Talk:Michael L. Printz Award

pornography

Should this page contain information about Printz award books containing pornography, especially considering the books are recommended to children as young as 12, and the author of the recent 2006 award winner admitted that he would not give his own book to his own 12 year old if he had one? Given this author's statement, I feel such a section is wiki worthy. Note, before people start talking about me personally and not addressing the issues, the key here is the author himself who admitted he would not give his own book to his own child if he had one, but the ALA awards it as the best book of 2006 for kids 12 and up. I say this is wikiworthy. So what do you all think? --SafeLibraries 02:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, if we did that, we'd have to include every instance of challenging and censorship of any book that's won an award. Save it for the specific book page. Czolgolz 13:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

On this page, this award page, it being a stub, it's very thin here. In keeping with the thinness, the quote does seem out of place. Hopefully in the future the page will be improved, then the quote will be part of that improvement. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This stub is merely a page noting the existence of the Prinz Award and listing the books :designated as Printz Award winners. It is not a discussion of young adult novels and age-appropriate literature and/or any attendant controversy. Adding the John Green quote is original research. It appears that it's being added to provide POV that is not neutral, i.e., the suggestion that young adult novels are "porn." Given Legitimate and Even Compelling' (nee SafeLibraries) own concession that such quotes are inappropriate for this stub, the quote should not be included.

All, 66.158.92.10 is a member or employee of the ALA. The ALA awards the award that is the subject of this page. Besides 66.158.92.10 only making 3 prior edits, 66.158.92.10 is obviously writing as someone who sees this wiki page as property of the ALA. Fortunately, wikipedia policy allows for this page to be encyclopedic, not the ALA's version of what we are all supposed to read. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking conflict of interest, Legitimate and Even Compelling is a individual with a demonstrated animus towards the ALA and an apparent motive to impart POV to any article that is even tangentially related to ALA. As for the quote, it is original research, added not to comment on the Prinz Award but to raise controversies about an individual author and/or book that, if included anywhere, belongs on those pages, not this page. See Czolgolz comment above. It still applies.

