Marcel Proust was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
From WP:EGRS: Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic. Hence, the categroy "French Jews" should probably be omitted from this article, see ongoing discussion here. Nidrosia (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Xxanthippe -- I am very new to editing Wikipedia, so I don't know whether this the right place to write this or not? I have already made a few false starts which may cause confusion among editors and for those I am truly sorry. I recently made two minor edits to the Proust article in the "See also" section, adding "London 2001" to Jacqueline Rose's novel "Albertine" and the details of my own novel ("According to Albertine", a sequel to "A la recherche du temps perdu" by R L Snowdon, Kindle ebook 2012.) These edits have both been removed more than once (I believe by you [Xxanthippe]) as self-promotion. I feel that this crit cannot apply to the Rose addition, but agree that the posting of my novel is partly that, but also a simple statement of fact. Visitors to Amazon's Kindle Book Store will see that there is an independent Editorial Review of the book by Liz Heron (and so it is not simple "vanity" publishing) as well as a description of its genesis in the Preface with an explanation of how it connects with Jacqueline Rose's book. And even "vanity publishing" is changing, as Amanda Hocking points out ("The Guardian" 01/12/12) -- "2012 is the year in which self-publishing grew up." I am writing this because I feel I really need to discuss the edits with Xxanthippe but, so far, keep running out of space in the "edit summary box". Not clever enough to know whether Xxanthippe will access this page, but (if you do) can we chat? And what are four tildes? ____Reg Snowdon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reg Snowdon (talk • contribs) 17:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Your contributions to Wikipedia have consisted entirely of self-promotion by repeatedly adding references to your own book to the article. You admit this. Wikipedia deplores such conduct, see WP:COIWP:VanityWP:Self promotionWP:Spa. If your book is judged to be significant enough to be included in the article then other editors are sure to add it with reasons why it is notable enough to be included in an article about such a prominent person, but remember WP:SockWP:Meat. I have removed the reference to your book from the article as there is no evidence that it is important enough for inclusion. If you persist in restoring it the matter may go to third parties. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC).
Xxanthippe, it is presumptuous of you to speak as though there are universal, objective standards in art. All criteria have been removed for over a century now. Snowdon’s book has as much a right as the books by Jacqueline Rose and Kate Taylor to be mentioned in the article. If the book provides subjective pleasure and/or instruction for a reader, then it has achieved its purpose. Xxanthippe’s subjective opinion is as valuable or as worthless as any other person’s. Equality and fairness are the ends and goals in our contemporary culture.Lestrade (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
Thank you for your input, it is valuable to have the opinions of other editors in matters such as this. Cultural relativism is a philosophy that is still alive and well despite the battering it got from the Sokal hoax. Although fairness is a feature of Wikipedia policy, equality is not. Some sources are more equal than others. Wikipedia requires multiple independent reliable sources to testify, for example, that a book provides "subjective pleasure and/or instruction for a reader", as you put it. If you can find them please use them. As for the Rose book the guideline WP:other stuff exists warns against its overuse. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC).
It’s difficult to understand what you are trying to communicate when you say, "Some sources are more equal than others." This sentence is a Stalinesque misuse of adjectives that is employed by the dictatorial character Napoleon in Orwell’sAnimal Farm. There are no grades or degrees of equality. There are no criteria in contemporary art. Snowdon’s book has equal rights with Rose’s book and Taylor’s book.Lestrade (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
Since I started the above conversation, perhaps I may be permitted to attempt a conclusion? First, thanks to Xxanthippe in particular for directing me to the Wikipedia guidelines on "self-promotion," after reading which I agree that entering my novel under "Proust: See also" was, to say the least, sailing dangerously near the wind. Perhaps writers of sequels, because they are deliberately hanging-on to the coat-tails of their betters, become a little insensitive to the operation of such principles? However that may be, my concluding suggestion is that works such as mine and Jacqueline Rose's might be better accommodated away from the Proust page, finding their proper home on a new page entitled "Marcel Proust: fan fiction" (on analogy with the existing page "Jane Austen: fan fiction.") Should this suggestion find acceptance, for obvious reasons I feel I am not the right person to take the initiative. Bonne chance, whoever you are! [User talk: Reg Snowdon] 14 December 2012 (UTC).