User talk:Atticusattor

Welcome!

Hello, Atticusattor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Haploidavey (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Please sign your posts properly
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Atticusator. I see you've been adding cited material to the article His Dark Materials and wonder if you'd consider the following.


 * Edit summaries - please, please use them. It's Wikipedia policy; edit summaries help other editors track changes in articles. Where a rapid series of edits is made to an article, use of accurate edit summaries helps other editors understand the thinking behind those changes.
 * Integration of material. Please consider whether the material you're adding might be best developed in a dedicated section, rather than added to biographies of the dramatis personae (and, I see, the introductory section, which is now overburdened. Introductions to articles should be a deal more succinct. Please read and digest the links at the welcome message above!) Just food for thought here. I'd be happy to discuss these issues with you, here or on the article talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Messages from Haploidavey
This is in response to messages received from Haploidavey concerning my editing of the His Dark Materials article. First of all, I need advice on how to contact you. (I doubt that you will ever find this message.)

Second, you asked me to sign my posts with Atticusattor (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC). I tried that, putting the Atticusattor (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC) in the article at the end of my post. My user name then appeared in the article, where it doesn't belong. I inferred that Atticusattor (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC) is supposed to be used only after Talk posts and possible other non-editing posts.

Third, you asked me to provide user summaries. The article in question has many omissions and will take close to two days to finish editing (looking up references, rewriting, etc.) The original writer is not skilled at sentence composition and, in addition, overlooked just about everything that is significant in Pullman's trilogy. I can't provide a user summary until I'm done, and I'm not done yet.

Fourth, I'm not quite sure where to put the user summary or what to click on to get to that location. If I ever get there, I will sign with Atticusattor (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC). I could use some help; I'm new at Wiki editing. Atticusattor (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Atticusattor, welcome to Wikipedia. I happened to see your note on Haploidavey's talk page and didn't know when he'd be able to answer your questions. I think I can answer one or two for you.
 * Edit summary. When you click "edit" and open the page to add content, look above the row of buttons that begins with "Save page" and you should see a line labeled "Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made)." There's a skinny box below that label in which to type an explanation of the edit you've just made. Essentially, it's just a phrase such as "added citation," "corrected spelling of name," "added paragraph on movie rights," whatever. Do this for each edit you make, particularly if the article is of interest to many editors. If it's something tiny like a typo, click the box above "Save page" that says "This is a  minor edit"; you should still add an edit summary such as "typo." If you're having a discussion on a talk page and are replying to someone, your edit summary may be simply "reply"; if multiple parties are involved, you might wish to say "reply to Haploidavey." If you want to know in detail (more detail than you probably would ever want) what an edit summary is, follow this link to the guideline explaining "edit summary". You should also familiarize yourself with what an edit history looks like: next to the "edit" button on a page, you'll see "view history." That will give you some idea of what kind of remarks other editors leave in their edit summaries. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Signing. You are correct that you sign only posts to talk pages, not article content. An edit summary is automatically labeled with your name in the edit history when you save the page. (If you aren't logged in, your IP address will show instead.) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there we are. Cyn's put all that very clearly indeed, so here's my part-reply (shorn of redundancy, I hope. I'm going to point you to a couple of pages, which will help you with content, sources, citations, article organisation and all things Wikipedian. Even this very page (yours, indeed!) has a standard "Welcome" message up top, with a blue-link - click here to find out what that is, and how useful it can be - to the "rude mechanicals" of editing; it's probably the same as this link. For more detail, and specific enquiries, you can do no better than the searchable "Missing Manual"; an excellent hub. Whichever you choose - read and digest! There's quite a lot to take in. If you need to, you can practice at the Wikipedia sandbox, or if you prefer, I can create a sandbox for you. By the way, I easily found both messages, here (via my watchlist and on my talk-page). Success! If it's OK with you, I'd rather deal with things here, on your talk-page. A compact, centralised conversation's usually more easily dealt with than comments that sprawl hither and yon. Um, I reckon that's probably enough for now. Haploidavey (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Allegory and Narnia
The allegorical interpretations of Narnia you are adding are not at all universally recognized by all readers of the story, but are the interpretations of just a handful of critics. Please specify them as such in the "interpretations" section, and refrain from stating them as established fact.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article should only include verifiable facts about the book, and not any one editor's ideas or interpretations. Your idea that the white stag is Aslan is very much your own interpretation, not a verifiable fact, unless you can find a place where Lewis verifies that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the idea that Aslan as the White Stag is "very much your own interpretation"? Check the endnote reference.  And where did you get the idea that no allegorical symbol should be identified in a Wiki article unless the allegory's author says it is a symbol?  If that is going to be your standard, shouldn't you delete most of the articles on John Milton's Paradise Lost, Dante's Divine Comedy, John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress, George Orwell's Animal Farm, and William Golding's The Lord of the Flies?  Your allegory's-author-must-verify standard is among the more absurd notions I have ever encountered.Atticusattor (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * FisherQueen is technically a notch off the bulls-eye here; the issue here is not so much what Lewis says, but what a sufficient critical mass of Lewis scholars say. Even so, you should speak of this in the text as what Wheat believes, not as established fact.
 * Note that Wheat's material has survived in Wikipedia in the article Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. That is for at least two reasons. 1) Wheat is discussed along with other interpreters. 2) Wheat's material is mentioned as Wheat's opinion, and not as established fact. 3) The material is confined to an article on "Interpretations" and is not incorporated into the plot summary or character list of the main article.
 * Had you taken all three elements of that approach to begin with your material on Wheat in the LWW article and the Dark Materials article would have had considerably greater chance of surviving.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Allegory and His Dark Materials
Your contribution to His Dark Materials obviously resulted from a lot of hard work on your part, but it was just too full of what seems to be your own interpretation of what Pullman was thinking, particularly wrt Christianity. This is a major consideration for any assessment of his work, but on Wikipedia it can't be your assessment; it has to be the assessment of a recognised authority (no pun intended), duly referenced.

