Talk:The Hardy Boys/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Editing

I noticed that a lot of text was here but was deleted! What is with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alltheold (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC) If somebody does not give a good explanation I will repost what was here before.Alltheold (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not deleted - it was placed in Talk:The Hardy Boys/Archive 2. Awadewit (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the section legal disputes mainly is about nancy drew not the hardy boys so I am removing it and moveing it to the nancy drew page. Thanks for telling me about the talk page issue.Alltheold (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the writing of the two series is connected through the Stratemeyer Syndicate, the legal dispute is relevant. I've restored this section. This material is already in the Nancy Drew article. Awadewit (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are we discussing racism and homosexuality with the Hardy Boys? Is there nothing the left-wing does not want to reinterpret through the eyes of an intellectually bankrupt lens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.174.238 (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why don't you just blame Obama, Mr. Troll. The gay stuff is silly and should be removed if its its been put back. As for racism, its well-known that the 1st editions by McFarlane had racial stereotypes typical of the period.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The 1st editions by McFarlane aren't racist, they're racially insensitive as were most white people of the time. There is a difference, you know.
  • Sheogorath 149.254.183.30 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Newby doesn't know arcane wikipedia tag practices

I tried to learn it, but even making an external reference seemed like an appalling affair. So I guess I'll just mention it in here in hopes someone will add it-- namely, the Hardy Boys were Parodied in the popular 90s cartooon https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Recess_%28TV_series%29 specifically, http://recess.wikia.com/wiki/The_Barnaby_Boys A complete parody on them, and this cartoon was particularly popular in Canada. Reference to the fan wiki implying this was a parody on the Hardy Boys: http://recess.wikia.com/wiki/The_Barnaby_Boys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.113.120 (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Still having trouble with the homoeroticism

Looking at Jeffery P. Dennis and the cite in question, I can't find much traction on this thesis. Google Scholar hardly shows the book in question, and the vast majority of web references are people selling it or "Dennis is the author of" references. Who is this guy, anyway? Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is relevant that Google Scholar "hardly shows the book in question". Most research on literature takes place of the web. Dennis is a sociology professor and his book is published by an academic press. Nothing strange here. Awadewit (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So what? I think he's just a lone academic crank who managed to get published. He got a PhD in 2001 and has taught at four different lower-end schools since then. Where's the evidence that his view is shared by anyone else? Mangoe (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it doesn't really matter much what you think. The view is shared by others (see extensive discussion in the archives). I would also like to point out that Queer theory is well-established in literary criticism. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it a invalid interpretation - we rely on experts here, not the personal views of Wikipedians. Awadewit (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, we are always relying on the personal view of some Wikipedian: the personal view of someone who thought it worthwhile to include the material. I've just reviewed what's written in the talk and the history of the article, and it's quite apparent that when the article was featured, it abruptly became the subject of outside criticism; before that you and Ricardiana all but owned the article, for better or worse. Whatever the quality of that criticism, I still do not see giving an academic a free pass in a controversialist field.

I'm looking at the three references to which GBook links were provided, and what I see is testimony to gay fantasizing about the books; that's what the Savage and Bronski passages say. The Dennis passage is in that respect quite interesting because it is that speculation. There's no critical apparatus in the cited passage because there isn't anything to cite; the whole passage is constructed entirely out of Dennis's own claims about how philial relationships ought appear in literature, and in particular about what's missing that ought to be there. As an educated amateur I can see a lot of holes in the thesis, the biggest being that he is implicitly attributing to careful and perhaps unconscious intent what could just as well be attributed to shoddiness. I have a few very early syndicate books (e.g. a late 1st series Tom Swift), and the writing is so bad that it's really impossible for me to credit that the details of Swift's situation represent much in the way of calculation by the authors. (And our article pretty much agrees with that.) Dennis's lack of citations from the syndicate authors shows that he is working without evidence of actual intent.

Don't think I'm giving the other criticism a free pass on this. The homoeroticism catches the eye because it is (a) so determinedly perverted (I would have said perverse, but the incestuous color makes the former word more accurate), and (b) it lies in the article with no explanation at all. It seems entirely possible, though, that the other interpretations also have the problem that there's no real scholarly consensus behind them. In an uncontroversial field I would be more tolerant of singleton citations, but that's not the case here. Scholarly publication is necessary, but it is not sufficient in this field.

