Talk:List of controversial books
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there any great book ever written that was not controversial at some time?
Contents |
[edit] First Edit?
I cleaned up the first chunk a bit, giving a more uniform sentence-like structure, and removing the periods at the end of the ones that still had them. I added a couple of descriptions to those that were missing them, and made some key terms into internal links. The words I chose to make into links were based on things that I could imagine a reader wanting to go more in-depth about, say, the casual Wikisurfer. I hope this helped.
Forgot to sign this previous entry.
Minidoxigirli 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unencyclopedic Tone
I'm a bit bothered by the unencyclopedic tone of this article. I think this is a good topic for a list, but an encyclopedia entry, even an introduction to a list, should not "sigh" at the reader and then direct contributors to please do this, please do that, etc. And apparently the purpose of this encyclopedia entry is for people to "express themselves"? It reads like a collective entry on a 'blog rather than an encyclopedic article.
Wikipedia policy states When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. I certainly don't expect to find an encyclopedia list of controversial books composed from "intentionally loose" criteria just so those who wrote the list can "express themselves." This introduction reads like a chatty instruction manual of somewhat arbitrary rules and restrictions. Wikipedia guidelines state Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics.
This article is a good idea, but it doesn't seem very well executed in its present form. I'd suggest a re-write of the introduction in a more polished, encyclopedic tone. 66.17.118.207 16:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think entries here should be backed up by references -- one person's idea of controversy may be another's literary gem; and any book is going to be 'controversial' to someone, somewhere. The article is also somewhat duplicated by others: there's already articles listing banned books and 'most challenged' (in the US) books, why do we need this one? What titles would (or should) exist in THIS list of 'controversial' books that would not be found in a list of 'banned' or 'most challenged' books? If a book is not 'controversial' enough to actually be banned or challenged somewhere, is it truly controversial enough to be on a list of controversial books? Those other articles are also backed by some pretty solid references instead of just one's opinion. vmz 10:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] One Liners
What the hell does "NISM" mean? --192.156.102.6 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It means "Need I Say More". There are many points in the article that need to be cleaned up, and this needs to be closed to new users. It's open vandalism. Why they're targeting this article, I don't know.
[edit] put it in a table?
I don't know how to do it (or else I already would have) but I think that this would be sooooo much easier to read if it is in a table, kinda like the banned books article. Avatar of Nothing 13:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing
- Also, Why not arrange it by letter, rather then A-M and N-Z? That seems a bit too broad to be useful if a person is looking for a specific book.Avatar of Nothing 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing
- I agree with both ideas. I think this list should be like the banned books list.
[edit] Justice of Roosting Chickens
Is not a book, but an essay 86.128.7.84 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, originally. Has been expanded and published as a book, though. Robina Fox 10:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Harry Potter
I am returning this to the list - however bizarre, the "anti-Harry Potter" controversy has been extensively reported in the international press and has books, videos and web pages devoted to it - including its own page in Wikipedia: Religious opposition to the Harry Potter series. Robina Fox 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I'll observe that the main reporting in the international media has been from a "what on earth are those weirdoes up to now" slant. --Tony Sidaway 11:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