The guidelines suggest doing a major edit like yours in fairly small stages and thus allowing other contributors a chance to assimilate what you have written and possibly comment. Doing it like that would avoid a huge revert like the one I have just inflicted.

Please don't be put off by this setback. Do have a look at the this hyperlinks, above, for a more skilful explanation of the policies I've mentioned. All the best.

PS: I've spent a couple of minutes looking for the "bite-sized edits" policy, but I haven't found it yet. If you need this, I'll look again.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Given my extensive footnotes, how did you reach your "what seems to be your own interpretation" conclusion? What are your criteria for identifying a footnoted scholarly book's author, or any other referenced author, as "a recognized authority"? Similarly, what are your criteria for identifying an "authority"? Can you apply your criteria without implicitly calling for deletion of most if not all of the footnoted references in most Wiki articles?Atticusattor (talk)


 * WP has clearly designated guidelines of who recognized authorities are, and there are linked to in Moonraker's message above. Part of the problem is that you are stating as fundamental fact what is simply the suppositions of a single solitary (and marginal) scholar (Leonard Wheat), which the tone of your section indirectly suggests are universally acknowledged. In particular, you cannot write an entire section of an article without dealing with the whole range of opinion on the subject. I again refer you to WP:RS and WP:UNDUE.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Animal Farm, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to articles as you apparently did to Slan. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Except in the case of Slan, I did cite an original source. Unfortunately, the policy followed by you and many of your colleagues is that any reference is controversial and therefore invalid if it disagrees with earlier authorities who were not aware of the arguments and evidence presented by the most recent authority. It makes no difference that nobody has actually attacked the conclusions of the authority cited. You regard the authority as being implicitly attacked if his conclusions either differ from earlier conclusions or augment earlier conclusions that did not address the topic. The Big Bang theory of the universe thus becomes "controversial" -- and thus cannot be presented -- because it conflicts with the earlier steady-state and expansion-and-contraction theories.

