Open main menu

User talk:CensoredScribe

First Officer Spock: Our reply, also as recommended, is, sir, we have noted in your recent behaviour certain items, which, on the surface, seem unusual. We respectfully ask permission to inquire further. ~ Art Wallace, Star Trek, "Obsession", (15 Dec, 1967)
I have never heard of any youngster going wrong, turning to crime, because of the movies. It simply isn't possible. Our relation to crime is, in a sense, the same as the prison warden's. We don't create it. We deal with it after it has happened, and we always make the criminal look bad. ~ Humphrey Bogart “Censorship: Jimmy Walker Never Heard of a Book Seducing a Dame but Bluenoses are Still on the Trail of our Films”, Hollywood Reporter, (Oct 1941); republished in “When Humphrey Bogart Tackled Movie Censorship in 1941”, Hollywood Reporter, (2/27/2018).

Why are you still wasting time with vacuous material that is meant to entertain and distract rather than educate and enlighten?Edit

CensoredScribe, why are you still wasting your time with vacuous material that is meant to entertain and distract rather than educate and enlighten? It is obvious that you are very intelligent and are capable of great intellectual discipline. Why are not exerting some discipline in your choice of material, and allowing the random machinations of the market to select for you? Reading lists for masters and PhD programs of many universities are available online (example). Why are you distributing your attention to sources unworthy of attention? I really don't get it. Your mind only comes into this world only once and you get only one chance to do something worthwhile with it. There is no time to waste.

  • Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.
    • Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:9; Yerushalmi Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 37a.

You are destroying your mind (and soul) by feeding it material that is unwholesome, not beneficial to its growth. By the logic of the Mishnah, then, you are destroying an entire world. ~ Peter1c (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the compliment and the concern, I am in no rush to create another about section or to add an extensive amount of quotes to theme pages from cartoons or comics like I did when I first started editing; the particularly soap boxy inspirational quotes from comics all seem to be about the same basic subjects: strength, courage, teamwork, friendship, etc., though I don’t see them of being of a drastically worse quality than the numerous inspirational quotes from professional athletes. I have only watched one new movie in the last 9 months for wikiquote and no TV shows, and I’m already feeling tired of fiction just from looking up information about things I've already seen. I don’t tend to spend as much time creating about sections for TV shows on account of they rarely go into as much detail in interviews and reviews, I haven’t completed that many of them, and there’s often a language barrier with video games and anime. I am starting to get tired of reading film reviews and interviews for violent action and horror movies as well as depressing historical dramas with slightly more educational value to them due to the research that goes into making them appear more historically accurate. Adding reviews for CGI animal movies is of no interest because I’ve not actually seen many of those either and I don’t like reading reviews to things I’ve not seen, the interviews however tend not to reveal much of the plot as they are often done to promote the film and there’s often a wider array of topics, like animation, film or acting.
    Honestly between the brief amount of time I spent on the pages for WWI, 9/11, terrorism, and nuclear weapons I’m ready to think about something more pleasant for a while, even the psychology journals I want to read before the end of the year are just a tad dour and those are designed to help people. I might eventually add something from a longer non fiction work though at the moment I intend to add quotes from journals and some more religious figures before I seriously consider retiring from this pursuit and just reading without the intent of looking for things Wikiquote is lacking, it’s been a while since I’ve done that. Most of the great classics of literature already have pretty decent coverage on Wikiquote, though there’s plenty of books written by literary theorists analyzing them from different perspectives that could be added to about sections. I am definitely interested in adding quotes of greater educational value than I have recently, though I think understanding why a film is bad or good is important, I regret not adding more reviews from Crosswalk and other religious film reviewers as they are just as widely read as the other entertainment websites, (though I wouldn't necessarily say the major newspapers), and showing them side by side with more secular reviews demonstrates that there are more similarities between the reviews than there are differences for the most part. Roger Ebert thought rather highly of studio biblical epics written with the approval of religious groups, as was the custom during the Hays Code. Sometimes though they disagree in ways you would not expect, such as with the violence in The Passion of the Christ which seems to have been protested more by secular sources than by Christians, many seeing it as just your typical violent Hollywood horror movie passing under the radar because it is excused as a passion play; whether or not this would have been the reaction to a crucifixion scene with similar levels of blood is questionable and hard to prove given the general lack of films featuring scenes like that. I read an article from the British Film Institute titled, War is Hell, but how much can you show? detailing film censorship in the U.K. during the second world war, I have not reviewed the official stance of churches on the televised images of atrocities that took place during the Vietnam War and whether the news was ever protested the way one might a violent film showing these horrifying things happening.
    Not to digress to much, but what I find strange about religious protests of violent entertainment is that professional sports has been given the pass, seemingly no major religious organization has made a serious effort in modern times to oppose professional sports citing it being a glorification of violence, an unnecessary risk to human life, resulting in numerous preventable serious injuries or being a colossal waste of time and resources that could go to the poor. I could speculate as to why no church wants to pick a fight with a bunch of professional athletes beloved by the local community and the many businesses that support both the local sports teams and the local churches, who would hate to pick sides and divide the cornerstones of patriarchal culture. Why do religious critics not normally protest cheerleaders for not wearing enough clothes the way they did with Wonder Woman in the 40's? Does that mean her attire is now officially acceptable and the previous condemnations were incorrect given the current stance on cheerleaders seems to be they are dressed perfectly fine? I’d be much more interested in an actual quotation that could be added explaining the near universal approval of organized sports by religion. The biggest religious opposition seems to be that throwing a pig skin football is not kosher, and Jehovah's Witnesses generally dislike all organizations above a certain size, which is hardly a call for a football prohibition. I agree that most of what has been described in this discussion is just bread and circuses but with a television screen and high fructose corn syrup. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi CensoredScribe. Thank you for your reply. I really like what you wrote. I'm really glad to hear I'm not the only one who has noticed religious leaders are giving a pass to spectator sports. In a theology class at UC, the professor began each class by chatting about football with other students. One day I got fed up and stood up and demanded that we discuss whether football was idolatrous. He laughed. But I had a good discussion with some other students after class. Spectator sports are a key part of the propaganda system that gets young people to worship the beast. The reason for the failure of courage on the part of religious leaders to take on spectator sports might be a desire not to set themselves in opposition to popular athletes, as you say, but it could also be something more sinister. Organized religion is, after all, funded by the beast of global capital. Spectator sports, as you rightly point out, are a colossal waste of resources that might have fed the poor and housed the homeless. But the mansions and tropical vacations of the owner class are also a colossal waste. Religion that preaches against conspicuous consumption is not in vogue, perhaps precisely because the owner class doesn't want to be called out on their inhumanity, and therefore funds religious leaders who give them a pass on their cruel indifference to the poor.

