Talk:Marcel Proust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 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.
August 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Core  This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Top-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject France (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Literature (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

French Jews[edit]

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)

Agree? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC).
Although I note that he wrote much on the theme of being Jewish in a Gentile society (for example Bloch in RoTP). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

Is "Jewish" a race, like Caucasian, Negro, and Mongol?Lestrade (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

In view of the discussion found here, I now admit my original question was ill-posed. I apologize. Nidrosia (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing[edit]

Is Monty Python's "Olympic" event of summarizing Proust worth noting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.211.252 (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC).

Also see[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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:COI WP:Vanity WP:Self promotion WP: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:Sock WP: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’s Animal 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

Apologies for the misplaced irony. WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy of persons, culture or Art. All material in Wikipedia is expected to be backed by multiple independent reliable sources. Blogs do not suffice. It may be that the article WP:What Wikipedia is not needs a new section WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not Art. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC).

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).

"Photo scandal"?[edit]

The photo says it "scandalized his mother, but it doesn't say anywhere in the text how, and one of the figures isn't even mentioned.

188.222.103.162 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Proust copied other writers[edit]

The traditional view of Proust is that he imitated, copied, the writing styles of others. This traditional view should be included in Wikipedia's article, see: http://www.bucknell.edu/script/upress/book.asp?id=2342 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.244.95 (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A trivial blog from a minor university is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC).