Talk:Purpose

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Purpose page.


Unsourced[edit]

Published sources should be provided before moving these back into the article
  • "Our purpose is to understand that our purpose is to understand our purpose." ~ David Packouz
  • "I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast. And when I run I feel His pleasure." ~ Eric Liddell
  • "We are here on Earth to do good to others. What the others are here for, I don't know." ~ W.H. Auden

Removed quotes[edit]

  • The purpose and cause of the incarnation was that He might illuminate the world by His wisdom and excite it to the love of Himself.
    • Peter Abelard, as quoted in "The Abelardian Doctrine Of The Atonement" (1892), published in Doctrine and Development : University Sermons (1898) by Hastings Rashdall, p. 138}}

Tangential, the quote is about incarnation, not about purpuse itself.

  • Plato defined a slave as one who accepts from another the purposes which control his conduct. This condition obtains even where there is no slavery in the legal sense. It is found wherever men are engaged in activity which is socially serviceable, but whose service they do not understand and have no personal interest in.

Not about purpuse.

  • The United States would seek more than the mere reduction or elimination of atomic materials for military purposes. It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.

Purpuse is only mentioned once, and not the center of the quote wich not elaborate on the subject.

Not about purpose

  • Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose.

Only mentioned once and not the center of the quote, tangential

  • It was Richard Parker who calmed me down. It is the irony of this story that the one who scared me witless to start with was the very same who brought me peace, purpose, I dare say even wholeness.

About Richard Parker and not about purpuse itself.

  • Painless preaching is as good a term as any for what we do. If you're going to come away from a party singing the lyrics of a song, it is better that you sing of self-pride like 'We're a Winner' instead of 'Do the Boo-ga-loo!'

Not about purpose

The quote is about Roosevelt and not purpose itself.

  • It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.

Not about purpuse itself, tangential.

  • It is particularly important that all moneys received or expended for campaign purposes should be publicly accounted for, not only after election, but before election as well. Political action must be made simpler, easier, and freer from confusion for every citizen.
    • Theodore Roosevelt, in a speech at Osawatomie, Kansas (31 August 1910), published in The New Nationalism (1910)

Not about purpuse itself, tangential. Rupert Loup 08:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