Regarding your concern that some works are already adequately covered on Wikiquote, I definitely wouldn't let that dissuade you from compiling quotes from them. In many cases there are Wikiquote pages for the authors, but not for individual books. You can also add quotes to theme pages as you find them. The quotes earlier editors picked out aren't necessarily the best ones. Before I learned about Wikiquote, I collected quotations in a document on my hard drive. Collecting quotations is a good practice in any case, because it gives you a written record of what you learned from a book. Not sure if you saw this quote before:

  • Just about anyone with intellectual ambition in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was likely to keep a commonplace book. In its most customary form, “commonplacing,” as it was called, involved transcribing interesting or inspirational passages from one’s reading, assembling a personalized encyclopedia of quotations. ... The great minds of the period—Milton, Bacon, Locke—were zealous believers in the memory-enhancing powers of the commonplace book. There is a distinct self-help quality to the early descriptions of commonplacing’s virtues: in the words of one advocate, maintaining the books enabled one to “lay up a fund of knowledge, from which we may at all times select what is useful in the several pursuits of life.”
    • Steven Berlin Johnson, "The Glass Box and the Commonplace Book," Hearst New Media lecture, April 22, 2010

I agree with you that understanding why film and fiction is bad or good is important. But part of that judgment is in the intention of the genre. Entertainment can be good or bad in some respects, but in one respect it's unworthy of attention no matter what, because it's intention is to entertain rather than enlighten, to make money for producers rather than help the moral and intellectual development of the audience. Film and fiction may produce enlightenment and development, but only secondarily.

  • Do you realize the sort of danger to which you are going to expose your soul? If it were a case of putting your body into the hands of someone and risking the treatment’s turning out beneficial or the reverse, you would ponder deeply whether to entrust it to him or not, and would spend many days over the question, calling in the counsel of your friends and relations. But when it comes to something which you value more highly than your body, namely your soul—something on whose beneficial or harmful treatment your whole welfare depends—you have not consulted either your father or your brother or any of us who are your friends on the question of whether or not to entrust your soul to the stranger.
    • Plato, Protagoras 313a, W. K. C. Guthrie, trans. (Collected Dialogues', p. 312)
  • Knowledge is the food of the soul; and we must take care, my friend, that the Sophist does not deceive us when he praises what he sells, like the dealers wholesale or retail who sell the food of the body; for they praise indiscriminately all their goods, without knowing what are really beneficial or hurtful. Neither do their customers know … unless he who buys of them happens to be a physician of the soul.
    • Plato, Protagoras 313c, Benjamin Jowett, trans.

So if we take Socrates' word, the best texts to read are texts that are meticulous in justifying their claim to be beneficial to the soul, and ruthlessly critical of both other texts and themselves. A good text, in this line of thinking, would constantly raise objections as to why it is or is not beneficial, and analyze the objections meticulously. I couldn't find a specific quote to support this, but another viewpoint would be Walter Benjamin's "On the concept of criticism in German romanticism," where he sees good critical texts as texts that develop and refine centers of self-aware reflection that can give insight into the hidden assumptions that lie behind the text itself, and behind other canonical texts. Benjamin thinks good criticism helps to find the hidden assumptions of texts in the way Marx, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer, etc. help find the hidden assumptions of capitalist society. In the Buddhist tradition, thinkers like Nyanaponika and Mahasi Sayadaw teach readers how to cultivate a state of "bare attention" in which consciousness becomes aware of itself. Here the focus is more on awareness of the present state of consciousness, and less on the history of how consciousness came to have the assumptions it is. Anyway, this is just me rambling about academic stuff. The main thing is that i really like what you wrote. ~ Peter1c (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You are aware that Plato is often accused of being a eugenicist who based off the views he expresses in The Republic seems to have believed in forced marriages as part of a rigged love lottery, and that he endorsed the telling of "noble lies"; also his choice of metal based metaphors could easily be criticized from a biblical perspective as being derivative of Lamch and Tubal Cain's Nimrod like obsession with metal as the supreme material? Granted Plato did take into account that a union of two golds could result in a bronze, (I'm not sure if he is referring to random genetic mutation or some form of meritocratic social mobility that would allow a transfusion of new blood into the homogeneous gene pool).
Have you heard of Archeanassa and the other Hetaerai that the ancient Greek philosophers were in love with? You've yet to recommend I read the writings of any women, Archeanassa's page is a rather short read, perhaps you could change that and add the appropriate ancient Greek texts.
Also, those football stadiums could easily be converted into tent cities for the homeless, which presumably as private property enclosed by walls, unlike parks, people would not accidentally wander into, and unlike the wilderness, could be easily placed under video surveillance should any security minded detractors insist that be needed to prevent the homeless from doing whatever it is the wealthier are afraid they will do when grouped together. I don't think they actually store anything of value in those stadiums anyways, and if they do, all it would take is extra security guards like they have for warehouses. Most of the infrastructure already exists to implement this, meaning it's a relatively cheap modification compared to building affordable permanent housing.
Just saying... CensoredScribe (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, 100 million Americans [sic] are indeed morons (Restored)Edit