I'm personally a disbeliever in post-structuralist criticism, but in any case, if the homoeroticism is to stay it needs to be made explicit that this is queer theorizing and not something that is widely accepted. As far as I can tell Meredith Wood is a lesbian activist (I can't tell whether or not she is now Meredith Wood Smith), and she's another post-structuralist or maybe queer theorist. She also doesn't have much a footprint in the literature. Is it really the case that only this one small corner of the world cares? Or is it the case that they are the only ones who want to make these kinds of claims? Mangoe (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mangoe, thanks for your thoughtful reply. One of the reasons the article immediately came under fire, by the way, is because it was featured on the main page. Many editors read the article and thought it was saying "the Hardy boys are gay" (which it is not), so a large debate ensued. I agree with you that the sources are poorly argued. However, I'm not sure that it is our place, as Wikipedians, to point this out to readers, as that is a judgment. Others might be much more convinced by the arguments than you or I are. One way to approach this would be to find book reviews of Dennis' book and see if other scholars were convinced - how do you feel about that? One of the problems in establishing a scholarly consensus for a literary interpretation is that scholars are rewarded for publishing interpretations that are different from their colleagues, so people rarely republish the same theories - they often make reference to other theories, but only to disagree with them in some way or other.

You write that "if the homoeroticism is to stay it needs to be made explicit that this is queer theorizing and not something that is widely accepted". This is a problematic requirement. 1) Dennis assumes his audiences understands is familiar with queer theory, so he is not going to explain it and its relationship to homoeroticism. 2) I'm unsure why you think this reading of "The Hardy Boys" is not widely accepted. Most of the material in this article is only attributed to one or two critics (much like the homoeroticism material) - that is the way of literary criticism, particularly in children's literature. Not all that much has been published yet and what has simply isn't going to repeat each other. "Mainstream" criticism is what is published. Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we're in "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" territory, as well as this being an extremely minor/fringe point of view. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, literary criticism is not like science. Most theories and ideas only appear thoroughly in one text. They are then sometimes briefly referred to in other texts. I think I remember one of the sources that discusses homoeroticism in the Hardy Boys referring to another in this way, but I'll have to check to make sure. Establishing what is "fringe" in literary studies is extremely difficult. Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I see from the archives that there has been huge debate about the issue. Is it shocking that some Phd types have speculated about whether the Hardy Boys were gay or could be perceived as gay by people who are gay? Not at all. Its a hugely popular series with lots written about it. E.g., people theorized that Clay Aiken was gay with absolutely no evidence!! Seriously though, it sounds like a fringey scholarly issue to me, so I question whether its appropriate to mention in the lead. I am sure people stumble across that mention everyday and say "Whhaaaaa????". But I see no reason why that analysis cannot be mentioned somewhere later in the article about analysis of the series.--Milowent (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are misunderstanding - homoeroticism in a text does not mean that the characters are gay. Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy with that, especially if it were ascribed to a queer theory perspective. I'd also like to see more balance, as there are surely critiques that come from mainstream perspectives. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

These are the available sources on "The Hardy Boys" - you are welcome to try and find more, but when I looked I couldn't. I was surprised. Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, how many Hardy Boys books are there? I'm not surprised if there were some eyebrow-raising moments concerning the sheer number of words. But even if we find an actual reference, it doesn't belong in the lead. Little, if any, of the lead's last paragraph belongs in the lead. Lots42 (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The references are to scholarly works, not the novels themselves. The debate is about those sources. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the debate, what is currently in the article, what is in the lead, and the archives. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done all but the archives one. I don't believe the scholary works belong in the lead. Lots42 (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You have declared such, but have not actually explained why. WP:LEAD says "The lead section (also known as the introduction or the lead) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." (emphasis mine) Certainly something that makes up about half a section would normally be mentioned in the lead. NW (Talk) 03:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk about Dennis

The site appears to be trying clumsily to hide this, so it may not be visible a lot longer, and the material is a bit dated (his academic information is out of date and the book at the crux of this isn't mentioned), but judging from this directory entry it appears that Dennis's main interests are firmly in queer theory territory. Mangoe (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That is helpful. Do you think that describing Dennis as a scholar influenced by queer theory would be a useful addition to the article? Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be even more accurate to characterize his conclusions as queer theory itself. Saying that he's "influenced" seems a bit mealy-mouthed for someone whom others characterize as being squarely (pardon the pun) in the field. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The current first sentence of the paragraph in question reads: Critic Jeffery P. Dennis argues that one reason for the books' popularity is that they, especially in the early volumes, provide readers with something they cannot get in other media: homoromance. - What do you think about something like: "Reading the novels through queer theory, critic Jeffery P. Dennis argues that...." Awadewit (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Homoeroticism section