If the quotes you removed from the article as of my typing this, you're wrong about Aberlard. That quotes about purpose --1.136.111.245 09:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That quote is not comprehensible out of context, purpose is not the center of it. Saying that I'm wrong but not elaborate on it doesn't make an argument for its inclusion. Rupert Loup 13:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Quotations that merely mention the article topic but do not provide Wikiquote readers with information or insight regarding the article topic are not relevant. See Wikiquote:Theme pages. ~ Peter1c (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Purpose is an important part of the quote - but not central is my point. --1.136.105.34 05:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Kalki: we alredy discuss this, the consensus is that is not about purpose, it's off topic and the very same user said this is "not central" to the article. Rupert Loup 10:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
There had in recent months been a significant removal of many quotes that had long existed on this page, which I have now restored, as I believe they quite adequately relate to or involve the theme of "purpose" or purposes and relevant contexts involving either. I do not believe that "purpose" or any other theme actually needs to be "central" or "primary" matter of such quotes on a theme page, though it usually should be a clearly prominent portion of them. I do not have much more time to discuss matters, as I will have to be leaving again soon, but I might, perhaps, have more time to get more actively and extensively involved in some of the disputes that have arisen in regard to many issues on the project within the next month or so. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 11:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Kalki: An how there are a clearly prominent portion of them, they are only menioned once in a very minor way? That doesn't explain why the consensus is wrong. Many users, like Peter1c and Ningauble [1], have been cleen up articles by removing tangential and irrelevant content so readers can find easely relevant content. Why we need to have this quotes that only mention the word tangentialy? Rupert Loup 12:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Responsible additions and removal have gone on for years, but I have noted that increasingly there is MUCH edit warring going on, as a very few people ARE inclined to remove many quotes from articles, often for reasons I consider rather lame or spurious, as well as even fewer who are inclined to add them for reasons I consider tenuous, strained, extremely obscure, unclear or spurious. I certainly do not believe "the consensus" is wrong — but you seem to be stating or implying that YOUR view ALONE, in removing them from this article, is actually the established "consensus" here. You ALONE proceeded to remove many quotes as being in some manner "not relevant" in your opinion, even when they were long-standing quotes provided by many others, and though there were some clear objections to their removal, and you seem to have simply pronounced YOUR logic on the matter sufficient. I generally am quite willing to accept inclusion of broad ranges of quotes in article, even those I strongly disagree with, and generally am not inclined to remove the additions of others unless they clearly have very little or no relevance, or clearly are simply forms of vandalism or trolling. Certainly some people are inclined to be more restrictive in various ways which I am not, but I do not believe that they represent any established "consensus" on such matters. I can agree that there are many quotes in some articles which do have little relevance and can properly be removed, but MOST of the quotes recently removed from this article I believe clearly do relate rather strongly to the subjects of purpose and purposes, and some "tangential" matters also stated in some which were "trimmed" out actually provide very significant context which is also relevant to the meaning and proper interpretations of the statements. I have very little time left to do things here for a while, as I must be leaving within a few minutes, and am preparing to do so, and am only likely to glance very briefly at the computer before I go. [I stated that some time ago, and now have NO time, as every time I went to post there was a new "edit conflict" — I am leaving NOW.] ~ Kalki·· 12:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
See above the comment of Peter, this is not my view alone and I don't know were you get that, you are not explaining how the quotes are strongly related, being long-stading is not a valid justification to not be challenged, good quotes are concise and on point per WQ guidelines so that irreleant content that was trimmed or removed should no be here unless a good justification is given. I want to hear what othe users hace to say. Rupert Loup 14:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the typos, I wrote it from my phone. Rupert Loup 14:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
These quotes about iterations of purpose are on par with my recently deleted addition to law, deleted as of today which no administrator apparently saw for the months it was there and felt the need to remove. I would like to hear Kalki explain the difference between these edits they are so passionately defending, and my own quotation taken from Alan Moore's run on Swamp Thing, a comic book, that if I had to bet money on, I'm guessing Kalki has actually read before and also enjoyed, (my apologies if this inductive reasoning and guessing comes across as "omniscience"). I would really like to know why tenuously connected quotes are acceptable on one intangible theme page, and not the other is not, as it would seemingly greatly assist several editors and not just myself in how best to contribute to Wikiquote.
I have some experience adding questionable quotes, Ruert Loup, when ever Peter1c removes them they are more often than not, (more than 50% at least, maybe even as high as 75%), right in doing so, unless it's removing quotes and "quarantining" them in ultra specific pages that are harder to infer the existence of and which serve to get rid of aspects of a person so they are easier to ignore, effectively creating "PG-13 versions of R rated articles that are devoid of taboo subject matter". (e.g. [[w:Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln|Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln or Race and appearance of Jesus). This practice is something I heavily object to in part, because it's something that no other professional quote collection actually does, as it was a waste of this thing the ancients used to call, paper, which had weight; can you imagine what a print out version of Wikiquote would look like at this point? How many volumes would it need to be at this point for the average person to be physically capable of lifting? How many volumes of it would just be arguments on talk pages about what to include? Unfortunately, although physically storing and carrying said quote collection isn't an issue, the problem of navigating that "ocean of information/garbage" still remains. Perhaps I should have used the analogy of a bunch of old newspaper clippings filling a house, hoarding electronic words is far less noticeable than in print, but perhaps just as much of a problem as physical hoarding. I say this as someone who adds news articles all the time unsure of whether that's really a good idea or not, as essentially only two other editors (now one), ever really thanked me for edits on a regular basis. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)