  • Can it be that 100,000,000 Americans [sic] are morons? Possibly so; but there seems to be a simpler explanation. Nine humans out of ten react first with their feelings rather than with their minds; the more primitive the emotion stimulated, the stronger the reaction. Comics play a trite but lusty tune on the C natural keys of human nature. They rouse the most primitive, but also the most powerful, reverberations in the noisy cranial sound-box of consciousness, drowning out more subtle symphonies. Comics scorn finesse, thereby incurring the wrath of linguistic adepts.

Thanks for adding this quote. Marston calls his second explanation a "simpler explanation" but isn't it really in fact the same explanation? Doesn't part of being a moron consist in an inability to appreciate anything but trite lusty tunes in the C natural key of human nature? The millions of morons take their cue from the other morons, thinking "100 million people can't be wrong. The majority is always right." Thus they allow themselves to sink down into the common level of idiocy. They listen only to the lusty tunes in the C natural key of human nature, and fail to develop any higher sensibilities by which they might be able to improve their tastes. Marston concedes that the primitive reverberations drown out the subtler sensibilities. Why allow your subtler sensibilities to be drowned out? You have a choice whether to follow the 100 million idiots in their idiocy or improve your mind. Why do you choose to follow the idiots? Your replies always cite a lots of specific cases, but I discern no coherent argument behind the slew of examples. What is the principle behind this choice, which seems to me like deliberate ruination of the mind, deliberate forsaking of the one and only chance you get to improve your mind and raise it out of the miasma of mediocrity? ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, hello again Peter, I'm a tad bit confused what prompted this brief and vague criticism at this time, and what exactly your topic sentence is. Perhaps you feel Jack Kirby isn't a page worth improving, or even having, or that he is, but Darkseid, (his way of expressing the horrors he had witnessed throughout his life), isn't, perhaps you are saying neither should have images or a page, which of these is it? I assume you've heard of art therapy, correct, one of many treatment methods popularized by Dr. Lauretta Bender; clearly it was his job to be an artist, but the principle is still similar.
Despite not specifically saying so, I'm guessing this is about adding images to the pages for comics, correct, rather than adding images to other pages, or is there a theme page you object to having images on as well? In the last week or so I've added images to the page for Swamp Thing, are you claiming Alan Moore does not write literature? What about Jerusalem, and is not Watchmen, (or Maus, which I'm guessing you don't consider worthy of having a page for either), often the only graphic novel included in top 100 literature lists? I suppose I also added links to the page for Superman, including a quote from Superman: Birthright, which was selected as quote of the day: perhaps than we should discuss this issue with Kalki given it concerns the quote of the day? This seems more like a criticism meant for the village pump, seeing as I added those Swamp Thing quotes years ago and you are just now getting around to objecting to them, I feel as if this is something you've wanted to discuss with the community as a whole for a while now, but haven't, despite clearly having the eloquence of speech to do. Why limit yourself to my talk page? There's a much larger audience out there at the pump! Are you afraid no one else will chime in and we'll both realize how little any one else cares to listen to either of us cranky wind bags? I kind of am.
The only actual comic book quote I've really added, for months now, is from The Boondocks, what is it about Mr. Aaron McGruder or his award winning work that you find so "primitive" and of lower sensibilities? Why not remove the rest of the Boondocks quotes, there's several and you've clearly noticed them. Similarly you left the Blade Runner quote on the page for help for some reason, I assume you will be making these changes.
As far as the use of visuals go, to quote Ekman and Friesen, "At best, it is not easy to describe facial expression. Pictures are needed, because it is a visual phenomenon.", the use of visuals is one area where scientific literature differs from "literature", if you are concerned I haven't read enough "literature", I ask you to explain why scientific literature does not count for "improve my mind", if you would like to discuss the appropriateness of quoting science journals why don't you just say it, other than you know how ignorant that would make you sound. Would you like to tell me how many non-notable, non-quotable, unenduring science journals I've quoted now, or should we wait until I've added another couple hundred? CensoredScribe (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you aware of the danger which you are incurring ? If you were going to commit your body to some one, who might do good or harm to it, would you not carefully consider and ask the opinion of your friends and kindred, and deliberate many days as to whether you should give him the care of your body ? But when the soul is in question, which you hold to be of far more value than the body, and upon the good or evil of which depends the well-being of your all, — about this never consulted ... with any one of us who are your companions. But no sooner does this [widely marketed production] appear, than you instantly commit your soul to [its] keeping.