Have it your way. And by all means, restore all the editorial errors -- grammar, punctuation, usage, idiom, etc. -- that are intermixed with the additions that you regard as too controversial to use.Atticusattor (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Atticusattor, as theories over time gain greater and greater acceptance, they are then presentable in Wikipedia. But the policy is that Wikipedia is not meant to be used to promote or publicize relatively new theories that have not (yet) gained mainstream acceptance (or even discussion). This is abundantly clearly laid out in more than one page of WP policy, and is not merely the opinion of some editors here and there. It matters not if the conclusions have been attacked or not; what matters if they are widely discussed at all.!!! The Big Bang gained near universal acceptance in 1964, and prior to that was considered credible by a major leading figure in astrophysics, George Gamow, whose stature alone would have merited discussion of the Big Bang in Wikipedia prior to 1964 if WP and the Internet had been around back then. Your analogy is entirely inapplicable.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, contrary to what you stated above, you did NOT cite any sources in your analysis of Slan, except for Slan and the Bible which does not count because you violate WP's rule against no original WP:SYNTHESIS. Also, your section on symbolism in Slan contains the phrases like "might be a God symbol" and "could stand for" (emphasis added) which is absolutely unencyclopedic and utterly taboo in Wikipedia. If you had a source for this interpretation of Van Vogt you forgot to cite it. Either way, your claim above that you cited an original source is simply false.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You say I "stated above" that I cited sources in my analysis of Slan. You forgot to wear your glasses when you read what I "stated above."  Here, copied and pasted, is what I stated above: "Except in the case of Slan, I did cite an original source."  Note the word "except."  What does it mean?Atticusattor (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake. There are two ways that "except" could be used in this context, and I chose the wrong one. Since the discussion was solely focused on Slan there, I falsely assumed that you meant "except" in the idiomatic sense of "if it were not for", as in the sense of "I would go more often to the beach, except that I live in Kansas". My apologies.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your contributions to the article on science fiction
Thanks for all your recent hard work on the article on Science fiction. Note, however, that when you add new material to an already-sourced sentence, as you did here for example, you are in effect making a new claim that may not be supported by the source given. At first glance, many of your recent changes, while not necessarily objectionable on their own, seem to be original research; adding them to sourced sentences, if the existing sources don't support the new material, will make for a claim that is not actually supported by its own endnote, creating an article with a shrinking foundation of reliable sources and generally degrading the article's quality. Does this make sense?

Also, I've restored two specific parts of the article that you modified:
 * I removed the clarification in the lead about fantasy. This was unsourced, but the main reason I deleted your contribution was that the article is about Science fiction, and the lead has to reflect this. That much information about fantasy makes for a disproportionate lead. See Lead.
 * I restored the deleted claim by Fredric Jameson on the difference between SF and fantasy. This is a sourced claim, and Jameson is one of the leading literary critics who works on SF; it's entirely apposite to its section, which is, like the quote, about the difference between SF and fantasy.

If you disagree with either of these points, fair enough; propose your changes on the article's talk page and all the editors currently working on this article can try to come towards a consensus on these points.

Keep up the hard work, and if you have any questions, place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Sindinero (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Sindinero. You may not be aware of it, but Fredric Jameson is primarily a philosopher and Marxist theorist; I am aware of only one science fiction book by him.  I don't say "Marxist" as an accusation but, rather, as a way of emphasizing the inappropriateness of the Marxist language in the deleted sentence.  The sentence is this: "Fredric Jameson, meanwhile, has characterized the difference between the two genres by describing science fiction as turning 'on a formal framework determined by concepts of the MODE OF PRODUCTION rather than those of religion' - that is, science fiction texts are bound by an inner logic based more on HISTORICAL MATERIALISM than on magic or the forces of good and evil."  The two upper-cased phrases refer to Marxian concepts that I am thoroughly familiar with but that you may not be.  ("Historical materialism," by the way, is essentially a rewording of "dialectical materialism.")  Those two concepts--"mode of production" and "historical materialism"--have absolutely nothing to do with science fiction or with fantasy literature.


 * I suggest that you read the quoted (and redeleted) sentence closely and then try to restate it in your own words. To oversimplify, "mode of production" refers to society's methods of gathering or producing goods in five successive Marxian stages of history: primitive communism (hunter-gatherer societies), slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and final communism.  Neither the capitalist mode of production (essentially factory production) nor any earlier mode of production has anything to do with "an inner logic" found in science fiction.  For that matter, even "inner logic" defies interpretation.  As for "historical materialism," that refers to Marx's idea that the course of history is metaphysically determined by material forces of production (workers, resources, other inputs, tools, etc.) rather than by -- here Marx challenges Hegel -- forces in the nonmaterial realm of ideas.  Moreover, "historical materialism" refers to the Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis "dialectical" process, a process that again has nothing to do with science fiction.