I agree with Czolgolz, the quote from Green is totally out of context for this page, and I'm not at all convinced that it satisfies the standards for inclusion in wikipedia anywhere. It definitely looks like a violation of WP:NPOV to me. --JayHenry 07:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Czolgolz's statements are just plain untrue. This page is the Printz award page. The ALA gives the Printz award. The award is for kids 12 and up. In 2006, the ALA gave the award to a pervasively vulgar book containing, among others things, oral sex and porn movie blow-by-blows. The author of the award-winning book said he would not give his own award-winning book to his own 12 year old if he had one. Tell me that does not belong on this Printz award page. An author implicitly contradicts the awarding of his own book with an award for 12 year olds and up. That is definitely relevant. And as to the argument about me personally and ALA, I would say the same thing if the Sisters of the Sainted Memory gave a sexually inappropriate book for 12 year old an Angels Wings Award as the best book of the year for 12 year olds, and the award winning author said that was nuts and he wouldn't give his own book to his own 12 year old. That would be just as encyclopedic on the Angels Wings Award page as what is going on here on this Printz page. What is really going on here is that people are apparently dedicated to a bias against me personally and in favor of the ALA. Apparently, there is some belief that the ALA is some great organization and no criticism is ever possible, especially from me. Wake up, people. The ALA award was called into question by the award-winning author himself. NOT ME! And the organization he said this about WAS THE ALA! Not any other! So naturally this belongs on the Printz page. And naturally it has to do with the ALA. Just because I thought it was encyclopedic, and it is, and others think I have some animus toward the ALA, doesn't mean wiki policy precludes it. Rather, what precludes it is that there are many more people interested in ignoring the record than in providing encyclopedic information. On the Printz page, an author saying he would not give his own award-winning book to his own child due to sexual inappropriateness is 100% wikiworthy. The hordes of people and ALA members who disagree does not make that not true. It is not POV. It is wikiworthy fact. My interest in the ALA only means the matter came to my attention and I recognized its significance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what else? This page is a stub. It is supposed to be expanded. People who keep pruning it to make it nice and neat are not getting the point of being a stub page. Were this page already built out, making excuses for removing the addition would be harder. People need to follow wiki policy, not ALA policy. This is wikipedia, not ala.org. This is a stub page. Help build, not destroy it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never even heard of these ALA controversies and I don't know you personally. But I've read Green's book and I've read some of that criticism. I agree that the controversy around the book deserves mention, but inserting this out-of-context quote into multiple articles is not the way to do it. The way to describe this controversy is through non-biased sources that have written about the controversy. And the place to do it is the Looking For Alaska page. Criticism of the Printz award in general could be a section on this page, but it can't be a singular vendetta against John Green. For now, I'm removing the quote. If it's reinserted, I'm going to request arbitration. --JayHenry 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jay here. The controversy is covered in the book's page. If the entire quote is included, it goes on to say how the book was never marketed toward younger readers and won the award for high school level books. If one disagrees with this personaly, it's already covered on the looking for alaska page. Czolgolz 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The book and the author are both perfectly fine. The author is really very nice and hard working. The book is very well written and entertaining. The sexual content in and of itself is not controversial, else huge swathes of book would be considered controversial. Rather, the controversy lies in the Printz Award itself. An award for 12 year olds is given to a book with sexually inappropriate material for 12 year old, according to the book's own author. That is why it belongs on this Printz award page. Putting it on the LFA page is essentially burying it and it's irrelevant. The relevancy is the awarding of a book that's sexually inappropriate according to the book's own author. Anyone but the most biased can clearly see that. It is quite interesting, quote encyclopedic, and belongs on the Printz Award page. Go ahead and start arbitration. I'll add it back now or eventually. You two are just plain wrong and clouded by your animus towards me and your belief that I'm doing this to promote an agenda. Really? On a stub page about an award not even the MSM hardly covers? Come on. Get over it already. What this author said about his own Printz awarded book is the key here, not that I added it to the stub in a good faith effort to help expand the page, the whole purpose of advertising the page is a stub. Czolgolz, you say, "If the entire quote is included, it goes on to say how the book was never marketed toward younger readers and won the award for high school level books." Think, man. That further SUPPORTS that the author thinks its wrong the ALA awards the book for 12 year olds. He's saying the book is properly not marketed to kids and properly won an award for high school kids. Dude, that's not 12 year olds. You unwittingly just helped to make my point in a way I hadn't previously pointed out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My question isn't the legitimacy of your arguments, but the need to state them twice. As it is, the quote is kind of ramrodded into the list, making it look sloppily formatted. Why not create a section on the various controvertial works that have won this award...or is this the only one? My opinion that the Looking for Alaska page covers this issue well, and it does not need to be here. Czolgolz 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the LFA page. I did not notice until just now someone had written so much there. I'll read it then get back to you, but likely not until tomorrow. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal animus toward you Legitimate, I had no idea who you are when I noticed this. My concern was that this article appeared to be subject to an attempt to manufacture controversy and push POV through original research. As it is, this is an out-of-context quote that is being used to draw an unwarranted broad conclusion. (As an aside, your very user name is a reference to a court decision against the ALA and you yourself state on your own user page that you have an agenda against the ALA. We're assuming nothing other than what you've said yourself.) I'm not commenting on the coherency of your argument, it would be an excellent argument to make on your blog, or in a letter to the editor, etc. My point is only this: Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for you to make this argument. --JayHenry 05:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I went and read this blog and comments thread in its entirety -- and this is John Green responding to YOU LegitimateAndEvenCompelling! You yourself are the source of the controversy, both on wikipedia and off. You have even written an article entitled "Porn Pushers - The ALA and Looking For Alaska - One Example of How the ALA Pushes Porn On Children." In light of this how are you claiming that it is John Green questioning the ALA and not you? Furthermore, you are twisting John Green's words. He is not questioning the ALA. On the contrary, he's very clearly defending the ALA. Again, I had never even heard of the ALA until yesterday. I have very little interest in the organization. I came into this with an open mind, but what I see here is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX. I am removing the quote, it is out of context, and it's used to draw a dubious conclusion -- exactly the reason that Original Research is prohibited at wikipedia. I will swiftly report any further attempts to insert this POV back into the article. --JayHenry 06:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There he goes again, making me the center of attention instead of addressing the issues, other than repeating previous argument. Can we get on to the substantive issues obscured by your ad homonym arguments? I am not making the argument. It is wikiworthy that the author himself is making the argument. While I am included in that blog, he is blogging with about a dozen writers who are all talking back and forth with each other, not just me. Further, I am NOT responsible for that blog being there in the first place. Yet another author started it because he felt what I had to say was intriguing. I merely responded. So I am not the genesis of that blog. You don't read his own statements that he wouldn't give his own book to his own child as questioning the ALA? And concerns that the article "looks sloppily formatted" are irrelevant on stub pages in the process of being built. And I do not have a "vendetta" against the author -- just the opposite -- I respect him for speaking out as he has. And thanks for mentioning my article. It includes scholarly sources and major names from all political spectrums to make my point. But note carefully I have not used it as a reference so as to comply with wiki policy. The book is controversial in other areas, by the way, for the reasons I have stated. Did you see the picture of the grocery store selling the book next to "Bob the Builder" in the checkout aisles at child eye height? Well that chain removed those books from that point of sale once they became aware of the actual contents of the book, after first having been misled by that Printz gold seal. And we are on the Printz page, are we not? Maybe that grocery store is on a soapbox too? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

