Talk:Modern Language Association

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

Untitled 19 August 2005[edit]

The link to the New York Review of Books article added by an anonymous user is very interesting but, given that it the content is almost 40 years old, seems like it needs context at the very least. I would urge the anonymous user to either comment in this space or add to the article a line or two explaining the link. Chick Bowen 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


The "Times New Roman" typeface is getting OLD![edit]

How long have they required the Times New Roman typeface for college term papers now? We're already in the 21st century, so why don't we see a new, 21st-century font? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shultz (talkcontribs) 10:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of this... if you look at a very large TNR latter compared to a large Calibri letter, you will see that without the curly things, the letters in Calibri are smaller. This means there is less ink used in the long run. 24.92.138.9 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the controversies?[edit]

I was looking for material on the controveries and criticisms of the MLA, I u/s that the group has taken a leftward bent in recent years, advocates "gender inclusive" language etc., but I see nothing of that here? Is this just hearsay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talkcontribs) 20:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

See the 1968 (!) letter linked in external links and the 1972 article cited in further reading sections (dates of publication); the "leftward bent" occurred decades ago. By scholars of professional language and literature studies, using "'gender inclusive' language" (phrase used by unsigned commenter above) is not considered "leftward" anymore. Such usage as "he and she," "his and hers"/"she and he"/"hers and his"; or alternation between "he" and "she" etc(other examples needed, however of what the person who didn't sign the above comment meant) is generally now conventional. If one wants to know more, one can examine the MLA official webpage, read PMLA articles, and do one's own research. One does not have to depend on this Wikipedia article itself if one wants to learn more about the organization. One can just "Google" "MLA" etc. A great deal of information is accessible to any interested party. This article is still basically a stub, I think. A decade ago there was a session at the MLA proposed on the "politics" of "gender" and it is still a current topic of interest. Alternative organizations to the MLA have been established over a decade ago: e.g., the Association of Literary Scholars and Critics; see also one of its member organizations, called the National Association of Scholars. --NYScholar 19:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a student at my high school. I am truly sick of the environmental impact the MLA has by forcing certain standards. I truly believe this should be a legitimate criticism of the MLA. For example, single-sided pages are a waste of paper, since nothing is written on the other side usually anyway. I am also disgusted by the one-inch margins, which are a waste of space for final drafts (which require less editing room because they are supposedly already proofread). Times New Roman is also proven to waste more ink in the very long run than sans-serif fonts like Calibri and Arial. Unfortunately, I have tried searching criticisms of the MLA, but I have not found any. Could anyone provide some sites where such controversies are explained? 24.92.138.9 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Example[edit]

How about an example citation for Wikipedia? It would especialy help with those of us who can't figure out whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or a web source. :) Stale Fries 23:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. The article on the MLA is not the place for this information (nor even is the MLA style manual article), because of Wikipedia's policy to avoid self-references. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, if one wants to know more information about an online source (like Wikipedia itself), one needs to do some research on one's own, such as accessing main pages (home pages, welcome pages, index pages) and reading FAQ or "About" pages if they are posted. Clearly, Wikipedia describes itself as an "online encyclopedia" that is not "peer-reviewed." Those who write articles for Wikipedia are anyone who participates in it; the "peers" are other Wikipedia editors (anyone can edit Wikipedia) and it is "open source." See Wikipedia: Main Page and other informational links throughout Wikipedia involving editing policies and practices, including Wikipedia:FAQ. --NYScholar 20:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Kimball and Kramer dubious?[edit]

Someone put a "dubious — discuss" tag on the info by Roger Kimball and Hilton Kramer. Please outline issue. I've cited, it by the way. Poorly, but nevertheless.The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A note here that if anyone disagrees with this edit, that they please raise it here and let us discuss. Greetings. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The current refactored version of the paragraph by Tom Harris is much improved. I called dubious because in its original form, all of the claims by Kimball and Kramer were presented as though factual, when in actuality they are elements of an argument according to one perspective. Citing Kimball and Kramer's critique can be useful, certainly, but as it originally stood the paragraph could have easily mislead the casual reader, who might not dig any further into the dispute to realise that perspectives voiced in The New Criterion are just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.153.28 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that it should certainly be clear to every reader that the opinions of Kramer and Kimball are the opinions of Kramer and Kimball (or, shall we call them KK?) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate to include that sentence by itself--it violates the undue weight clause. The only external critique of this organization (one which has been endlessly discussed in any number of outlets) comes from a 15-year-old article in a right-wing magazine? That's hardly neutral. If someone wants to write a neutral and more comprehensive account that would include Kimball's view, fine. But as it is it's not within Wikipedia policy. I'm removing the sentence. Chick Bowen 01:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
What? How does it violate undue weight? No, it doesn't. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Conference dates[edit]

I suggest to remove the details about MLA conference dates; that kind of information is much better left to the organisation's website and newsletters – Wikipedia is not a directory.

I also recommend reading Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Modern_Language_Association; it's full of Emoticon angry-red.png – readers are clearly missing information here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The modern language quarterly (a modern language association publication)[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=rGkKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Jerezembel (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)