Talk:Cynthia Rylant

Married?

Is Cynthia Rylant married? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axmyroxsox (talk • contribs) 15:12, 1 May 2006‎ (UTC)

Inline citations

According to WP:CITE

In most cases, an inline citation is required in addition to the full citation. This shows which specific part of the article a citation is being applied to. They are required by Wikipedia's verifiability policy for statements whose factual accuracy is challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all direct quotations. Inline citations are also mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria but only where appropriate. An inline citation should appear next to material that it supports; if the same material occurs more than once the citation should be next to at least one of the occurrences. 71.233.112.183 (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Downgrade to stub

This is a WP:STUB: two sentences plus identification of "a number of awards and honors" plus list of a zillion works. The numerous sources listed under References are essentially Further reading and External links because they have not been used. The first page of Revision history (50 from September 2010) does not show massive deletion of content. --P64 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There was a nasty vandalism in 2008 that I have just reversed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Spanish-language

P.S. If she did write books in English and Spanish-languages then some of the latter should be identified in the list. --P64 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed this assertion. It does not seem to be correct, although some of her books have been translated into Spanish and published in Braille. See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Illustrators

The Caldecott Medal is awarded "for the most distinguished picture book for children" to the illustrator. Since 1971 the runner-up works are called Caldecott Honor Books. Official C.M. and C.H. "Seals" are available for display on the front covers of the books. "The Randolph Caldecott Medal" --see top and bottom images

Rylant is the writer of Caldecott runners-up with other illustrators. (Our table says 1983 Diane Goode, 1986 Stephen Gammell.)

P.S. I support identifying the writers in our tables of illustration-award winners. See Talk:Caldecott Medal#New column for authors. -P64

This article should be clear about the Caldecott and identify the illustrators under Honors; some other points will then be more suitable for the lead.

P.S. In our words, Rylant says it "took her but an hour to complete" the 1983 runner-up When I Was Young in the Mountains (which our poor stub labels a novel). Did she so much as sketch the illustrations, or describe them? -P64

'Illu' appears in this article only once: "her partner since 1989, Dav Pilkey, an author/illustrator." If she has illustrated any published books herself, or produced any books jointly with Pilkey, or worked together frequently with any other illustrator, that should be covered under Life and career.

If any of the book series has been developed jointly by Rylant and an illustrator --such as the Dr. Xargle picture books or The Edge Chronicles novels-- then we should mention that in the list of Works under the heading for the series.

Picture books. Independent of identifying illustrators, the list of Works is so long that I think it must benefit from division into sections for children's picture books and other children's books, presumably with stand-alone and series in both sections. Of course that needs on a source that identifies all of the children's picture books.

--P64 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

P64, please go ahead and improve this article. I have no special interest in Rylant or children's books; I simply noticed that the article had been massively vandalized and rescued it. You can find out more about Rylant's illustrators from the sources and external links already mentioned near the bottom of the article, and I am sure there is much more information about Rylant readily available on google. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

life and career

I have removed the information pursuant to WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPGOSSIP. While this information has been published in a book, it is disputed by the subject and has not been independently covered in other reliable sources. 24.209.32.171 (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Jason Booker

No, it has not been disputed by the subject, and there are multiple reliable sources backing up the information. Rylant's biography makes it clear that Pilkey was an important part of her life. The sources confirm that they dated for more than a decade and moved to Eugene Oregon together, where they lived in houses near each other and shared pets. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's not split this discussion across different articles; discussion already is ongoing at Talk:Dav_Pilkey. LFaraone 20:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is different from the one at Pilkey. Rylant has not disputed this information, and, frankly, Pilkey's SPS is disingenuous, as his talk page shows, where he admits moving to Eugene and living near Rylant, which is what the removed material here says. In this article, which is a much better article than Pilkey's we discuss Rylant's personal life, which she has written about in detail. We also cite three reliable sources for the deleted information. I would like to reinsert the deleted material. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Rylant would dispute this information because the reference sources took her comments out of context. Since the reference sources are not widely read, it didn't make sense to pursue it. What is being disputed on the wikipedia page is the previous wording, which you did fix to state, "dated". Previously, it was written as "relocated with her then partner, Dav Pilkey" (something of that nature which can imply, as did some unreliable reference source you listed, that they lived together and moved together. This may be a minor detail to you, but words can be misinterpreted to mean something that did not happen. For example, I stated in the Pilkey TALK section that I moved to Seattle in 1999. I should have clarified it by saying the Seattle AREA. I moved to Seattle in 1996 and then to Bainbridge Island, WA (still considered the Seattle area) in 1999. The other article that was written in 2002 stated that we both lived in Eugene, OR during the time the article was published. Neither of us lived in Eugene, OR in 2002. I am very sorry you feel the SPS is disingenuous. The removed material gave a wrong impression. I didn't remove your edit when you stated we just dated. We did not influence each other's career or collaborate on any material together. Because we are both well-known authors in children's publishing, we don't want people to get the wrong impression that we lived together when we didn't or collaborated on material. Please understand. I don't have a problem with "dated". I have a problem with "moved with", "relocated with", "moved together", anything that may give an impression of cohabitation or a very serious relationship. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. 220.105.1.72 (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)dav pilkey

