Talk:Literary forgery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Kinds of Forgery

  • I'm adding the title today: --Ludvikus 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between a "literary" forgery and any other sort? The definition here says, Literary forgery purtains to some writing, such as a manuscript, presented as an original, when in fact it is a fake. But forgery says, Forgery is the process of making or adapting objects or documents (see false document), with the intention to deceive.. A forgery (noun) is the result of the act of forgery; seems to me there's no need for this article at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if there was a difference this could also be included in the regular article on forgery rather then create a pointless stub.--Caranorn 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You guys may agree, nevertheless, the distinction exists.
So your personal Point of View is not relevant to reversion.
Today there was a broadcast on Channel Thirteen (New York City), on the topic of antisemitism in the 21st century. In discussing the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the commentator described the this text as a literary forgery. I intend to defend this stub, as well as contribute towards its development. --Ludvikus 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False document

By the same argument as Jpgordon's's one may ask/say: What's the difference between a "false document" and "forgery? The definition there says:

    A false document is a form of verisimilitude
    that attempts to create in the reader (viewer, audience, etc.)
    a sense of authenticity beyond the normal and expected suspension of disbelief.
    That is, it wants to fool the audience briefly into thinking
    that what is being presented is actually a fact.
    This is not to be confused with a mockumentary,
    an admittedly fictional film done in the manner of a documentary.
    
    In practice, the device takes a very simple form.
    The work of art (be it a text, a moving image, a comic book or whatever)
    usually is composed of or includes some piece of forgery.
    The false document effect can be achieved in many ways
    including faked police reports, newspaper articles,
    bibliographical references and documentary footage.
    The effect can be extended outside of the confines of the text
    by way of supplementary material such as badges,
    ID cards, diaries, letters or other objects.
Clearly, there's a whole article false documents which are also, or involve, forgery.
Accordingly, the mere fact that a literary forgery involves forgery does not deny it the entitlement to a useful WP Article any less that the United States is to be denied an article because there already exists an article for states. Yours truly, Ludvikus 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literary forgeries and mystifications

  • Literary forgeries and mystifications is also a subject category of the US Library of Congress, for classification purposes, of its holdings. Ludvikus 03:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Added the following 2nd sentence:
    Furthermore, in the case of a plagiarism, it is the authorship which is in dispute.
    Whereas in the case of a literary forgery, the text itself is not what it purports to be
    according to its meaning — rather, it is a fabrication which merely appears authentic.

151.202.87.159 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting

I did some copyediting and was reverted, probably because my removal of content was thought of as vandalism. Thus, while reinstating the changes, I'll explain them in detail:

  • The italics in second paragraph are unnecessary, there's no need for special emphasis.
  • Whether "Literary forgeries and mystifications" is a Library of Congress subject category is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is not the Library of Congress catalog.
  • The spelling of "antisemitic" follows the precedent of the linked article.
  • The "About.com list of books" about literary forgery is not encyclopedic content; it may indeed be a copyright violation. It's one of the external links anyway, so an interested reader will be able to find it. At best, we might list some books under a "further reading" heading, but at least one of those ten books isn't about a literary forgery, but is itself a literary forgery.
  • I removed those "See also" entries that were already linked in the article's text. Listing them under "See also" would be uselessly redundant.
  • The article was categorized in Category:False documents twice. I removed one of the instances.

If someone still thinks that some or all of these changes are vandalism, feel free to revert me again, but please also discuss it here. Huon (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)