User talk:Markjoseph125

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hi Markjoseph125. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi Markjoseph. I replied to you at Talk:The Forge of God. I also want to take the opportunity to say how much I appreciate the good work you are doing on science fiction literature at Wikiquote. By which I mean the literature that is so often overlooked by less discriminating genre fans. Keep up the good work! ~ Ningauble 16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion process[edit]

Since you asked at Talk:The Forge of God about how to request deletion, here are some relevant links:

Regarding The Forge of God, when an article is merged like this it is normal to leave a redirect to the article containing the merged content. This is done for a couple reasons: for the convenience of anyone who may have linked to the page from an external site (such as Wikipedia), and to retain the page history which gives attribution to contributors who worked on the original article. Therefore I would not be inclined to delete this redirect, but if you disagree you are welcome to start a discussion at Votes for deletion. ~ Ningauble 15:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Kameron Hurley[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Kameron Hurley, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Kameron Hurley. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. --Collingwood (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Gene Wolfe[edit]

Thank you for your corrections and additions to The Book of the New Sun. Wolfe is one of my favorite genre writers, whose work richly rewards careful reading. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence[edit]

Thank you for your additions to Intelligence. I reverted one edit because there was an obvious typo ("earned" vs. "learned" and formatting errors. Please italicize all book and publication titles. ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Theme pages[edit]

Hi Markjoseph125. Thanks for your contributions. I just wanted to open up a discussion on the issues that came up regarding your contributions to Sin, Suffering and Art. The comment field for edits doesn't provide enough space to adequately discuss editorial issues, and I hope we can do that here instead.

  • To feel oneself so tiny, so fragile, so inherently losable, was at first spiritually crushing. But, by the same token, this realisation was also strangely liberating: if an individual human existence meant so little, if one’s actions were so cosmically irrelevant, then the notion of some absolute moral framework made about as much sense as the universal ether. Measured against the infinite, therefore, people were no more capable of meaningful sin—or meaningful good—than ants, or dust.
    Worlds barely registered sin. Suns hardly deigned to notice it. On the scale of solar systems and galaxies, it meant nothing at all. It was like some obscure subatomic force that simply petered out on those scales.
Problems with this quote:
  1. Title should be in italics
  2. The whole quote is interesting. I understand the desire to keep the whole, which would be entirely appropriate on author pages. But for theme pages the entire quote has to be on topic for the theme, and your fellow editors will be critically examining whether the entirety of the quote is on topic. I understand your argument about providing context for understanding the part of the quote that is about the topic, but if more words are expended providing context than providing information about the article topic, then I'm not persuaded the quote is suitable for inclusion on a theme page.
  • Through the music speaks a truth about art that Wells does not understand, but that I hope to: that art doesn’t have to deliver a message in order to say something important. That art isn’t always a means to an end but sometimes an end in itself. That art may not be able to change the world, but it can still change the moment.
Problems with this quote:
  1. Is John Kessel a notable person? If he is, please provide a link to his Wikipedia page to demonstrate notability. Quotes from non-notable authors are not entirely ruled out, but it would support your case for including the quote if you demonstrate notability of the author.
  2. If the quote can be edited to remove references to characters and plot lines the reader is unfamiliar with while remaining comprehensible, it should be.
  3. I don't find the first sentence persuasive. Isn't "saying something important" delivering a message?
  4. The second sentence expresses a common sentiment, and not in a particularly new or interesting way.
Proposed edit
  • One’s strategy in trying to defend or to attack the claim that God exists obviously depends on what is meant by “God.” It may be objected that it is not so difficult to isolate what might be called the popular conception of God. The problem of suffering is of crucial importance because it shows that the God of popular theism does not exist.
Problems with this quote:
  1. What do the first two sentences have to do with suffering? Why are they necessary to understand the third? It would be more relevant to include the argument where Kaufmann demonstrates his claim that the problem of suffering shows the popular God doesn't exist. How does Kaufmann prove this thesis? Are there a few sentences you could include that would give a taste of his argument? The first two sentences don't support the thesis about suffering or add anything to it, as far as I can tell. The first two sentences seem in fact to show the implications of the thesis expressed in the third, if it is true.
Proposed edit:
  • Suffering ... shows that the God of popular theism does not exist.


Your three complaints are numbered 1-3.
1) The entire quote is of a piece, and on topic. The only "extraneous" part is the first sentence, but as the second builds directly on it by way of contrast (But...), it can also be considered as essential. In any case, one line of context in an eight-line quote would not be excessive. I've italicized the title.
2) I've added the Wikipedia link to John Kessel, winner of six major genre awards (Nebula (twice), Locus, Sturgeon, Shirley Jackson, Tiptree), and been nominated, by my count, 47 other times, as well as being the co-editor of two major anthologies, Feeling Very Strange and The Secret History of Science Fiction. I understand your concern about the first half-sentence; unfortunately, deleting it makes the grammar not work in the rest. A very small price to pay for a superb meditation on art. The character is H. G. Wells; perhaps that could be put in parentheses? I'm sorry you don't like the second sentence, but your proposed edit destroys the beauty of the quote, as well as obliterating the structure of the three two-part parallel lines.
3) Completely unacceptable. The suggested revision leaves out the why, and renders the quote lame. The first two sentences set the stage for the third. As to how he proves his argument, it is the next few pages in the book. Markjoseph125 (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Our discussion raises an important question for the community which is as yet unresolved: how much of a quote must be on topic to merit inclusion on theme pages. I'm inclined to say almost all, but I moved this discussion to the Village pump to see if other editors have opinions. ~ Peter1c (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate this approach. Thank you. Markjoseph125 (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Markjoseph125&oldid=2206540"