Talk:Newbery Medal

Out of print

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)

I removed that whole statement. I've seen conflicting statements about which books are out of print, so I don't think it's a good idea to be authoritative right now. Joyous (talk) 02:54, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Order

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)

done. Deborah-jl _Talk 03:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not very good at wikipedia yet, but I was wondering why the Newbery and Caldecott prizes are in a different order. :) Could someone please fix it? Kimuchi 09:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Honor Books

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 books are listed in the Newbery Honor article. -- Oddharmonic 02:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you people what are the requirements to recieve a Newberry medal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.10.210 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2008 (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)

Merger proposal

I propose moving Newbery Honor page to here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. Both should be separate. They are two different things. Article would be too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.17.150 (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not so different. The honor books are like a shortlist from which the winner is chosen. It would be a long page, though. Any thoughts on formatting the very long list of books? Or resolving the difference between the current lists? KennyLucius (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps this will help:

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't help. Since it is your proposal to combine the pages, I thought you might have thoughts about the list format. Some indicator of the Medal winner (as opposed to the Honor Books) will have to be included. I prefer a table, but making it a useful sortable table will be complex because sorting by year may not order the winner/honor books correctly. Is a sortable table necessary? Also, there are a great many red links among the Honor Books, so it will ugly-up the Medal page, which currently looks quite nice. KennyLucius (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. They should be combined. The two lists have the same topic, one's just the winners and the other's the runners-up. Length should not be a problem or a factor. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be that combining the articles into one will encourage some of those redlinks to turn blue. Joyous! | Talk 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• After the fact endorsement - looks good. One comment though: I'm not sure three editors make a consensus, so it might wind up being reverted if 3 or 4 editors come by and say "what did you do that for?" We'll know if it was consensus if that does not happen in the coming days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Organization

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

• The Underneath by Kathi Appelt (Atheneum)
• The Surrender Tree: Poems of Cuba's Struggle for Freedom by Margarita Engle (Henry Holt and Co.)
• Savvy by Ingrid Law (Dial)
• After Tupac & D Foster by Jacqueline Woodson (Putnam)

I don't know how to make the medal-winner stand out from that, though. Joyous! | Talk 03:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Why not cut and paste the text from here to your personal soapbox and work on it there before releasing it here? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at how other children's book award lists that have "runners up" look, and go with whatever the majority is. There's something to be said for consistency. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I like consistency, but I can't find any other pages about children's book awards. I think the Newbery Medal is THE award for children's books. I was working on the page about the Caldecott Medal. Over there, the honor books are on a separate page, and I'm trying to figure out how to bring the two lists together. I like Joys' layout above. It reminds me of the way editors have listed the Oscar Awards, but I REALLY like the sorting tables. If I sort by author, print the list and take it to the library, then I can find a bunch of great books in no time flat. All these books are shelved in the library by author, but by last name. This table sorts by first name. Anyway, if we add another column that indicated if the title were a medal-winner or a honor-book, would that let us sort like that, or can you only sort by one column at a time? -ErinHowarth (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

They have a table like this over at NHL Foundation Player Award. The names of the players appear first-name-first, but they sort last-name-first. they appear to achieve that by typing the names in a template like this {{sortname|Adam|Graves}} which appears like this: Adam Graves. What do you think? -ErinHowarth (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I created a table similar to the one on this page for the Odyssey Award. There are a lot fewer winners and honors on that list so it seemed like an excellent candidate for an expirement. Anyway, I added a column indicating if the title was a winner or an honor book, and it turns out that the reader CAN sort by both year and citation, but its a little tricky and it requried some expirimentation. I don't know how many readers are really that finiky. I am, so I spent the time to figure it out. Do you think a similar table would be preferrable here? -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I love it!!! Joyous! | Talk 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the other children's book award lists. There's a WHOLE category of different children's book awards. Cool! --ErinHowarth (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the highlighting confusing and had to come to the discussion page to discover what the highlighting meant. Now that I understand what it meant, I have no issue with it. However, can there be an annotation on the article about what the highlight means? Such as "Winners of the Newberry Medal are highlighted." 216.188.249.219 (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

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)