As far as I can see Ms Rylant has not disputed the content of this article - only Mr Pilkey has. The three reliable sources cited in the article here state that Mr Pilkey and Ms Rylant dated for 14 years and moved to Eugene Oregon together, where they lived in houses near each other, etc. 14 years is a long period to be dating in anyone's life, and this fact needs to be noted in this biographical article. As the McGinty book discusses Pilkey on at least seven different pages we can assume that he was a big part of Ms Rylant's life. These properly referenced and sourced facts should be left in the article. Jack1956 (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The argument is in regards to what is considered a "reliable source". Those sources are not reliable as found by an editor on the Pilkey page. The definition of "dating" can also be argued either way. 220.105.1.72 (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Pilkey

Hopefully, you can see how the "three reliable sources" can be interpreted differently as we are disputing. Shouldn't the person Cynthia Rylant knew personally be considered a more "reliable" source? I'm glad people feel this is so important. It is actually flattering to both authors. The only reason for clarification and what may seem as "disingenuous" on the part of Pilkey is because both parties are pretty well-known children's book authors and children read the wikipedia pages. It's a good thing wikipedia is not considered a "reliable" source for students when doing research on a subject. We continue to discuss a biography that has not been authorized or endorsed by Cynthia Rylant. If Pilkey is discussed in McGinty's book in such great detail as you are claiming, than Pilkey has a right to disclaim those facts as he has done. People will do anything to sell a book nowadays. 220.105.1.72 (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Pilkey

Notable incidents of false biographical information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia: "Inaccurate information may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged. The most prominent cases reported by mainstream media involved biographies of living persons. The Seigenthaler incident demonstrated that the subject of a biographical article must sometimes fix blatant lies about their own life. In May 2005, a user edited the biographical article on John Seigenthaler Sr. so that it contained several false and defamatory statements.[14] The inaccurate claims went unnoticed between May and September 2005 when they were discovered by Victor S. Johnson, Jr., a friend of Seigenthaler. Wikipedia content is often mirrored at sites such as Answers.com, which means that incorrect information can be replicated alongside correct information through a number of web sources. Such information can develop a misleading air of authority because of its presence at such sites.":[15] "In another example, on March 2, 2007, msnbc.com reported that Hillary Rodham Clinton had been incorrectly listed for 20 months in her Wikipedia biography as valedictorian of her class of 1969 at Wellesley College. (Hillary Rodham was not the valedictorian, though she did speak at commencement.)[143] The article included a link to the Wikipedia edit,[144] where the incorrect information was added on July 9, 2005. After the msnbc.com report, the inaccurate information was removed the same day.[145] Between the two edits, the wrong information had stayed in the Clinton article while it was edited more than 4,800 times over 20 months." 220.105.1.72 (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Pilkey

I am content with the "dating" statement too, that Mr. Pilkey agrees with above, and have added it back. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The point about Mrs Clinton shows the importance of sticking to WP:RS. The references here seem to me to satisfy those criteria, and should remain in place, but it might be as well to show them in numerical order rather than [4][3][5]. Tim riley (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You are placing unnecessary importance on "dating" and placing weight on the "reliable sources" which I have stated many times, are NOT RELIABLE. Why don't you name the college professor she MARRIED? It is very inconsistent. 220.105.1.72 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)dav pilkey