 * Although it is true that science fiction does not ordinarily embody religious concepts, neither does fantasy -- unless you abstract the word "religious" into the broader term "supernaturalistic," in which case the latter word is far more appropriate. Furthermore, Jameson's juxtaposing (1) "concepts of the mode of production" and (2) "concepts of . . . religion" is totally inapproriate.  The two types of concepts are unrelated, not oppositional.  What Marx juxtaposed with "concepts of the mode of production" was concepts of thought and ideas.
 * In short, the quoted sentence is not only highly inaccurate but, where 99% of readers are concerned, meaningless. If you don't agree that it is meaningless, then once more I suggest: try to rewrite it in your own words.


 * Meanwhile, you are mostly right about adding material to a few sentences with references. Still, the references remain accurate (assuming they were originally accurate) for elements of the sentence that are still intact.  An exception is the revision I just made to the article's very first sentence, which (along with the second sentence) was incredibly inaccurate.  For that sentence, I have taken your criticism to heart by deleting the three references.  They are either inaccurate or (more likely) have had things they said taken out of context to produce invalid generalizations.Atticusattor (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick response. I'm pretty familiar with both Jameson and Marx, but thanks for the good faith effort to make sure we're both on the same page. I think I understand your point, but I do still disagree. Essentially, you seem to be arguing several things: a) that Marxism doesn't have anything to do with SF; b) that the sentence is erroneous; c) that the sentence is too difficult to understand.


 * Let's take these in order. But first, a little clarification is in order. Jameson is primarily a literary critic, and as such is one of the foremost literary critics today working on SF. Besides the monograph Archaeologies of the Future he has several articles dating back to the seventies on SF, and has worked with the journal Science Fiction Studies; his work is close to Darko Suvin's, who is, if anybody is, one of the elder deans of academic SF scholarship. FJ's approach is largely Marxist, yes, but he also works within other literary-critical traditions, such as psychoanalysis and (post)structuralism. Now to Marx. Your gloss is helpful, but somewhat inaccurate. Dialectical materialism is not equivalent to historical materialism: the first is generally characterized as a science/philosophy, while the second is considered to be a historiography or philosophy of history. Now to Hegel; he's actually irrelevant in this context, but the thesis-antithesis-synthesis description of the dialectic isn't his, it's (pretty sure here) Fichte's, although that's a common misconception.


 * In the Jameson/Marx context, historical materialism (which could mean lots of things if we ignored the source) IS the same as Marx's dialectical materialism. And despite Mueller's misconceived 1958 article calling Hegelian dialectics a "legend," Hegel's philosophy is full of thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics.  But they aren't in Hegel's Logic, which is where Mueller was looking.  Hegel, of course, didn't use the term "thesis" and rarely said "antithesis" and 'synthesis"; he used other language, such as "second moment" and "third moment."  But I'm quibbling.  The essential point is that, by any reasonable interpretation of "historical materialism," that concept in no way clarifies the content of either science fiction or fantasy.  By the way, if you think the concept of thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics belongs exclusively to Fichte, you might want to read paragraph 50 of the preface to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit (Miller translation).


 * So, then: a) You're right. SF and Marxism don't, per se, have anything to do with one another (although a recent study by Carl Freedman, I believe, has claimed otherwise). That's also irrelevant. I wasn't claiming that they are connected, nor does quoting Jameson (who is, by any account, a reliable source) imply that they are. He offers an interesting, and useful reading of the distinction between SF and fantasy. Just because he's in the article doesn't mean that "we," or WP, agree with him. That's not the standard for inclusion; notability is.


 * I'm not saying that YOU are claiming that SF and Marxism are connected. I'm saying that JAMESON is IMPLYING that SF can be defined, or at least clarified, by Marxian concepts.  While we're still on the "historical materialism" concept, think carefully about what he says: "science fiction texts are bound by an inner logic based more on HISTORICAL MATERIALISM than on magic or the forces of good and evil."  To be sure, science fiction (1) eschews magic and (2) sometimes (but not always) avoids conflict between good and evil."  But those two points aren't the issue I raised.  I'm saying that SF doesn't revolve around anything that can usefully be called materialism.  Indeed, SF is more often concerned with IDEAS (the Marxian opposite of matter).  And attaching the adjective "historical" to "materialism"--yet saying that historical materialism has nothing to do with Marxian concepts--merely clouds the issue.  Precisely what is this historical materialism that Jameson finds in most if not all science fiction?  I don't think the fact that most SF is set in the future justifies the use of "historical."  But then what does justify that word?


