Talk:History of literature

message: Hello all, I have just created a brand new Wikiproject for Literature (there's not even any text in the entry :) ) and I would like to incorporate this article, and all related articles, into that Project - please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Talk page for more info. I would much appreciate ongoing contributions and thoughts! Thanks. Simonides 11:31, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wikiproject! 

message: At the moment I'm writing within the sections which already exist but later, when I've got the details in there, I think it will make more sense to merge the "New World" bits into the European ones under the collective name of "literature  in the European languages". The language the work is written in has more bearing upon it than the geographical location or the nationality of the writer. For the moment I'll carry on separating European writers from American, Canadian, Latin American and Australasian etc ones. 
--wayland 13:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, great work you're doing. I had hoped to do more on this article myself, but have been busy with other things. I agree that a language focus may be good for western and Arabic lit, but wonder if you'd want to go that route for, say, India or Chinese-language writing in Japan? And how reflect the fact that Romanticism or Modernism transcend both national and linguistic boundaries? Probably a flexible mix of language, nationality, period and cultural grouping is best? Filiocht 15:36, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I'd just like to note that there's a big difference between a narrative history and a timeline of dates, texts, and authors.  Right now the article is a weird mix of the two, which is fine because any of these is much better than the endless "to be added" tags that this article used to be.  But at some point it might be better to move the timeline content to its own article and replace it with brief paragraphs that pick out truly significant stuff. -- Rbellin 19:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing content of sections

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :History of literature's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Toomer-222":
From Early Islamic philosophy: G. J. Toomer (1996), Eastern Wisedome and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth-Century England, p. 222, Oxford University Press, .
From Hayy ibn Yaqdhan: G. J. Toomer (1996), Eastern Wisedome and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth-Century England, p. 222, Oxford University Press, .
From Ibn Tufail: G. J. Toomer (1996), Eastern Wisedome and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth-Century England, p. 222, Oxford University Press, .
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:History of literature]] 

message: Given the great scope of this article, meaning words allocated to any individual work must necessarily be few, there's far too much detail on The Arabian Nights. In the section Islamic World I propose...:
* Keep paras beginning...
** The most well known fiction from the Islamic world...
** This epic has been influential in the West since...
* Remove (and maybe place in the Arabian Nights own article) the para beginning...
** A number of stories within the...
--bodnotbod (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much on the Arabian Nights given exceptional scope of the article. 

message: ...it is in desperate need of a broader outlook. --bodnotbod (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section "Early modern period" is greatly over-balanced by coverage of England. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626154647/http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/equalities/muslims-in-london.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/equalities/muslims-in-london.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206072116/http://www.islamset.com/isc/nafis/drroubi.html to http://www.islamset.com/isc/nafis/drroubi.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206072116/http://www.islamset.com/isc/nafis/drroubi.html to http://www.islamset.com/isc/nafis/drroubi.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can I add this to the end of the 2.3.2 Latin Literature subsection?
However, much of Roman literature has been lost. Classicist Catherine Nixey estimates that 98% of Ancient Roman literature was destroyed by Christians.
: That is just one opinion, & that is a rather superficial review of her book. There were numerous reasons why much of Classical literature was lost, most importantly there were few organized or formal efforts to preserve written literature: beyond the few titles of the literary canon used by grammatici & rhetores in teaching, the survival of written works were at the mercy of what contemporaries thought was worth the labor of copying. Or to put it another way, if you had to write out or pay someone to manufacture & write out every new book you wanted to own, you wouldn't help preserve many works. Modern research has indicated the reason the works of Sappho were lost is not due to Christian prejudice, but because her poems were in a dialect of ancient Greek that was hard for medieval Greek speakers to understand, & combined with changing tastes, there was insufficient interest in replacing worn-out copies of her works. (The sack of Constantinople by Western Crusaders in 1204 also did not help: who knows how many rare manuscripts were lost in that action?) -- llywrch (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christians destroying literature 

message: द हिस्ट्री ऑफ लिटरेचर इज द हिस्टोरिकल डेवलपमेंट ऑफ राइटिंग इन द ग्रोथ और प्रॉपर्टी डेटेटाइम टो प्रोवाइड इंटरटेनमेंट इंग्लिश मेंटर इंस्ट्रक्शन टू द रीडर लेसनर ऑब्जर्वर एस वेल एस द डेवलपमेंट ऑफ द लिटरेसी टेक्निक्स यूज्ड इन द कम्युनिकेशन ऑफ दिस पीसीएस 2409:4063:4108:B003:342:8FD0:83F6:A55 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: Impact of history in literature 2409:4060:2E83:EC9F:5645:8AEC:7394:DF7F (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: Several omissions here:
* There is no discussion of oral literature, which obviously predates writing, & was a major medium of literature -- perhaps more important than written literature -- into modern times.
* In parallel with this is the rise of the Internet as a medium of literature, not only websites with collections of writings, but as creating new genres (e.g. Internet memes).
* There is still not enough attention to diversity: nothing about the literature of Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, or of native Americans. (Which is why oral literature needs to be covered.)
I suspect these omissions -- & others I have not noticed -- are due to this article's origins. If one looks at the earliest drafts, it's apparent that they were not written with any careful preparation but cover what first came to mind. Subsequent revisions failed to step back & consider a wider context -- which is good in a way, because otherwise we'd be fighting the infection of Poststructural navel-gazing & the jargon of intellectual masturbation. -- llywrch (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I know there is no discussion on oral literature 105.112.233.55 (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: How 105.112 105.112.233.55 (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of literature 

message: List and discuss ten advantage and a disadvantage of literature 41.191.104.74 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  LILTERATURE