User talk:Babel41

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Full circle at the international Rainbow Gathering in Bosnia, 2007.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Babel41, and welcome to the English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Radical center (politics)[edit]

I thank you for your additions to the Radical center page. I am not sure there should be extensive sections for the individuals there, but at this point only eliminated the two descriptive or directive headings within which you split up the sections more generally, which I believe are not really necessary, even if the sections for the individuals are retrained. I don’t have strong objections to that, though it is probably not a form I would generally promote. I have long considered myself a "radical centrist" willing to consider wide ranges of opinions, belief and knowledge, in making my own determinations, and invite you to do the same here. Though I probably would not be inclined to divide things up like that, at least at this point, I find such sections for individuals acceptable, and perhaps appropriate in some incidents, and I welcome you to further participation on the wiki. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kalki. You reached me even before I had a chance to reach you and thank you for initiating the Radical centrist page, which I hoped to do soon.
I could not disagree with you more about your elimination of the "One quote per author" and "Multiple quotes per author" sections. I feel it made the content of the page much more immediately graspable. It's an unusual move on Wikiquote, I know. But I am rather unconventional too, like you, and I think it works here.
I do not understand your specific objection to any of the people quoted here. To say you make your "own determinations" is great, but it is not an objection to others' informed additions. If a person is publicly recognized in credible publications as a source on radical centrism, then that should be decisive, whatever you (or I) might think. King and Ventura were recognized as radical centrist governors by John Avlon, a highly creduble source now quoted on this page. Tanenhaus is a prestigious editor who wrote a major article on the subject. Halstead-and-Lind, Miller, and Satin have written well-received books for major publishers on the subject (and Miller has written several articles on r.c. as well). They all merit extensive quoting about r.c. on a page devoted to r.c.
I was surprised to find certain people quoted here, such as Knight and Lafferty and Roosevelt, whom I do not believe have ever been described in the mainstream radical-centrist literature as radical centrist. But I appreciate the imagination and sensibilities of everyone (you and presumably others) who has chosen such quotes for this page over the years. I would not eliminate them (unless the people quoted were wildly inappropriate), and neither should you. The page is somewhat different from how Id have assembled it, and now it is somewhat different from how you assembled it. But that is the beauty of Wikiquote, is it not? It pushes our boundaries onward and upward, no small gift in these times.
From the sublime to the mundane: Your Michael Knight, R.A. Lafferty, and Jesse Ventura book quotes are not supported by page numbers. Do you still have access to those books? If so, would you please supply the page numbers? Thanks! - Babel41 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I wish to make clear that I certainly did NOT have ANY objection to the inclusion of quotes ANY of the people you had added — I had ONLY been objecting to creating individual sections for them — something which I believe has been done on only a few theme pages, and something I am not inclined to encourage abundantly — but I can and do accept them, and again assert that I don’t really have any strong objections to them.
As to the your inclination to retain the "One quote per author" and "Multiple quotes per author" sections, I simply assert that such distinctions are not necessary to note with explicit section headings, nor in accord with general practices here. USUALLY there are several quotes in sections about individuals before we create a section for some of their works, and even on the very few theme pages where similar sections have been created for individuals, there is no absolutely prescribed "breaking point" of any specific number of quotes — but MORE than two or even three or four would be closer to the norms in creating separate sections even on most pages for individual authors.
As to the more mundane requests for page numbers, I might do a little work on that eventually, but have very limited time to spend here, for at least a few days, and more likely more. I do welcome your contributions and thank you for them, and am glad to find someone interested in more broad ranges of social philosophy than those constrained and corrupted by many forms of formal partisan politics. I will probably be around for at least about an hour more today, but am not sure how much time I will be able to spend here beyond that. ~ Kalki·· 23:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
PS: I generally tend to continue dialogue where it begins, but am usually willing to accommodate other people's inclinations or habits also. ~ Kalki·· 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, Kalki, and thanks especially for taking the time to provide these clarifications and explanations. I understand (and appreciate) your perspective much better now. Finally, thanks for catching the typos in the Halstead & Lind excerpts. I was sure I'd spell-checked them; sorry. I have just re-examined the other excerpts I provided (Avlon, Miller, Satin, Warren) and believe they are now typo-free. Carry on! - Babel41 (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)