What sentences in the article are raising problems, by the way? Please list them there. Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that since September of 2009, there hasn't been a paragraph in the article about homoeroticism. There has been only a single mention in the lead. Someone removed the paragraph from the article and it has never been restored. It is my opinion that this paragraph should be restored. Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much every popular fictional male character has beens suspected of being gay. Lots42 (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does not say nor has ever said the Hardy boys were gay. Please read the above linked diff and the sources. The material discusses homoeroticism, which is different. Awadewit (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To Awadewit. I disagree with your first sentence. It was in that part I tried to remove. Plus, I cannot read the sources, there are none. A word and a year is not a source I am able of reading. Lots42 (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can disagree all you want, but the sources back me up on that. If you are unfamiliar with Harvard referencing style, let me explain. "Riska (2006), 66" - this is a shorthand for the reference provided in the "References" section "Riska, Elianne (2006). Masculinity And Men's Health: Coronary Heart Disease in Medical And Public Discourse. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN 0742529010." - The specific reference can be found on page 66. If you want the find the sources, you are welcome to look on the internet or in a library, as some are not available on the internet. Awadewit (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation. I still do not believe that this is 'important' enough to be included in the lead. Published speculation is still speculation and IMHO, is just enough to merit an inclusion (being published) near the bottom. Now if we were talking about the topic of incest and star wars, it would merit inclusion in the lead (maybe) because of Luke and Leia swapping spit before they realized they were siblings. Lots42 (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The refs in the lead

Riska (2006) 66. Wood (2002). Morris (1997) These are not references. They are words and dates. They are meaningless. And as indicated above, it does not make sense to speculate the Hardy Boys are gay. Nearly every fictional male character ever has had people wondering. If there was something to back this up, like Frank and Chet holding hands on a cover (not to mention an actual reference)... Lots42 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Those references make perfect sense. They refer to the sources listed in the "References" section of the article and many an FA is cited this way. I reiterate that the article does not say the Hardy Boys are gay - it used to discuss homoromance and cited sources to that effect (including quotes from the books). If you doubt this, you are welcome to read the sources and the extensive debate over the issue in Archive 2. Awadewit (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please cut and paste the sources then, as indicated else where, a lone word and a year is not a source I am capable of tracking down. And what does 'and many an FA is cited this day' mean? Lots42 (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I explained above how the sources work - you can track them down if you want, as I already did that months ago and some of what I found I put in Archive 2. If you are curious, you are welcome to do the same. Sorry about the typo - I meant "many an FA is cited this way" - I've now fixed that. Awadewit (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Other examples of FAs that use this referencing system: Nikita Zotov, Samuel Johnson, Mary Shelley. The name corresponds to the last name of the author, the year to the year of publication, and the page to the page number of that book. See {{harvnb}}, Parenthetical referencing, and Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing for more. As for the references referred to by the footnotes in this article, see The Hardy Boys#References. NW (Talk) 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

last line of article

Can someone please remove the last two lines of the article? The lines say, "The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew are great mystery books to read. They are American Classics that will never be for gotten:)" Clearly someone thinks they are clever...

The lines don't appear when editing that section of the article, but do when reading the article. I am not cyberhip enough to know how it was done, but i'm sure someone out there can do it.

Ellenois (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Location of Bayport

This article is referring to the fictional city of Bayport which is located on Barmet Bay. Please do not confuse this with the real world village of Bayport located in New York, USA. While there has been a lot of postulating that the fictional Bayport was based on the real Bayport, there is no conclusive evidence to support this. Even if fictional Bayport was based on the real Bayport this article is still referring to the fictional one which is consistently described as being on Barmet Bay. For further reading please refer to the source I cited in my edit: http://www.hardyboysonline.net/content.php?page=lit-setting-where . If you wish to revert my edit please provide a reliable source for your information. Thanks. :)

VA6DK (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference conversion

As this article was very well referenced using Harvard citations, I've converted the references to use the shortened footnotes system. What this means is that the references presented in the footnotes are now hyperlinks to the appropriate works in the list of references. Multiple references to the same work, or page of a work, are combined to make the reference list more manageable for the reader; and the amount of markup needed throughout the article is reduced.

