Talk:Rubyfruit Jungle

Initial post

Much ado about nothing.
This page is for developing the article Rubyfruit Jungle, not debating unrelated trivialities. If you'd like to discuss exactly how dickish or trollish one can be in talk page comments, go here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Danger (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Could this be called a "lick and tell" novel, or would that be another kettle of (bad smelling) fish?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.37.142 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Why is this even here? It's pointless and offensive, and pretty much fails at covering any of the :Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines. Mapsandlegends 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC) It is also a very obvious troll. It should therefore be deleted under WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL which states, "It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling ...". I deleted the offensive comment, but my edit has been reverted. Unless there are objections posted here I will delete it again (along with this accompanying discussion). HairyWombat 20:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Yes I object. God knows why you're choosing to re-open a five-year-old case of what is minor childishness at best. WP:TPO states, "Removing harmful posts generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 21:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I don't think this rises to the level of needing to be removed. At most, maybe set this talk to be auto archived by one of the bots. (Third Opinion) Monty845 21:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Remove. Just vandalism. The guidelines for Talk assume the material someone wants to delete is part of aggressive debate about the entry at hand. It's not even invective -- it's not part of a debate at all. It's pure vandalism. If this comment were made in the "Edit summary" field in the course of an edit, it would be removed promptly. As this should be. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC) What are you talking about? How does one remove an edit summary?! And which part of WP:TPO mandates removal of the comment above? ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Editors with the appropriate privileges can modify an "edit summary". I've seen it a number of times. As for the issue at hand, the MoS tells us it is proper to remove vandalism from a talk page, and the definition of vandalism includes: "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page,..." Does anyone contend this is not "crude humor"? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Please read WP:TPO and then tell me which clause mandates the removal of the above comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 15:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 1. "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." It then counsels care, which I think this discussion demonstrates. And then follow the link to the definition of vandalism I've already cited. 2. The policy of deference to what is posted is designed to protect very robust debate, including the use of personal insult and invective in debate. The comment at issue was not a contribution to a debate in the first place. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC) The passage you quoted went on to say (and I'm sure it was just pure chance that you forgot to mention this, just like it was pure chance that you've canvassed an editor who shares your views to return to this ludicrous discussion, from which they very sensibly withdrew), "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil." And that's all the comment above is. Slightly silly incivility. This thread, on the other hand, is extremely silly. Why the fuck are you and HairyWombat stirring up this five year old issue? Go and do something useful for Heaven's sake. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 16:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Archive. I wouldn't mind removal except it's been five years, so it's become part of the talk viewed by perhaps large numbers of editors. I suggest a one-month archiving wait. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"As Commentary on Cold War Communism"? Really?

A few months ago, User:65.96.92.140 added: "Several critics have posited that the work is largely an allegorical representation of, and commentary on, fascist political movements of the mid Cold War, East Germany most specifically." Citation was to Strobel, Katja. Wandern, Mäandern, Erzählen: Die Pikara als Grenzgängerin des Subjekt. Munich, Germany: Fink. 1998.

I'm not going to mess with this verifiably cited claim, but does anyone else find it a little bit goofy? Literary scholars love to make far-fetched, speculative connections -- that's how they get tenure -- but having this particular one in a very brief article on this book seems unfair to the high school student who is trying to write a book report on "Rubyfruit Jungle". Couldn't it be something like, "Literary critics have applied a wide variety of readings to this novel, among others, that..."

That being said, if in fact this is a mainstream and plausible view among Rita Mae Brown experts, I withdraw the comment. (I didn't know until reading this article that she got a PhD in political science, so maybe she was immersed in Cold War German politics while writing Rubyfruit Jungle? Llajwa 12:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this. The source cited is in German and very difficult to access, no page number is given, and the comment makes no sense. The heading says the book is a comment on 'Communism', and then the text says it's a comment on 'fascism'! (and since when was East Germany "fascist"?). It may be based on something legitimate, as the book is real enough, but per WP:REDFLAG it seems too problematic as it stands. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)