I would definitely leave the redlinks in: it is very reasonable to assume that an article will be written about each one, and I believe the redlinks even encourage that. Joyous! | Talk 13:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I might be persuaded that an article may be written about each one of these books since 1956, but before 1956, we have more red links than blue links. I think it unlikely that articles will be written about these books. All of that red text is distracting. It calls more attention than the blue text. I would like to take out those red links, if you don't object. --ErinHowarth (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually do object to that. I think that runners-up for the most prestigious award in American children's literature will eventually get articles. I believe it even more strongly because it's a project that I work on. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. What do you mean when you write that this is a project you work on. Do you mean red link articles in general or red linked articles on this page? --ErinHowarth (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I focus on filling in the redlinks on the Newbery Medal and Honor pages. Well, "page," since we've combined them. It's slow going because I teach school. My most productive time is during Winter, Spring, and Summer break. Joyous! | Talk 14:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just want to bump this discussion as I am in the starting stages of doing some work to try and bring this about to GA or even featured list status and think that this will be hard to achieve with all of the redlinks. I would suggest that those articles are indeed important to have in the long-run, but that for the time being the redlinks be removed and links be added back in when articles have been created.Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be better to do that, or to create stub articles for the missing titles? It wouldn't take long to create a minimal article for each, such as:

This Book is a children's novel written by John Smith, and published in 1945. The story of a missing dog and her owner received the Newbery Medal in 1946.

Joyous! | Talk 15:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Would you be willing to help? The sheer volume means that even a very short edit is still going to add-up.Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While I do think it makes sense to add the stubs for the books I think it is likely for many of the authors there will never be enough credible information to constitute a good page and as such would suggest removing any links from redlink authors. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable compromise. Joyous! | Talk 16:04, 30 December 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)

2014 interjection.

The older "Honor Books" (1920s–1960s) were not identified retroactively; they were labeled 'Honor Books' retroactively. That is, the annual runners-up were named Honor Books in 1970 or so, both retroactively and going forward.

Generally I agree with User:Reywas92. See below. -P64

So after letting the initial batch sit for some time I guess I go back to my original thought. I do actually believe all of the novels should have pages at some point in time. However the time required to create pages with substantial content for all of the honor books is significant. My suggestion at this point is to, once again, remove the redlinks. I think it would be great if Joyous or someone else in the future creates pages with real content (I am, for instance, currently working on a Elijah of Buxton article), but that until such pages are actually made that the links be removed. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I can swing with that, since I seem to be in the minority. Joyous! | Talk 15:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

2014 interjection. In fact Barkeep49 had stripped the author redlinks one week earlier. Older 100 revisions thru March 2010 covers the period of debate and actions above and below this interjection. Author redlinks were stripped Jan 3 and restored Mar 29, 2010. -P64

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)

Four years later (continuing two "2014 interjections" above). Generally I agree with User:Fram. In particular, most of the writers ought to have articles someday.

Generally writers are more WP:NOTABLE than their books. I feel sure that is true of Newbery Medal runners-up. (If not for winners. There it may be practically irrelevant, as we seem --all bluelinks, no redlinks-- to have both a writer page and a book page for every Newbery Medal and I doubt that will change. I don't know which are redirects or unusually piped links, however.)

Anyway, I suggest that the unusual pattern on this page, where we have mainly author redlinks before 1956 and mainly book redlinks from 1956, is a consequence of the project(s) discussed above in this section--which proceeded mainly forward from the 1921/1922 beginning, I surmise. It cannot be expected even for the most prestigious book awards in general, and any projects to cover all these Honor Books in particular may never catch up to the present.

For the Michael L. Printz Award, which is a companion to this one for the last 15 years, we display redlinks for all writers, both winners and runners-up, and redlinks for winning books only. We have 1 redlink in 15 for winning writers; 6 in about 50 for honor writers; 3 in 15 for winning books. About half of the honor book titles would be redlinks if we linked them. I think that is effective.

For the National Book Award for Young People's Literature, which now identifies "Finalists" rather than medal winners and "Honor Books", we display redlinks only for winning writers. (In effect I made the decision there, after trying two alternatives[1]. The 2013 listing shows that one person actively disagrees and may support the Printz Award linkage, namely User:Green Cardamom.)