The necessary changes to the article markup were minimal (diff). References of the form

<ref>Billman (1986), 80.</ref>

now use the template {{sfnp}}, and look like this:

{{sfnp|Billman|1986|p=80}}

or this, for multiple authors and a page range:

{{sfnp|Kismaric|Heiferman|2007|pp=120-122}}

Footnotes have been converted to use the {{efn}} template, allowing textual comments with embedded references.

New citations should be sure to include the |ref=harv parameter which is necessary to produce the hyperlinks. — Scott • talk 15:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Scott (2006)

The shortened citation "Scott (2006), p. 551" does not have a full citation in the References section. It might be found in the article history. --  Gadget850 ^talk 14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I went back a couple of years and couldn't find it, but was able to locate it online. — Scott (no relation!) • talk 14:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"homoromance" paragraph is complete BS

The article that implies that the Hardy Boys are gay is complete nonsense. Some older gay men are fantasizing and grasping at straws. The two-dimensional, fictional characters were not gay. They are presumed straight. An adult reading the series might assume that the characters are asexual. The series was not meant for adults, but for children. The writers do not focus on girls because of the age group of the readers. Most 9 year old boys would rather read about fight scenes and car chases, etc than some sappy romance or sexuality. That age group has not reached the age of dating and sexuality. The part of this article that implies homosexuality is inappropriate and puerile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.187.210 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

While I'm not going to get into a discussion about the opinions of 9-year-olds of any particular gender, you're correct that the paragraph was fringe theorizing. I've taken it out.  — Scott • talk 18:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There was a very long discussion about this already. You can see it here: [1]. The gist is that the paragraph is full of good sources that agree and disagree with the analysis. It doesn't matter if you think it's "complete BS". If good sources say it, it's supposed to be in the article. --Typeractive (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No. The paragraph is a combination of a fringe source (Dennis) being given undue coverage mixed with one good source (Westfahl) that actively refutes the fringe homoerotic thesis. The sentence "he and others suggest that Chet is portrayed as a feminine male character" is also an egregious misrepresentation what Westfahl actually wrote, namely that, emphasis added, "For the determined homoerotic critic, [the actions of] Chet Morton [in one of the books] suggest... perhaps a desire to assume a nurturing, feminine role... [and something else later] does seem a bit queer... the charge that the Hardy Boys were subtly undermining the masculinity of American boys can easily be refuted". To explicitly mention that Kismaric and Heiferman consider Chet a feminine character is the definition of undue weight. So, I'm removing this atrocious paragraph again bar the only part worth retaining, Westfahl's contention that the characters are asexual.  — Scott • talk 21:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• This homoromance reference is complete fringe with no support in greater literature. The autobiography of Leslie McFarland, Ghost of the Hardy Boys (1976), has nothing to support this idea, nor does the entire history of the Stratemeyer Syndicate, which was to generate profits by appealing to a mass child audience with cheaply written books. It is true that everything and everyone is gay somewhere on the internet, but we simply do not include everything anyone ever said about a subject, especially if it is without foundation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The obsession with removing this section is WP:DONTLIKE mixed with WP:OR, because you're arbitrarily deciding that you don't like what was written by a qualified expert on the subject so you arbitrarily declare it "BS" and delete it. I don't particularly agree with the theory, but it's not up to me because it was written in a reputable academic journal. It's also not WP:undue to include one paragraph about this analysis in a long article, especially since several other critics' very different opinions and analysis are also included in that same section. Typeractive (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I am obsessed. Google anyone you want, there is speculation that that person is gay. It is rank discrimination against gay people to countenance such baloney. He's not a qualified expert, the only discussion of him is to point out what an utter buffoon he was.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not internet speculation. The citations in that section are to books by literary critics published by reputable publishers (the University of Vanderbilt Press printed the more recent one). And that's criticS - plural. When you say that "he's (singular) not a qualified expert" or a buffoon or claim that the theory is just internet speculation, you're making it obvious that your revert is a knee-jerk reaction to something that you don't like, not a thoughtfully considered edit. It the theory was sourced to some blog or something, I'd take it out myself. But it's not.

There are quotes and theories from many literary critics in that Thematic Analysis section, all with different points of view. Some disagree with Dennis and Prager on this issue. That's what makes the section a balanced view of the subject, giving readers plenty of different points of view. That's good. --Typeractive (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3