Talk:Modern Library 100 Best Nonfiction
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled
[edit]I rewrote it as a summary, not an infringing list. The list itself is copyrighted, I'm afraid. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018)
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Modern Library 100 Best Nonfiction. 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/20120306013605/http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-nonfiction to http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-nonfiction
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Article needs to be restricted to its subject matter
[edit]In an apparent attempt to appear “fair“ the article diverts into irrelevant subject matter. The article needs a brief statement identifying the members of the board Modern Library selected and the criteria used by Modern Library in selecting them. It should also state any particular procedure followed or criteria applied by the members of the board in selecting the ”100 Bedt Non-Fiction Books.”
The diversion into the 100 favorite books of Aun Rand disciples devalues the article, reducing it to a tit-tat fluff piece about cultural division. A separate article may be in order about the sociological ramifications of selections of “canons,” and the and any contribution of such selections to cultural divisiveness, as well as any contributions of such selections to legitimate pedagogy. Discussion of “The Great Books of the Western World” series would be appropriate in such an article. A list of books chosen by Ayn Rand’s Objectivists might bear discussion, as well, if an objective criteria for selecting or identifying the “electors” and their criteria for selecting books could be distilled into a system of guidance beyond “I liked it.” But attempting to cram that discussion into what should be a brief article for identifying, for encyclopedic purposes only, the Modern Library’s 100 Best series defeats the encyclopedic function of the article. Toddbutler (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)