Thanks for your reply, CensoredScribe. Once again, you cite a lot of specific cases, but really there's no answer to the question: why do you allow your mind to be sucked down into the miasma, mara, Babylon, etc. rather than reserving your mind for inputs that are truly worthy of it in their dignity, in their aims? If the aim of a text, film, comic, etc. is to entertain, amuse, titillate, excite and do whatever necessary to sell, why is it in your interest to consume this text? I keep asking the question, because I am sincerely interested in understanding your position, not to be annoying. I hear your sarcasm (reaction to the annoying aspect, for which I apologize) but I don't hear your answer to the question. It's important to me on a personal level, because I feel you are being misled from the path to intellectual improvement by the marketing of Hollywood. It's also important because you are a leader in this community, and the cultural choices you make affect others. If all the energy that went into analyzing Hollywood films were instead directed to texts whose intention is to improve your mind, what would be the result? Questions about "What is canonical?" "What is worthy of attention?" are key questions. There is a lot of good debate on this topic. If you let the marketing apparatus of Hollywood decide for you, what makes you think this is the best choice? Whoever has the most money to invest in advertising a lucrative film, that will be your "canon." Is this the right principle to use to decide what is and is not canonical? Earlier message is intended as a criticism of Marston's quote specifically, certainly not of you or your contributions, except insofar as you are allowing yourself to be misled by the marketing arm of Mara/Babylon. As far as audience, no need to worry about that. I have a good memory and if we have a good debate I will remember what I learn from it and use it in venues with bigger audience. As far as scientific literature, that is certainly better. But scientists are after publishable results, not insight. They are valuable for answering specific questions, but their aims are still not worthy enough to merit a primary place in the canon. The principle of canonicity I'm recommending is that the text seeks to help you improve your mind. Scientific texts are only helpful if the question your mind is asking at that moment, the information it needs at that moment, corresponds to the question they are asking. Otherwise I would say it's better to concentrate on texts that explicitly aim to help you improve your mind, not just answer specific narrowly defined questions. Thanks again for the discussion. ~ Peter1c (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The land holdings and other financial assets of most of the religions you quote, are smaller than that of the Hollywood companies you accuse of being Babylon, a nation. Also, the devil/Hollywood didn't make you do it, unless you want to admit you believe you don't believe you have a choice in life, that sounds like a lot of clerical predestination and not very responsible, which is odd from someone kvetching about my supposed leadership. That was an insightful response, however, it also unfortunately didn't answer any of the questions I asked, you are aware of that and how rude it is, correct? I'll limit it to just one question I'd like you clarify: what is your opinion on the page for Jack Kirby, and please be specific, don't just speak in generalities about corporate control over art as a way of avoiding having to use any names: there's no need to speak in riddles.
As a side note, mind telling us all what specific religious texts to read and which to avoid? You use literature lists, but those generally preclude religious texts, so I'm curious why you don't have a specific list for texts that I assume, you believe are even more important than the most "literary" secular works, correct? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi CensoredScribe. Thanks for your reply. I don't intend to be rude. I just don't see the relevance of the questions. The problem is that you keep adding quotations to theme pages that don't meet WQ:Quotability guidelines. Of course when a quote is exceptionally good, editors are going to be flexible. But the standard is going to be high because it goes against the guideline. I don't understand the motivation for the low quality additions. When I and other editors bring up the issue, you sidetrack the discussion with questions that seem irrelevant, or whose relevance is at any rate never explained.

The low quality additions make more work for other editors, who have to remove them. The low quality additions are obviously taking up your time too. What is the point of wasting all this time? I would like to understand your motivation, so maybe we can find a way to reconcile your needs with the needs of the community. If you wanted to make the case for the canonicity of texts, just showing them to the community may not be sufficient (and it isn't working in this case). You would have to make an argument and specifically show how your examples support your argument. I'm open to deductive arguments based on principles, or to empirical arguments. But empirical arguments have to explain how evidence supports the conclusion, not just cite evidence.

Texts that make no claim to be able to improve the mind are unworthy of canonical status. This argument is admittedly very generalized, deductive rather than empirical. But I think there is something to it. Some productions are created to entertain you, to grab your attention for the purpose of selling you stuff. Other productions claim to be able to improve your mind. Productions that claim to be able to improve your mind may make that claim only to sell you stuff. The claim may be false. I hear your point about religious texts being open to this charge. It is definitely true in some cases. But the fact remains that some texts claim to improve your mind. Even if the claim is not true, the claim seems to make the text more worthy of attention than texts that don't even make this claim. You could say texts that don't claim to improve your mind are just being modest, but I don't think this explanation holds up. These texts are not modest about their ability to entertain. The fact that they make no claims that they can educate or enlighten isn't the result of modesty. They just have no such intention. What is the motivation for giving your attention (which is finite) to productions that make no claim that they can improve your mind? Why not use that precious attention to sort through texts that do make this claim and determining which ones really help and which ones don't?

