Difference between revisions of "Talk:Anne Rice"
From Conservapedia
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:::::Rice's conversion appears to be a marketing move, half-hearted at best, seeking to sell novels to a wider audience while garnering attention. The last thing we should be doing is advertising her through a needlessly lengthly article, in my humble opinion. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:37, 22 November 2008 (EST) | :::::Rice's conversion appears to be a marketing move, half-hearted at best, seeking to sell novels to a wider audience while garnering attention. The last thing we should be doing is advertising her through a needlessly lengthly article, in my humble opinion. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:37, 22 November 2008 (EST) | ||
::::::Unsurprisingly, considering that I wrote large sections of this article, I have to agree with JZim. Ed, why did you delete practically the entire article? I will at least restore the stuff I wrote since it was sourced and factual (I had witnessed the clash on Amazon live back then - it was fun, in a weird sense). And there are lots of sources about her faith and conversion, so why did you delete those sections? With your permission, I'd like to revert your edits with the promise to find more sources and flesh it out. I'm no fan of Rice myself (she became famous for novels she later openly left behind, and I seriously doubt that her Christianity-related books would have become so famous without her Vampire Chronicles fanbase, so I also agree with Rod to a degree), but I won't let personal opinion influence me writing a factual article. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:39, 22 November 2008 (EST) | ::::::Unsurprisingly, considering that I wrote large sections of this article, I have to agree with JZim. Ed, why did you delete practically the entire article? I will at least restore the stuff I wrote since it was sourced and factual (I had witnessed the clash on Amazon live back then - it was fun, in a weird sense). And there are lots of sources about her faith and conversion, so why did you delete those sections? With your permission, I'd like to revert your edits with the promise to find more sources and flesh it out. I'm no fan of Rice myself (she became famous for novels she later openly left behind, and I seriously doubt that her Christianity-related books would have become so famous without her Vampire Chronicles fanbase, so I also agree with Rod to a degree), but I won't let personal opinion influence me writing a factual article. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:39, 22 November 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | =="please join discussion first, Alan"== | ||
| + | Ed, you deleted the article completely with discussion and then (after at least restoring it) completely wiped it clean, again without discussion. Why do you insist on replacing mostly sourced (and definitely sourcable in the other cases) information with a butchered stub? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:49, 22 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 21:49, November 22, 2008
Don't gloss over her pornographic novels. Did she write them while she was an atheist or what? --Ed Poor Talk 15:35, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- Answering that one would have been easier if you hadn't deleted the article with the various sources, but from what I recall (and without doing research from scratch), (1) her porno novels were early works and (2) her full return to Christianity was fairly recently (after most of her vampire stories which made her so famous, I would assume).
- Going by very blurry memory, I think she stated that she gladly left the Vampire Chronicles behind her now and would only write Christianity-related things, but that she didn't explicitly distance herself from her earlier works (which would include the porn). I'd look it up, but without an article to put that info in, it's sort of a moot point, really. --AlanS 15:50, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- Perhaps we should delete all articles about atheism and liberals, in addition to deleting the Anne Rice article content. Apparently the only thing Anne Rice did in her entire life was become an atheist.
- Less sarcasm, please.--Ed Poor Talk 16:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- My apologies. But seriously, adding encyclopaedic content to an article does not constitute "puffing it up". The old version seemed to me to be relatively free of bias.--JZim 16:27, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- Rice's conversion appears to be a marketing move, half-hearted at best, seeking to sell novels to a wider audience while garnering attention. The last thing we should be doing is advertising her through a needlessly lengthly article, in my humble opinion. RodWeathers 16:37, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- Unsurprisingly, considering that I wrote large sections of this article, I have to agree with JZim. Ed, why did you delete practically the entire article? I will at least restore the stuff I wrote since it was sourced and factual (I had witnessed the clash on Amazon live back then - it was fun, in a weird sense). And there are lots of sources about her faith and conversion, so why did you delete those sections? With your permission, I'd like to revert your edits with the promise to find more sources and flesh it out. I'm no fan of Rice myself (she became famous for novels she later openly left behind, and I seriously doubt that her Christianity-related books would have become so famous without her Vampire Chronicles fanbase, so I also agree with Rod to a degree), but I won't let personal opinion influence me writing a factual article. --AlanS 16:39, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- Rice's conversion appears to be a marketing move, half-hearted at best, seeking to sell novels to a wider audience while garnering attention. The last thing we should be doing is advertising her through a needlessly lengthly article, in my humble opinion. RodWeathers 16:37, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- My apologies. But seriously, adding encyclopaedic content to an article does not constitute "puffing it up". The old version seemed to me to be relatively free of bias.--JZim 16:27, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- Less sarcasm, please.--Ed Poor Talk 16:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)
"please join discussion first, Alan"
Ed, you deleted the article completely with discussion and then (after at least restoring it) completely wiped it clean, again without discussion. Why do you insist on replacing mostly sourced (and definitely sourcable in the other cases) information with a butchered stub? --AlanS 16:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)