--P64 (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

children's choice award

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)

Yes, the children's choice awards is a real list administered by the International Reading Association; unfortunately, when I went looking for the list (I like lists), I discovered that it is only available to subscribers. --ErinHowarth (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"controversy" section

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)

Are you aware of some views from RS that speak to the benefits of Newbery? To me the positive reception of the award are covered in the lead's last 3 sentences and are thus already covered. I have no problem renaming the section, though I'm not sure how fully I agree with WP:Criticism. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:17, 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'm kind of stunned something like The Graveyard Book, which I'm reading now, would be given a Newbery medal. When I was a kid, it seemed like winners of the Newbery Award were always preachy books about religious or ethnic intolerance and generally set in one of five milieus: Biblical times, early America, slavery/Civil War/Reconstruction, a patriotic war such as the Revolution or Wold War II, or the American South in the early 1960s. The one exception is if an Asian-American wrote it, it could be about prejudice against Asian-Americans in a place where Asian-Americans have high concentration, otherwise, the oppressed group had to be blacks, Native Americans, Jews, or accused witches. My teachers always frowned on my preference for fantasy literature (usually old stuff by dead people like L. Frank Baum), and finally a work of fantasy won!--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

i rewrote including some of the parry & repost to the Post. more of a kerfuffle than a controversy. Accotink2 talk 13:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination & Selection Process?

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)

File:Newbery Medal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

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)

Children : young adults

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)

Fiction : nonfiction

(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)

ALSC annual Guide to Newbery, Caldecott books

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)

If I understand correctly each distinctive essay is chapter 2 from one of the annual Guides, perhaps repeated in more than one. The first two of four now available online are reset in four dense two-column pages.

• 2002, as pp 1-4, John Stewig, "Get the Picture?"
• 2007, as pp 1-4, Barbara Elleman, "The John Newbery Medal: The First Decade"
• 2010, pp. 11–19, Diane Foote, "The Times, They are a-Changin'"
• 2011, pp. 11–17, Barbara Z. Kiefer, "The Art of the Picture Book: Past, Present, and Future"

The first two feature "how picture books come to be" and Newbery Medal history. The last two concern what is nowadays American? a book? children's? original? picture?

As ALSC Executive Director, Diane Foote wrote the Guide preface at least in 2009(?), the year the latest rules changes or clarifications went into effect. In this 2010 article she states (p11): "An appendix, Expanded Definitions and Examples, was added to the award manuals in 2009." The last six pages of the article appear to be identical to that appendix (Manual, p64-70).

--P64 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Writer and book links

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:

Joey Pigza Loses Control (see Joey Pigza)

b. There may be similar cases where this is valuable:

Redlink (sequel to Blue link)

--P64 (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This sentence makes no sense

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.

References

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110003635/http://www.ala.org/alsc/sites/ala.org.alsc/files/content/newbery_manual_9Oct2009.pdf to http://www.ala.org/alsc/sites/ala.org.alsc/files/content/newbery_manual_9Oct2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224041910/http://www.reading.org/resources/tools/choices_childrens.html to http://www.reading.org/resources/tools/choices_childrens.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Changes to the LEAD

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)

@Barkeep49: Thanks for notifying me. As this list is going to be featured on the Main Page in a few weeks' time, I thought it would be expedient to do a little bold copyediting of the lead, mainly in terms of grammar and MOS compliance. I did think that it would be beneficial to readers to add a line indicating the latest winner of the award, which I feel is still worthwhile on the TFL blurb. As you were the FLC nominator for this list, I'll defer to your judgement concerning the article's content. Regards. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: I just realised that you did undo my first edit regarding the addition of the most recent winner. If I had noticed this sooner, I would not have reinstated my edit as I later did. I apologise for this. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Citing a negative

"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 manual that I cited is the most recent manual. Its lack of inclusion of change is evidence that nothing has changed in the same way that it is evidence that there are 15 members on the committee (committee composition being something that has been discussed but not changed since the manual). Your maybes are all possible but as someone who acts as a steward for this article I can and will suggest that there are not RS we're missing that say nothing has been done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You are presenting original research: "The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research..." A manual from 2009 cannot directly and explicitly say anything about a 2015 proposal and the status of that proposal in 2020. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the peril of original research. I think you're getting hung-up on the 2009 part of that manual. Instead it is more proper to refer to it as the current manual [5]. The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that nothing cited to that could be done in the present tense and that's just not the case. I'll update the reference right after hitting submit on this reply. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: you've gone silent and so I want to reach out again before interpreting your silence as assent for restoring the concent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a source for what you want to add. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, The source was already in there, I just made it explicit: [6] (current source 8). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 31 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)