Regarding your request for specific titles, it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I think you might like these:

I think you are right to stand up to the presumptive authority of other editors. I'm with you in your recalcitrant spirit. The problem is that Hollywood turns the recalcitrant spirit into a weapon to subdue and enslave your spirit. Acquiescence to the titillating desires inflamed by film and comics seems like an act of rebellion. But the rebellion is only enslaving you to sensory pleasure. The true rebellion that frees your mind will come not from acquiescence to the senses and their desires, but from rigid discipline of the senses so that higher parts of the mind can be free. Hope this helps. ~ Peter1c (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

An interesting reading list which includes Weber, perhaps if you liked him, you might find Wilhelm Reich worth your time. Though perhaps you'd prefer quoting more Aleister Crowley, why do you quote Crowley? I think most of your local religious figures would agree that despite some doctrinal differences they might have with him, a polite Jewish war veteran like Jack Kirby, who took care not to offend people even when telling them science-fiction monster stories, is probably slightly better for your soul than say a self proclaimed black magician with a long list of horrifying rumors that he seemed to enjoy the circulation of. You can go to Ask a Rabbi or your local confessional for a second opinion on that if you'd like if you don't believe me, asking priests and nuns to produce reading lists isn't a hobby that particularly interests me though.
Also, would you suggest a list of texts/religions to avoid? I'd like to know if you have anything else negative to say about specific religions, other than some might be bad because they are rich or control/are controlled by more corporations. For example, (seeing as you've deleted it before), what do you think about what Stephen Fry has said about Catholicism? CensoredScribe (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi CensoredScribe. Thanks for your reply. I wrote something about false religion for you. I suspect you won't like it because it remains on the level of generalities, and I know you prefer specifics. I'll think more about this and we can discuss more later if you want.

  • The excellent man is he who condemns what he finds in his mind without previous effort, and only accepts as worthy of him what is still far above him and what requires a further effort in order to be reached.

False religion teaches the mind to be satisfied with itself in its present state. True religion teaches the mind to seek to improve itself. False religion teaches the mind to be satisfied with what pleases the mind in its present state. True religion teaches the mind to seek out what requires renewed effort and discipline to appreciate. False religion teaches us to look for our values and ideas from the present age. True religion teaches us to transform ourselves by the renewing of our minds.

New religions often define themselves in opposition to a clerical hierarchy, attempting to revive interest in foundational principles that have been obscured by priestly bureaucracy. In time, a new priestly bureaucracy emerges, and, unfortunately, the religion becomes similar to what it began by preaching against. This is what Weber calls "routinization of charisma." The charisma of early religious leaders comes from their fervent attachment to principles, values and ideals. But as the religion is reproduced over time, this original charisma fades away and in its place emerges a trite ceremonial routine. The principles, values and ideals are still discussed, but the original devotion that motivated the founder is absent, and what takes its place is mechanical routine.

Another issue is that when religions attract the loyalty of a large number of adherents, they attract the attention of powerful figures, who then try to use the religion to enhance their power. The most famous case of this is probably Constantine, but there are many others. Religion that begins by defining itself in opposition to the values and ideals of imperial culture becomes the state religion of an empire.

Hope this helps. I read my original post again and I see it was over the top. Sorry about that. I was trying to provoke an interesting debate, not make you mad. Thanks again for the discussion. ~ Peter1c (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding ellipses at beginning of quotationEdit

Regarding ellipses at the beginning of a quotation, The Chicago Manual of Style has this to say:

  • Ellipsis points are normally not used (1) before the first word of a quotation, even if the beginning of the original sentence has been omitted; or (2) after the last word of the quotation, even if the end of the original sentence has been omitted, unless the sentence as quoted is deliberately incomplete.

Hope this helps. ~ Peter1c (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What is motive for adding quotations that are obviously off-topic and mention the article topic only incidentally to theme pages?Edit

Censoredscribe, I really don't understand motive for additions to Catholic Church that obviously have far more to do with feet and uniforms and mention the Catholic Church only incidentally. This is part of a larger pattern of adding quotations that are obviously off-topic and mention the article topic only incidentally. With all due respect, it is hard for me to understand the motive. How does adding these off-topic quotations help readers who come to the article looking for information on the article topic? How does it help you? Can you please explain what you are doing to the other editors so we can figure out what is going on? ~ Peter1c (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see the topic about religious dress code quotes on the village pump, which is where I will be discussing this issue and any other specific topics you would like to know the community's opinions on regarding specific linkable edits. If you would also like to discuss me as an editor and how the community views this, the administrator's notice board would be the correct location. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

CensoredScribe, I have said before I think you are a thoughtful editor and a very intelligent thinker. My disagreement is not with your skill or talent but with the criteria you use for choosing research topics. Some people say you have to start with what strikes your particular interest at the moment and work your way to things of more universal interest, but in my experience this just isn't true. When I was assigned books for class that were outside my realm of interest, I gave them a try and found the topics of universal interest were also of interest to me. I wished I had done it sooner. So, why all the interest in uniforms, feet, images, films, and all the tactile, sensory objects? Doesn't it make more sense to devote your interest to the place where all this sensory input gets processed, the mind?

  • On seeing a form with the eye, do not grasp at any theme or details by which — if you were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail you. Practice for its restraint. Guard the faculty of the eye. Secure your restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye.
    • Kumma Sutta

As far as reading recommendations, what about Ficino's Platonic Theology or something like that, far removed from the senses, exercising the intellect in pristine isolation from senses and sense objects? ~ Peter1c (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding quotes that obviously do not meet Wikiquote:Quotability to theme pagesEdit

(Comment: Well, that's one way to not answer any of the questions I've asked repeatedly you and harass your co-workers for unexplained (I'm guessing religious or sexual, maybe?) differences...Why are you acting like a troll, just go edit like when you started here! I didn't come here just to talk to you, go make arguments to an administrator who edits fiction if you care so much about discussing the subject!!!)

