20th-century Newbery winners would be considered only for the Printz in this millenium? Did a perceptible shift toward younger readers during the 20th century motivate the Printz award? ( Michael L. Printz Award#History is essentially silent.)
P.S. The British Carnegie Medal (from 1936) remains alone covering books for children or young adults. Recently I have visited WorldCat library catalogue records for dozens of winners. Some records include "senior high school" recommendations. I don't know that any winning book is or was recommended for primary students (grades 1-3 in my US experience that predates middle school). There is virtually no overlap with the Nestle Smarties Prize category 6-8 years (for illustration, without knowing whether that Nestle category focuses on picture books). -- P64 ( talk) 17:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
(continued not much later) The ALA now has awards specifically for children's "information books", the Sibert Medal from 2001, and young adult "nonfiction", the YALSA award for Excellence in Nonfiction for Young Adults from 2010. (Let's hope for a permanent name soon.)
The latter must be irrelevant here. Regarding the Sibert Medal, however, my remarks "Children : young adults" pertain as well to fiction and information books, not to mention straight nonfiction. Does the Newbery focus entirely on fiction from 2001? Was there increasing focus on fiction during the 20th century which motivated the Sibert? I see that the inaugural Newbery winner was a nonfiction tome and I suppose there were several "information" medalists, which I understand to include fictionalized history. -- P64 ( talk) 18:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
One reference we use heavily (currently [ref name=newb], ref#2) is the 2007 edition (17th annual ed? [2]) of The Newbery and Caldecott Awards: A Guide to the Medal and Honor Books. That edition is valuable especially for its new [3] chapter 2, "The John Newbery Medal: The First Decade" by Barbara Elleman (2007, pp. 9-16), which accounts for four of our eight citations.
The official webpage for the current edition ( "Web Extra") includes some archive of "distinctive essays" from previous editions, now four essays including Elleman's.
-- P64 ( talk) 19:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
0. See also #Redlinks (2009–2010 and 2014) --whose indentation I adjusted for readability and where I interjected (2) and replied at the bottom.
1. Does anyone know how many of our bluelinks are WP:REDIRECTs or unusual WP:PIPEs, with targets that are not the suggested biographies and book articles? If we have maintained this table adequately, there are no biographies and book articles for those bluelink writers and books. For instance, David Kherdian is one redirect.
2. Some bluelink titles may be redirects to book series articles. For Joey Pigza Loses Control, a redlink surprising to me, we do have the book series and fictional character article Joey Pigza. About half what it does is ID the series contents with two bluelink and two redlink titles. (We have one WP:STUB and one {{ All plot}}.)
a. If people consider redlink titles useful because they communicate that we have no corresponding book article, and sufficiently useful to retain (see section #Redlinks), then I suggest a listing such as this:
b. There may be similar cases where this is valuable:
-- P64 ( talk) 22:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I really have no idea what this sentence is trying to say so I pulled it. Can anyone else figure it out? HullIntegrity ( talk) 16:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Others argue that child appropriate books are important, not unpopular assignment of award winners.
[1]
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Newbery Medal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there Ravenpuff. I see you've been editing this article over the past couple of days - welcome. I am not sure if you're aware but this article recently became a Featured List, meaning it went through an in-depth review. As a steward of this article, obviously wording can be tweaked and I don't get too riled up about most MOS things so I don't think the period being outside the quote is correct in this case but I would suggest that the current winner not be in the LEAD. While using the as of template is a good way to monitor content which could become dated, in general the table is summarized and introducing something which could become outdated, as opposed to most of the article which is rather timeless, makes me uneasy. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
"As of 2020 no change has been made.<ref name="manual" />" [4]
The source cited here is from 2009. It tells us nothing about a proposal made in 2015. It certainly does not tell us whether anything happened by 2020.
Yes, it is nearly impossible to cite a negative. The addition actually say that a Wikipedia editor is not aware of or was unable to find any indication that the change was made.
What we know is that a proposal was made in 2015 and there was some reaction to the proposal, both for and against. That's what the article says.
Maybe it was voted down. Maybe it was ignored, never to be heard of again. Maybe it went on the back burner for a while and is now under active consideration. Maybe it was passed, with an effective date of June 1, 2020. Maybe we missed an article mentioning any one of these. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"But it's important that we tell readers..." Is it important that we tell readers that we guess nothing happened? If it's important, a reliable source will discuss it. Until we have that, we have an unsourced claim. Yes, it made it through an article review. At that point, there was nothing/no one challenging the claim. - SummerPhD v2.0 05:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The section currently says the selection process is secret, there was a proposal to change this and there was both support and criticism of the proposal. All of that is sourced. The source you linked to does not add anything, unless we start cobbling together bits and pieces from the sources along with an assumption to come up with "no change has been made".
The source does not explicitly say no change has been made. The only way to arrive at "no change has been made" from the sources in the article is to look at the proposal, pull up the rules before the proposal and the rules (currently cited using 2009 rules as posted in 2013) compare the two sets of rules, not find the proposed change or anything you think is the change, assume nothing changed in between and add the synthesis to the article.
While it is likely true that there was not a change to the rules by October 2009, the claim is not verifiable. The only way to make it verifiable is for an independent reliable source to actually state that no change has been made. - SummerPhD v2.0 19:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)