 * b) again, the criterion for inclusion in WP is not truth, but notability. WP is an encyclopedia and tertiary source: we collect, in the best, clearest way possible, what the experts say. I'd gently suggest you review policy on this issue; looking at your talk page, you seem to have had issues in the past with WP:OR. So whether it's true or not, it is notable, since it comes from an expert on the subject. Don't agree? Find a reliable source that allows you to offer a counter-claim. (Incidentally, I think FJ's is a very good characterization, since it abstracts from pure considerations of creature/character, and looks at how history works in a text like The Lord of the Rings vs. one like Foundation. I think you're simply incorrect to say that MoP is unrelated to concepts of religion. Perhaps if you took a moment to look at the original source, rather than simply dismissing it, you could see why.


 * I fully agree that the criterion for statements should be truth. That is why I object to using the two Marxian concepts to define SF and fantasy.  Those concepts have nothing to do with either SF or fantasy.  Take "mode of production."  In Jameson's Marxian terminology, that refers to feudalism, capitalism, etc.  If you think it should be interpreted otherwise, you need to throw out the incredible ambiguity and say precisely what you really mean.  For example, if that is supposed to mean scientific technology, then use those two words: some SF relates to futuristic technology.  But technology is a micro concept covering a multitude of inventions, whereas mode of production is a macro concept describing how a society produces its goods--with factories owned by capitalists when the mode of production is capitalism, with agricultural serfdom and cottage industry when the mode of production is feudalism.  Jameson describes SF as turning "on a formal framework determined by concepts of the MODE OF PRODUCTION."  He is plainly wrong.  SF has nothing to do with the mode of production.


 * Jameson does go on to say "rather than religion." But now he is implying that one difference between SF and fantasy is that the latter tends to involve religion in its plots.  No doubt you could cite some examples--I can't--where fantasy plots do involve religion, but Jameson's implication that one criterion for identifying fantasy is religious content simply isn't true.  And when Jameson says "concepts of the MODE OF PRODUCTION rather than those of religion" he is falsely implying that religion is in some way the opposite of the mode of production.  That isn't true either.


 * c) this is a good point. I will try to think of how to revise this, but I don't think it's a question of "putting it in your own words" - FJ's concepts and terminology are technical, and somewhat difficult in their own right. It's not up to us to dumb them down. I don't expect to be able to understand complex vocabulary about geology when I read the WP article on plate tectonics, for example. Some things are difficult for a reason: what WP provides is, ideally, the clearest, most accurate summary of the major, notable views on a topic and good, acknowledged sources, so that the curious reader might know where to go to find more information if there's something they don't understand.


 * I strongly object to your saying that removing the ambiguity from "technical" concepts (technical only in a Marxian sense) constitutes dumbing them down. Clarity is clarity.  It is not catering to stupidity or dumbness.  And neither is it a matter of oversimplifying.  It is instead a matter of following a basic rule of writing: "Say what you mean."


 * Finally, I can only assume you're editing in good faith - you've clearly put a lot of time and thought into this, which we all appreciate. But do you see how writing something like "I suggest that you read the quoted (and redeleted) sentence closely and then try to restate it in your own words" might come across as condescending, arrogant, and/or schoolmarmish? Clearly I've read the sentence if I've bothered to restore it. I'll assume you weren't deliberately trying to be insulting with your comments, but it didn't come across in the best way.


 * Sorry, but I don't see that my quoted statement was either condescending, arrogant, or insulting. I'm simply trying to make you aware that Jameson's sentence is essentially either meaningless or false, depending on how you interpret and rewrite it.  As a related point, I was trying to get you to recognize and focus on the ambiguity of the sentence--and its inaccuracy.  What I said still goes.  The sentence as it stands is both ambiguous and inaccurate--in many ways.  It does absolutely nothing to clarify the content of fantasy, and neither does it accurately distinguish between SF and fantasy.  The only thing in the sentence that even approaches accuracy is the idea that fantasy more often than SF involves conflict between good and evil.  The reference to religion is nonsense, probablythe result of Jameson's "dumbing down" the concept of supernaturalism (which IS an aspect of fantasy) to the more widely understood concept of religion.  Religion may be steeped in supernaturalism, but it isn't the same thing.


