From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(although, under circumstances unpublished sources can be exempt)[edit]

Not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Huge problem with article[edit]

Some of the statements in this essay, I wouldn't call it "article", are biased and POV to the point of it being hilarious.
"Literature is usually differentiated from popular and ephemeral classes of writing, and terms such as "literary fiction" and ::"literary merit" are used to denote art-literature rather than vernacular writing."
The above sentence I have removed. It is grammatically incorrect, racist, and makes no sense at all. "Vernacular" writing is not LITERATURE?!!!!!
There are some huge, severe other problems with the way this article has been written, and I am warning the community involved in advance here of a massive rehauling that is coming up on literature. Because when I do so, I hope you will comply and don't you dare edit war.

UnconsciousInferno (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  • It should be noted that the word "literature" is often used to mean a certain canon or a high class of writing. For example:

1. Familiarity with letters or books; knowledge acquired from reading or studying books, esp. the principal classical texts associated with humane learning (see humane adj. 2); literary culture; learning, scholarship. Also: this as a branch of study. Now historical.

The only sense in Johnson (1755) and Todd (1818)
3. b. Without defining word: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit.
- OED, 3rd ed. online

  • Many would be confused if we called any speech, utterance, or baby-talk "literature", even if it is recorded in writing somewhere.
  • That said, there are many literatures and jargons, vernacular and majestical, native to regions and peoples, as real as any.

RonPotato (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a lot that can be done to improve this page, which I also found to be problematic, to put it mildly. As a literature professor and scholar in the field, I'm concerned that this page is inaccurate, incomplete and a very biased article which does not reflect current thinking on the topic. I'll collate some references and see if I can learn what the issues have been through reviewing the history of the literature page. If anyone has any insight, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. (Note, I'm new to Wikipedia, so if I've violated any protocols, please let me know-- but be nice!) Vochek (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Goethe's Early Faust Novels?[edit]

In the section called History, which has many lacunae, particularly between the ancient world and the 19th century, "the German Faust books" are called an early example of the novel. I am assuming that the image of Goethe to the left of this paragraph indicates his Faust is what is being referred to here, although I'm not entirely positive; this because the statement strikes me as completely false. Gulliver's Travels, written 70 years before Faust, was an early novel. Faust (1808) is in verse, and was written only a few years before Sense and Sensibility and The Red and the Black. In other words, the novel was already becoming established, growing out of romances and short fiction, and Faust is not part of that history. The psychological issues explored in Faust may have influenced later novels, but that is a different matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Article needs an overhaul[edit]

The article is confused enough to be close to misinformation, IMO. I'll try to copy edit a bit in the coming weeks. Could use help from people comfortable with literary history, theory, etc... Beyond the English language, even better. OttawaAC (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

talking back............[edit]

the subject of literature is an advanced subject for people who read.

nya811 Nya pritchett 01:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nya811 (talkcontribs)

Overhaul Plans[edit]

I plan to incorporate the following changes to the article (as part of the Core Contest):

  1. Model the article around the FA Law, as another topic with an expansive scope
  2. Drastically reduce the size of the Poetry section, which should be included under the topic of techniques/major forms; also to incorporate material from the FA Poetry YesY
  3. Add a section on Literary theory and Literary criticism
  4. Add a section on Literary awards
  5. Add a section on Definition of literature YesY

If there are any suggestions or queries, please raise them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Are encyclopediae literature?[edit]

Given the definition(s) in this article, are encyclopediae literature? More generally speaking, are either reference works or compendia non-fiction literature that should be mentioned in Template:Literature or do they lack 'literary merit'? Maybe the template is missing an entry about written works that merely provide factual information? -- (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Any reason the lead of this article keeps going from something like "Literature, in its broadest sense, is any kind of writing" to "Literature, in its broadest sense, consists of writing"? Why is "consists" a more preferred verb than "is"? Wolfdog (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Due to the lack of discussion, I'm changing the lead back to "is". Wolfdog (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Going Deeper[edit]

While I think that the article is well written and cited there are a few topics I believe you could have gone into more depth about. While you mention some awards I feel like you could talk about a few more and even discuss what the awards are for. Another topic that I felt couple be talked about more is the genre's in literature. It talks about there being some but doesn't talk about what they are. The last subject I feel like you could've incorporated more information on is the essay section. While it's not a major part of the literature world it is one of the most used forms of literature so I feel there should be more information on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hananhrose5512 (talkcontribs) 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The text you added to the section on essays dealt with academic essays, which is not a literary genre. I also believe that the addition read like an instruction (for instance, it addressed the reader directly), which is not something a Wikipedia article should do. There are also many other articles about literature, such as Literary genre, where you might find more detailed info. This article could definitely be improved - all articles can be improved - but it's always good to check first to see if what you want to add is perhaps covered in another article. --bonadea contributions talk 14:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Literature. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)