You recent addition to Debt obviously does not meet Wikiquote:Quotability. The quote provides the reader with no insight or knowledge about the article topic. You complain when I question your motives, but it is hard for me to imagine what the motive is for additions like these. The additions degrade the quality of the Wikiquote project, make more work for other editors, and create unnecessary conflicts. What is the motive? ~ Peter1c (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

How is this different than the addition to betrayal from the same film? Please elaborate as to why one pop culture reference you apparently, up until now, considered to have been acceptable, while the other you do not, until directed to del;ete it by me? Please delete the recent addition to betrayal, if you except me to respect you and not call you a fearful, unimaginitative hyppocrate. I want to hear you defend Star Wars being included on the the theme pages or admit that this is a poorly thought out distraction from what you are really angry and or fearful about concerning my edits. I've noticed you don't pester USDScott Kalki or Daniel Tom like this for their pop culture additions. What gives, why the unhealthy obsession with me? Pick on an admin, your message applies to them as well, doesn't it? Why limit it to me? That betrayal quote is also about a specific instance of a theme being applied, do you really need me to remind you to delete it, or will you explain why that one is acceptable and this one is not? I am deeply confused by you. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

CensoredScribe, I confront you because you show a systematic pattern of refusal to abide by the consensually decided policy guidelines of the project. The principles for quotability are articulated very clearly here. If you feel that these principles should be revised, this can be done by obtaining consensus. The fact that in some cases policies are not enforced does not imply they are not in force. Your argument here makes about as much sense as a thief arguing that he got away with a heist before and this is therefore a legal precedent permitting future heists. Wikiquote is a collection of notable quotations, not a fandom website. ~ Peter1c (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see the analogy to thieving, other than these issues both involve precedent, and you wanted to sound bombastic as usual. I would like to speak with both you and UDScott further about what you mean by "Wikiquote is a collection of notable quotations, not a fandom website." Aren't you a "fan" of religion and ? What do you consider to be "fandom"? What about that time you added The Dead Kennedys, "Hyperactive Child" on the page for ADHD? Would you mind explaining how that isn't just another corporate artistic product, like all the others you despise for their alleged mind and soul damaging effects? CensoredScribe (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I reviewed the ADHD page, and the quote you're referring to is from a song that is directly about the page topic. The issue I'm raising is that the quotes you're adding make only incidental reference to the article topic, and provide no interesting or valuable information to readers about the article topic. They won't be of interest to readers who aren't fans of the particular work you're drawing the quotes from. That's why I suggested fandom websites might be a more appropriate venue. Of course if there is a quote from a corporate artistic product that tells readers something genuinely new and insightful about the page topic, that would be considered relevant. But the burden of proof for relevance is much higher for recent works. Regarding precedent, both policy statements and precedents are relevant. But the fact that a recently added quote hasn't yet been removed can hardly be called a precedent. The community has gone to the trouble of creating policy documents. These are at least as important as precedents. I don't recall ever hearing you mention these documents in your arguments. Have you read them? Is anything in them unclear? Regarding bombast, it tends to arise when you exhaust people's patience. ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Finally, you concede that under specific circumstances it is appropriate to add pop culture quotes to theme pages!
I spoke to Scott about this current issue, however if you recall in the past you've soap boxed about the value of pop culture, not that having a good memory is a requirement to edit here. And to asnwer your question, yes, I have read the many policy and guideline pages, I suppose you want me to list them all and quote all the test to prove that? If you believe you have sufficient grounds to have me banned, please make your case on the appropriate page, I assume you know where the notice board is, though perhaps not.
The next time you post here I will delete your text/soap boxing about pop culture, and should you restore it, in any form, it will be considered an edit war. I bid you good day. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

CensoredScribe, thanks for your message.

To demonstrate comprehension of policy guideline pages it is sufficient to follow the guidelines.

The consensus on quotability is articulated on the Wikiquote:Quotability policy page:

  • The older a quote is, the more likely it is that the quote has the characteristics that maintain the relevance of that quote in the public mind over the course of many generations.

The discussion of what sources should be emphasized in the Wikiquote project is an important issue relevant to the project, and therefore relevant for discussion on talk pages. I don't think discussion on this topic should be permitted to be silenced by accusations of preaching, soapboxing. It is an issue relevant to the project.

The question is, what is the canon from which we draw quotations? What is the principle used to decide what this canon will be? When we draw quotations from Hollywood productions, this means we concede that the canon is decided by who has the largest marketing budget, rather than by standards of intellectual excellence.

Part of the Wikiquote project is tracing important ideas back to the earliest time they were said. This is important because knowing the first time an idea is introduced allows us to chart the history of the idea through time. If you were to add a quote from a recent production along with a detailed genealogy of where in history the idea behind the quote came from, that would be fabulous. Most of the things said in Hollywood films have been said before. The reason you are getting the Hollywood version rather than the classical version is not because the Hollywood version is the more intellectually excellent version. It is because of the large marketing budget of Hollywood.

