Talk:On Beauty

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women writers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Novels Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spadaccisn.

Above undated message substituted from

Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, I prefer to avoid to be unpleasant, but there a moment when the things must be said clearly.

As Zadis Smith is a novelist, it would be the least to have studied literature before to pretend to have an opinion.

Now, it is not surprising that a holder of an associate degree (even in technology) do not manage to understand an article that deals with baroque literature of which the Ulysses of James Joyce belongs to. It is not a matter of capacity, but it is a matter of cultural background: I am sure that the writer of this essay won't be able to fix a dishwhasher, for example! It is normal that a post-graduate text seems "obscure" to the ordinary mortals, but we are into an encyclopedia, not into a dictionnary.

Having said this, it is wrong to say that On beauty is not a novel on carnival: novels do not tell stories only with the fiction, they do it also with their style (what Zadie Smith calls "formalism"), when the writer is an artist: each lover of literature knows this.

Unfortunaltely, it is easy to see how Logical Cowboy is not at ease with textual things: in his comments, he mistook sentence and paragraph (!!!).

It would be better for Mr Logical Cowboy to stop to censor what he does not understand and stop to try to justify himself with petty technical quibbling... all the more because his general knowledge makes of him the King of blue-pencil (12 edits in the last day with 7 for vandalisms!): it borders paranoia !

Moreover, I noticed that for the guardians of wikipedia, each link that does not lead to a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. Now, the encyclopedia has to serve the world understanding and not the contrary: it is just a matter of epistemology...

Best regards.

Deborah Duncan (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah Duncan (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that you are resorting to personal attacks. You don't know me. Let's stick to the rules. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the shame is. As you told very precisely: I don't know you. So let me ask you how how it could be a personal attack (it serves you right for hiding behind a pseudo for censoring texts!)? No, really, I am afraid I just said platitudes when I wrote that it is hard for the ordinary mortals to understand a little bit in-depth work... even if I do think that the richness of your argumentation is really considerable: one sentence on you, what is irrelevant to the subject of the article. It is a shame that non expert people of the question - I should say neophytes - dare to erase texts on the pretxt they are not able to understand anything of what they are reading... and dare kick up a fuss on top of that!

By the way, since when the cowboys neglect their cows to try to take on encyclopedia?

Godspeed!

Deborah Duncan (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted an external link to a personal website, per

http://www.montraykreyol.org/spip.php?article4077

Basically, this is a link to promote a self-published source from someone who is not an established expert.

Also see

Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Your

Snottywong has, in light of the nature of the dispute, given a third opinion by giving this warning. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified 2 external links on On Beauty. 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/20061119214132/http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/author/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002614307 to http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/author/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002614307
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424022549/http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/5-1/5-1hay.html to http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/5-1/5-1hay.html

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.

• 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) 06:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]