Talk:Controversial literature (Library of Congress Subject Headings)

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 Suspected sock puppets/Tony360X and Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Tony360X. pbryan 19:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC) See also . 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)

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:.
 * 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)

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)

Delete this article?
How in the world does a subject heading subdivision merit an encyclopedia article? JBH23 (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Compare the wholly different first version which concentrates on anti-Semitic publications. No articles link here. I'll propose it for deletion. Omassey (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)