You may decide to allow your canon, the diet of ideas going into your mind, to be decided based on marketing budget rather than intellectual excellence. That is your choice. But when you regurgitate your canon into this project, the principles you use to decide your canon become an issue for the community, not just you. I care about you personally, and would really like to help you protect yourself from greedy vipers who lure you into traps with the bait of sensory pleasure. I will concede that part is preaching. But if we set aside the value to you personally, and talk about the quotes you are adding to the project, now the topic is also relevant to the project, and in that aspect I think this discussion about what is canonical is not just preaching. It is a relevant part of the discussion about following consensus guidelines and building consensus about page content. I hope this makes sense.

You have free will. No one can tell you what to do, what to think, watch or read. But if you believe the above quoted statement represents the consensus of the community on quotability, you will have to recognize that your choice of canon is not entirely compatible with your desire to add quotes to the Wikiquote project. ~ Peter1c (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that etymology and finding the original iterations of quotations is important, however, your views on age equaling "canon" may not reflect those of the community; case in point: please explain your opinion on the medical journals I've added and the seeming acceptance of the pages for eating disorders. Do you want this nonintellectual garbage removed for the good of the community, simply for not being X number of years old? I thought impact factor would be enough, but if you need your literature aged like wine, than please, just specify how old it needs to be, for your own personal tastes that you assume others share, without having bothered to ask a larger representative sample of the population at the village pump.
Also, as a side note, semantically, I think you meant to say 100 million Americans "were" morons, seeing as the percentage of the population that reads comic books has consistently gone down since the introduction of television and other forms of home entertainment, and the "idiots" that Dr. Marston was referring to, the vast majority of them anyways, are dead now. Your use of the direct quotation was correct, however you needed to modify the tense for your own criticism as the time period being described is not the one you are in. You can't just assume that a quote about Greeks made in antiquity would apply equally to the state of modern Greece, 100 million Americans, were morons, and a different number would be morons today, according to you, but first you must specify that you are talking about a different demography than the author. Feel free to consult others as to whether I am correct on this, I assume our numerous conversations will be headed to the village pump or the Administrators' noticeboard soon enough, unless you feel like admitting that your arguments, however well worded, are insufficient at this time to result in a block, and you'd rather not be reminded of that by going through the correct channels to receive the opinions of the others you speak for. Do you believe in the concept of active consent, or does a yes mean always yes to you? You should double check to make sure your interpretation of the rules is shared by the community in regards to me, I've spoken to an administrator about this issue, and to the village pump about several other issues you've recently raised, why haven't you started any topics regarding these matters outside of this page? CensoredScribe (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

CensoredScribe, thanks for your reply. With your approval I will go ahead and delete the preachy part with the heading about millions of morons. I'm sorry about that. It was intended to provoke debate, not to offend. I am definitely not arguing for a block. Sorry if I gave that impression. I am just requesting that you raise the relevance and notability standards for quotes on existing theme pages. For less literary academic and scientific studies, I would argue it's better to create a separate page (e.g. Media studies). If you create new articles rather than editing existing ones, you will also get more visibility on the main page. It is also possible to create articles that specifically deal with representations of a theme in film or television (like Violence in media). Not sure what gave the impression that I am seeking a block. I have praised your additions on many occasions, so why would I want that? My concern is with quotability standards of additions to theme pages, and to discuss what is worthy of attention in general. I often preach about asceticism and freedom from slavery to the senses in many places, and I understand that I was pushing boundaries by preaching on your talk page. For me it was a good discussion, but I understand my methods should be improved. ~ Peter1c (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

CensoredScribe, Thank you for restoring our debate above. I read it again and I think you make some good points. Now why are you trying to first expand and then delete Violence in media? It's a good page. ~ Peter1c (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Only two of these links are red links on Wikipedia, Violence in Christianity, Violence in Judaism, Violence in Islam, Violence in Hinduism, Violence in Buddhism and Violence in Atheism: can you guess which? Would you rather add or subtract to bring balance to this situation? Atheism, like Inceldom isn't an organized doctrine with teachings of any kind, it's just a label people give themselves based off a lack of belief in one concept, (the existence of G-d and ever having s-x). Atheism and rationalism are not synonymous concepts and many atheists have non scientific beliefs, I imagine Violence in [A]theism is just going to be a bunch of quotes about Communist governments that will create the impression all atheists feel this way, much like the problems that will arise in distinguishing quotes about Violence in a religion (and by it), with quotes about extreemists. Again, can you guess which religions/lack of religion have a page for this? Do recall, I am not asking your for a similarly named page, I am asking specifically for "X extremism", not "X extremist terrorism", which implies the extremists being discussed on those other pages, are not terrorists, one might imagine than instead just an "extreme" youth religious leader from the "wicked" 90's with a "sick" skateboard and a "grungy" used holy book.
Also, as someone whop seems to be creating pages for very specific topics, would you object to adding a page for Topping from the bottom and various other sex positions, the Kama Sutra lists many. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello? You posted an image on this talk page without answering my questions. (When I added images to my talk page well after the initial posts, I was told was it was a "smokescreen", perhaps you added this as a distraction after an attempt to remove the conversation resulted in a reversion/restoration. Why you added this image to this section without adding anything else seems strange, like an impulsive afterthought of little importance to the discussion, given it was added after those thoughts were initially expressed, which was without images.) CensoredScribe (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