My other point is that by stating my name in the same sentence as her son, it places undue importance on the dating part of her life. It can seem like we collaborated on our work (as people seem to misinterpret statements quite frequently). We saw each other perhaps once a week. Maybe not even that often. We don't want to give the impression that we COLLABORATED on our work because we are both children's book authors. By not stating the college professor she married after Dolin, it makes that part of her life less important. Does this make sense? 220.105.1.72 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)dav pilkey

No, if you look at our Featured Article bios, you will see that they normally mention major relationships and other important episodes in the person's personal life. You and Rylant dated for a dozen years, you moved to Eugene simultaneously and you shared pets. Obviously, this is a point of interest in any biography of her. You stated above that you didn't mind the clause about dating, but now it seems that you're just being unreasonable. BTW, I didn't put in the name of her second husband simply because I don't know his name. If you give me a source naming him, I'd be happy to. Nevertheless, if you will stop removing the sources, I will not personally put your name in. I have no control over anyone else. The sources are needed in the article to verify that Rylant moved to Eugene with her son. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really mind that you state - somewhere else but not next to her son's name - that gives it much less importance - that we dated. That is fine. I don't want to give credit to the sources you are citing, however. This is my biggest problem. By citing the UNRELIABLE SOURCES, it allows those people to continue to report information irresponsibly and out of context. This is the main reason to leave my name out of her biography. I believe we are allowing the sources to continue to print unauthorized biographies. I honestly feel those particular reference sources need to be deleted. I also know that Cynthia Rylant would not mind if you just stated she moved with her son without naming the source. She has stated in personal interviews this fact but not in the ones you are citing. The other fact is that I was not a "major relationship" in her life. By stating my name, you are implying that I was and at the same time, giving credit to the irresponsible sources. I really would appreciate if you left my name out of her biography. It will mislead people into thinking we influenced in each other's work or collaborated with each other on our projects. Even a small bit of information put in the wrong area and cited in reference sources that are incorrect, can lead people to those incorrect sources and create future problems. I am trying my best to avoid misleading people and obviously, I have done a poor job explaining this to you. 220.105.1.72 (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)dav pilkey

Why put so much weight on McGinty's unauthorized biography. Obviously, the author didn't do very good research if she didn't know the name of Cynthia Rylant's second husband or first husband. It was padded for story sake. We should not be padding the life and career section. I agree with Pilkey. Mentioning his name gives weight to their relationship. People can date and know a person for years and not have a meaningful relationship. Time spent with a person does not make it valuable. They may have dated many different people for long periods of time. Let's not pad the article. 24.209.32.171 (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Jason Booker

Dav Pilkey, I have removed your name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for having this very long discussion with me, Ssilvers. I am certain, as time progresses, I will not even be mentioned in future biographies of Rylant. Her contributions to children's literature, her childhood and family life are far more interesting and important than mentioning a person like me who barely spent time with her. Cynthia Rylant and I are very fortunate to have people like you, who do care about responsible reporting and not embellishing the truth. Thank you also for your patience with me as I struggle understanding wikipedia editing. 220.105.1.72 (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)dav pilkey

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. 24.209.32.171 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Jason Booker

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cynthia Rylant. 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/20110927162414/http://www.wvwc.edu/library/wv_authors/authors/a_rylant.htm to http://www.wvwc.edu/library/wv_authors/authors/a_rylant.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120530073753/http://www.orrt.org/rylant/index.html to http://www.orrt.org/rylant/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130224043720/http://www.harcourtbooks.com/authorinterviews/bookinterview_rylant.asp to http://www.harcourtbooks.com/authorinterviews/bookinterview_Rylant.asp

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).

• 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) 04:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Adult book or children's book?

Actually, Rylant's "Mr. Putter & Tabby Pour the Tea" is really for non-"peppy" old folks like me, as much as for children, unlike the rest of that series. Acwilson9 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC), a man who is a "crazy cat lady".

Adult book or children's book?

Actually, Rylant's first, "Mr. Putter & Tabby Pour the Tea", is really for non-"peppy" old folks like me, as much as for children. Acwilson9 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC), a man who is a "crazy cat lady".