Talk:The Conquest of Bread

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Hi Sam, While I love this book and think everyone should read it, I disagree with the idea of having book summaries on Wikipedia (the extreme example being the god-awful Atlas Shrugged mess). We're not the Boston Review of Books, and we're not a bookstore... sure, "all human knowledge", and all that, but I think chapter-by-chapter summaries is stretching it... Graft

no- keep the summary up- it saves me being arsed to getting around to reading it- I like getting it in instalments as well ;-) quercus robur

I'll write you a summary and email it to you myself if you like, but why does it have to be on Wikipedia? Ah, whatever... I withdraw my half-hearted objection. Graft

What about what I did at Homage to Catalonia? --Sam 18:25 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I also think the idea of having short chapter reviews is excellent and represents a very useful tool. So Sam, I'm looking forward to the completion of this particular one! Dear Graft, of course there may be cases in which the result is messy, but this is also true for other types of entries. --Nailu


The photo used is of a 1985 reprint cover. As a result I would assume it to be copyrighted and not usable here. Kricxjo 23:34, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think it is useable under fair use since this article is a dedicated discussion of the work. --Sam 20:21, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)