CensoredScribe, I am sorry again about the image. I hope you believe me that it was intended to be conciliatory. I don't understand what the character means, so it was bad judgment on my part to use it. I was just intending to convey that I am still evolving, and I value your arguments and your point of view. You are right that I haven't really answered your questions. I have always been under the impression that if there is a Wikipedia page for a topic, this means there is community consensus on Wikipedia that the topic is notable. If there are one or more notable quotes on the topic, this always seemed to me to be enough to justify a page. I'm still not clear on why you voted to delete Medicine in Star Trek and Violence in media. The quotes you collected are very relevant on these pages. The topics are notable. It seems all good to me. I was serious about wanting to understand your motivations better. I have been assuming that you are doing a thesis on media studies, based on the quality academic papers you read on this topic, but now I'm not sure whether we talked about this or I just assumed this. I like what you write about "Violence in X" pages for certain religions and not others. I would say there's no prima facie reason to assume deliberate intention to omit certain topics. It's more likely just a question of no one having taken an interest in the topic yet. It's always good to create new pages. I didn't understand the part about the smokescreen. I'm guessing this is from a conversation with other editors? Some of your questions it's hard to respond to because I'm not familiar with the pages or the issues. I will concede I am a bad ambassador, not much of a diplomat. Sorry about that. I value your contributions and I'm glad for the opportunity to work with you on this project. ~ Peter1c (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct in using inference to determine that I was referring to a conversation with someone other than you, the majority of conversations on my user talk page are still with people other than you, for the time being, though that is probably going to change soon given how often you like to talk "with" me. You still seem to want to know my "motivations" for edits you consider a waste of time compared to quoting seemingly any religious text, given how little you specify which religious texts you consider to harm your "mind and soul", the complaint you've made about consuming entertainment from Hollywood. Would you care to explain why consider reading Aleister Crowley better for your mind and soul than watching Inuyasha?
I expected you wouldn't want to admit to being quite that familiar with my page talk history regardless of whether you actually are or not, (you are, which makes you a liar), however the smoke screen comment appears to be from made by Mdd, whom I suggest you speak with if you are still confused on this issue. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I did not know about this edit. I would be on your side on this one. This explains some things. You seem to assume omniscience on the part of other editors. I did not know about this edit. Now I understand why adding image made you upset. Sorry about this. You have my support if you want to restore deleted images. Ironic that at time of this edit other editors are accusing you of "incivility," but "undecorating" your talk page does not exactly set an example of civility for you. Sorry about this. ~ Peter1c (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I will agree with you that recently I've been assuming too much about you, I'm not particularly interested in asking whether your first revert of an edit of mine was actually the first time you learned about me, and establishing some kind of timeline; that's a bit too nosey, time consuming and paranoid for me to want to do, I'm curious however if yours is the type of religiosity that might pre-judge me and ascribe attributes to me based off something I might have said or an edit I've made. I don't recall ever claiming a godlike omniscience, or "warning" you of Aleister Crowley, or the numerous religions he was involved with beyond mentioning that if you walked up to a local community's religious authorities with one of his books, it would probably be of more concern to them than say a comic book from an era of intense censorship? Have you tested that yet by any chance?
For that matter, your concern with sports and games that you've mentioned was an issue while studying theology at seminary school is something that most of your local community's religious authorities should hopefully be aware of given how significant an impact on culture Muscular Christianity seems to have had on both Protestant and Catholic practitioners and the fact this was a serious issue of secular and religious contention in society before.
I would however like to apologize for accusing you of selling out your account information to anyone, much less a specific individual. I believe what you call omniscience most other people who are not students of religion would probably just call BS, and for that part I am sorry. As someone who has been falsely accused of sock puppeteering on Wikipedia on numerous occasions (probably for the several occasions on which I actually did sockpuppet), I should know better than to perpetuate an online Fergoli Delusion, just because it's personally convenient to cast shade on someone else using the nebulousness of the internet and the paranoia that can generate. Particularly when it's something as unlikely as you conspiring with a well known science and video game advocate (I assume that person in question did more than just edit the Gamergate article on Rationalwiki, but if not, just video game advocate; I also don't bother to keep tabs on people, and don't read a lot of user contribution history pages beyond the first page listing recent activities. However, I also tend not to question the motives of other editors unless a discussion at the village pump or administrators is going to be involved at some point to actually acquire the input of more than just two, really interesting people...)
I will "warn" against either of us playing continuing to play detective, (or online diagnostician when it involves "mind", in addition to "soul") as being a detective, is an incredibly rude game to play, though it seems to have become the popular 21st century equivalent to cops and robbers, for girls and boys of all ages and an internet connection it seems.
It might be worth my time now however to see what other editors you've given the third degree like with me, or if I'm your first outside of the chats I see you've had with Daniel Tom in the past that seemed to end rather quickly without really discussing any issues you might agree or disagree on, outside of the suggestion that you might eventually want to do so...come to think about it, it's kind of weird how I never get a series of edits reverted by both of you at the same time, you'd think the three of us would have crossed paths at some point. Hey! You know, I could always ask you your opinions on controversial issues if you would like, I think it would be more productive at defining who we are as non editors than whatever this informal inquisition is supposed to be for.
Anyways, I think also perhaps there should be some disclaimer given on user talk pages, similar to the one for the talk pages for various themes and works, about it not just being for general discussion of that page's topic but for actual improvements, you've managed to meander the conversation far away from any actual edits that you can link to, any concern I or any other editor may have for your (Christian muscles/Qi energy flow/"mind and soul"/etc.) is not something I see as being particularly relevant to your editing patterns, just a religiously backed personal attack. If this is really about edits than include a link to that edit or at least specify which edits you are referring to. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "CensoredScribe".