Talk:Controversial literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Controversial literature is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Last one was Better

No offense but this version of the Controversial literature article is just awful and I have to question the writers refrense. Tony360X's version of Controversial literature article was much better and more useful. All this guy did was got a good thing deleted just so he can put unessary crap as a replacment. - BigFrank100

For anyone considering taking the above opinion seriously, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tony360X and Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Tony360X. pbryan 19:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC) See also [1]. pbryan 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok seriously, no offense, but your fucking doush with nothing better to do or contribut. All you seem to do is harras me and Tony360X cause your probly boning the new guy who wrote this page. So do something for useful or shut the hell up you fucking wine-o. – BingFrank100
Wikipedia is not the place for Bill Hicks-esque outbursts. Artiste-extraordinaire 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out an observasion I see in pbryan - BingFrank100
I think the current version is much better.--Bryson 01:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity - Controversial literature

Hey, you guys, keep it cool.

I created this stub originally, and I did not think it would cause a problem.
Librarians classify books by judging if they merit the designation of "Controversial literature."
Here's an example: [2].
Yours truly,

--Ludvikus 09:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

'Controversial' as used by the Library of Congress only means 'controverting' a particular religion or one of its beliefs. It doesn't have to be racist, or otherwise offensive (though it may well be). It can even be done by, say, a Protestant writing in opposition to a position held by other Protestants. Omassey 14:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Library of Congress

DATABASE: Library of Congress Online Catalog
INFORMATION FOR: Controversial literature
Scope Note:
Search under "subdivision Controversial literature"
under names of individual religious and monastic orders, individual religions, Christian denominations, and uniform titles of sacred works for works that argue against or express opposition to those groups or works
  • It seems clear to me - from the above - that the subject matter, as far as the LOC is concerned, involves only religious texts. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's more from the LOC:

"Controversial literature
Use as form subdivision ($v) under individual religions, denominations, religious and monastic orders, and sacred works for works that argue against or express opposition to those groups or works. The subdivision is no longer to be used under general religious and philosophical topics. H1472" Guide to the Usage of LCSH Free-Floating Form Subdivisions
--Ludvikus (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)