Talk:Literature

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Content?

This page is almost absurdly devoid of content about one of the great topics of... well, life. It is simply insane that there are huge articles devoted to a thousand different iterations of homosexual topics, but that this is the page for something so vital to a full life and educated mind. Literature is a word commonly used to denote the great books, so at least some discussion of literary study or criticism would be good. Instead the page's content is essentially a copied dictionary definition, a copied encyclopedia definition, a mediocre metaphysical poem, and a terribly written quote from a free online study guide. It's a travesty.--Gigg 22:59, 21 February 2008 (EST)

I hate to sound patronizing, but... please improve it? That's what Wikis are for, right? This is still a very young (albeit successful!) project, so your help would be appreciated.-MexMax 23:00, 21 February 2008 (EST)
I am afraid I am one of those who has fallen for that "superficial, fallacious liberal logic" in my quest to be "long in academic degrees but short in intellectual achievements of [my] own". Any contributions I would make would be invariably biased towards neutrality, at the least. But I couldn't pass some of these articles without at least pointing them out so they can be improved. There must be at least someone with some background in literary studies who is competent to improve this... they could hardly make it worse. Bon chance, though.--Gigg 23:06, 21 February 2008 (EST)
It's easy to criticize, but...
Honestly, I'd add, but it seems like you know the subject better. It's not my specialty, really , so I'd rather someone who feels impassioned about it contributes. I could add "Atonement is a pretty good book," but, again...-MexMax 23:11, 21 February 2008 (EST)
I understand, and I hope someone who is impassioned does stop by. I heard about this site on Wikipedia, and I think it is an interesting idea. Ultimately, however, I disagree with its intent, and do not think my contributions would be consistent with what is desired here (a conservative Christian viewpoint). I would not feel comfortable contributing, so the most help I feel I can give is by pointing out weaknesses. I don't know how many users there are here, though, so I am sure now that it has been pointed out the matter will be remedied soon enough. Bon chance.--Gigg 23:15, 21 February 2008 (EST)
It's hard to make "literature" controversial :-). You're welcome to give it a try, but I understand your reluctance, while I don't think it's necessary. May the Wikibug bite you in the end... :-)-MexMax 23:22, 21 February 2008 (EST)
I wouldn't have thought it was possible to politicize deconstruction either, but apparently it can be done. You seem good-natured, so I wish you well.--Gigg 23:25, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Yeesh

I want to remove all the quotes and the "examples." They are clumsy and have no place here. Examples should be linked to, not put on the page itself. And quotes should be highly topical and pithy, not nigh-irrelevant.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:44, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that linking to them on separate pages would be an excellent idea. DanH 22:46, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
I see you point, but I do not agree with it. I think it is important to have examples at hand and the quote shows an important aspect of that art. So sorry to see things in a different way. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:49, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
The quotes would still be present if linked to on different pages consisting of those quotations, but the article would look easier to read, and important parts of the quotes could be emphasized or bolded. DanH 22:50, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, Joaquin, you're a sysop. So I guess that's that. Never mind then, I guess the page as-is does illustrate at least one lesson.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:55, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
Sysop or not, it is a pleasure to be in touch with the art, and examples do precisely that! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:59, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm not going to argue with you. I've been blocked too much to do that; I know what happens when you disagree with the people in charge. Please, do what you want here, I'm leaving it all to you :)--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:00, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

If you see in my edit, I save the new material that you added and got with you into an academic exchange of ideas. Never have used any threat and never will as long as we offer reasons and explanations. What is not correct is to make a massive clean up. Sometimes it takes me days to find the right image or the right information. That is why I try to care them. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:10, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Or better yet, new pages could be started for each type of literature that could have more examples so that more examples could be used to better show the types of literature. DanH 22:51, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
That is a better idea. The quotes have been highlighted for long. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:56, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Inappropriate examples?

I hate to make a fuss on my first day here, but I am concerned that Lord Byron may not be the most appropriate example to use here. He is at least as well-known for his shameful, disgusting, and anti-family exploits as for any literary accomplishments he may possess. It is well-documented that he had many extra-marital affairs and at least one illegitimate child, and there is some evidence that some of these were homosexual in nature. He was also a drug abuser.

I do not want to censor Conservapedia, but shouldn't we choose the best possible examples whenever possible? I believe we have a resonsiblity to the chidlren on the internet to provide wholesome role models whenever we can. Literature is a huge field. Can't we find a more morally upright exemplar than Byron? —Asphalt P. Stanky 15:34, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Dan Brown?

Dan Brown? On a literature page!? Please remove that, anyone with sysop rights. Popular he may be, but he certainly does not write anything worthy of the title literature. - Rod Weathers 23:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Personal tools