JayHenry removed the quote again based on "original research." That is defined to mean material that

• introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
• defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
• introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
• introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

I have not run afoul of a single one of those or any combination thereof, thanks to the Printz award-winning author himself being the source of the relevant material. Therefore, I will restore the quote, but I will wait some time per wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's very much a violation of this point:

• introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

You are drawing an unwarranted conclusion from John Green's words. The inclusion of the quote introduces an analysis and interpretation of his statement that is not supported. I completely disagree with your interpretation of John Green's statement, which is why it is inappropriate for Wikipedians to create their own interpretations. The purpose of wikipedia is not to elevate a comment on a blog to encyclopedic material. --JayHenry 06:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

JayHenry said, "I completely disagree with your interpretation of John Green's statement...." Irrelevant. The thing speaks for itself. It needs no interpretation by me. John Green speaks for himself. A direct quote is not an "interpretation." He said, "The inclusion of the quote introduces an analysis and interpretation of his statement that is not supported." What? It's a direct quote. No one's interpreting anything. If I ever referenced my interpretation in this talk page, that was just for the sake of this talk page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The entire justification for including the quote is based off a fallacious interpretation of the quote's meaning. John Green is not making said argument and thus his non-argument is non-wikiworthy. Otherwise, why is this particular quote from this particular blog being used and not some of the other no doubt dozens of quotes Green has made about his book? If the inclusion of this quote is in no way based off a personal interpretation, then there would be no objection to the inclusion of an entirely different Green quote about Looking For Alaska? --JayHenry 07:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with a "fallacious interpretation" about a fellatious book. (A little humor, okay?) When the quote is presented as it has been, without any surrounding interpretation, the interpretation is zero. No interpretation. The quote has a plain meaning. The guy said what he said. You may personally disagree with him, or you may find what he said to be an inconvenient truth, but the quote is the quote is the quote. A rose by any other name.... As to why this quote should be included and not others, as you suggest, others are naturally glowing quotes. Lovely really. But everybody makes lovely, glowing reports about their own stuff and that cannot possibly be considered encyclopedic (except in very limited circumstances, I suppose). On the other hand, when the guy says he wouldn't give his own award winning book to his own child, that is hugely significant. I didn't say it, you didn't say it, I didn't make an interpretation, you didn't make an interpretation, he just said what he said. And he said his Printz awarded book he would not give to his own kid. His words, not mine. VERY relevant and encyclopedic on the Printz award page. Why? Obviously is it information relevant to the Printz award. Obviously it is relevant to people to know the award is given to children's books that the book authors themselves would not give to their own children. (My views on this are irrelevant on this page or any page in the wiki world.) An actual award winning author-expressing concern the book may be inappropriate for children for whom the Printz award is awarded. It is highly relevant to the weight someone might wish to give to such an award. It is highly encyclopedic. Inquiring minds want to know. In the wiki world, inclusion of such information is encouraged, exclusion of such information is discouraged. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have put in a request for mediation. The case is here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Looking for Alaska. I'll refrain from further reverting until we've heard from a mediator. Green is making a point that's entirely different from the point you wish that he were making. And his response in a thread on a blog in response to your criticism does not pass Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I have real issues with trolling through blogs that this guy posts on looking for evidence to use as criticism of his work, of this award, or of the ALA. --JayHenry 18:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Czolgolz, having now read the recently expanded LFA page, I now agree with you that the topic is covering in depth on that page. Assuming it stays there, it does not need to be covered in depth here. However, this page should at least include a reference to the material on the LFA page and its significance to the Printz award. By way of quick example, not word perfect, see John Green page (or LFA page) where author questions age inappropriateness of Printz Award. Just saying see page so and so for more information is not enough to inform the readers of the reason for the reference. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

Under honor books/2001, The Body of Christopher Creed's author is listed as Carol Plum-Ucci Harcourt. This is incorrect. Harcourt is the publishing company. I changed it. Satiravelvet 00:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Newbery Medal and Printz Award

Today I learned that The House of the Scorpion was a 2003 runner up for both the Newbery Medal and the Printz Award. I have presumed that ALA since 1999 publications (not so early for nonfiction) has two distinct tracks for children and young adults and that this cannot happen. Now I guess that librarians nominate separately, ALSC and YALSA deliberate separately, and one book might even win both. Is that true?

Have there been other double runners up or winners of one and runners up for the other? Has there been any discussion of a book's eligibility to win both? or the practical question whether judges are influenced by expectation that a book will win the companion award?

Our two awards articles neither say nor strongly suggest that they are distinct, nor say that they overlap. Re the Printz Award we quote YALSA saying both "teens" and ages "12 to 18".

There are other pairs of ALA awards that may overlap. Do the relatively young awards expressly for nonfiction mean that older awards consider fiction only? --P64 (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)