 * I'm restoring the Jameson quote for the reasons given. If you think it's factually incorrect, find another source to offer an alternate view. If you think it's poorly worded, look at the original, in context, and see if you can make it clearer. If you want to change it again, please discuss it on the talk page first so that we can involve other editors and work towards a consensus, as per WP:BRD. This is all WP policy, not me pushing an agenda or trying to dominate this article. Sindinero (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, thanks for your speedy and thoughtful response. I still disagree with you on the interpretation of Jameson's claim (which, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you've actually read in its original context..?), but that's besides the point. Also, I'm familiar with the Phenomenology, but don't really see the relevance of paragraph 50 in this context.
 * Now, note that, above, I expressly didn't say that the criterion for statements is truth. If you'll reread what I said, it was that the criterion for inclusion on wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. It doesn't matter whether you think Jameson's claim is true, false, nonsense, or irrelevant. He qualifies as a reliable source, and this is a significant view on the topic. It doesn't matter that you think SF can't be defined by recourse to historical materialism - wikipedia is not the place for original research. If you dispute Jameson's claim per se, and I mean this sincerely, write an article and submit it to Science Fiction Studies or another journal. If you have a problem with Jameson's claim in the context of this wikipedia article, find another, well-sourced interpretation of the distinction between SF and fantasy, and include it in this section. In the context of this section of this article, both historical materialism and mode of production are now wikilinked, so the confused reader can see where to go to find more information.


 * On a side note, you may find Jameson's book quite interesting, and if you're interested in this sort of thing, I'd recommend you read it so that you can see how he develops his argument on SF and fantasy. It's compelling, and far more relevant than you're giving it credit for. I think you've really misunderstood both the presuppositions and implications of his argument, and you might find it useful to actually read the text before excoriating and then dismissing it.


 * If it's alright with you, I'll format your post on talk:Science fiction so that it's clear who said what.


 * And finally, it's customary on talk pages to leave your comments in such a way that future readers can tell clearly who said what - which means either leaving your comments en bloc, indented and signed, or, if you prefer to respond point-by-point, signing each indented response with ~.


 * Sindinero (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for the Editorial Help
Italic text

Your help desk question
I didn't see the question in time to really help, but whether you can back up after previewing depends on your browser.—  Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dialectical materialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick William II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hegel's dialectic
Hi Atticusattor, the section that you have created is much too long for the main article. We need to move it to a new sub-article such as Hegelian dialectic and summarize the material with a single paragraph at the main article. Thanks. &mdash; goethean 17:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have moved the material to Hegelian dialectic, and have written a one-sentence stub for the summary paragraph. Please expand the summary paragraph at Hegel. Thanks. &mdash; goethean 17:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Kaufmann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You left a message on the page User:DPL bot that should have been placed on User talk:DPL bot. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm JaGa, DPL bot's creator. I moved your comment to User talk:DPL bot and responded there. Hope to hear from you! I couldn't figure out if you meant the composer or the author. -- Ja Ga  talk 17:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:RS
Hello. Please stop adding original research or material that is not backed up by reliable sources. [http://stanley_kubrick.enacademic.com/225/Wheat,_Leonard_F. Wheat] (2012) is not a reliable source regarding Hegelian studies. Several edits of yours will have to be reverted. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed you mentioned my name here. 14.200.69.146 is not me. I never edit talk-pages anonymously.


 * Sorry for my mistake. Both the Talk comment and your email appeared on the same day and had similar content.  I therefore assumed the anonymous Talk contribution came from you.Atticusattor (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My previous comment above refers to the following articles: Dialectic, Master–slave dialectic, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Hegelian dialectic, Idealism, The Phenomenology of Spirit, Absolute idealism, Lectures on the Philosophy of History, Philosophy of history, Dialectical materialism, Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Your promotion of Wheat's fringe theories is a blatant violation of WP:PROFRINGE. I would appreciate an explanation of what obviously appears to you to be a perfectly appropriate campaign, but which is bewildering to anyone who has an understanding of the academic context of Hegelian studies. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Read my well-documented talk-page reply to 14.200.69.146, then repeat your intemperate accusation of "fringe theories" and "blatant violation of" Wiki policy.Atticusattor (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your "well-documented talk-page reply" is in fact an attempt at arguing from "first principles." You argue on and on for or against certain ideas instead of documenting what reliable sources say. Please note that Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. Regarding the articles above, you are merely employing a 'citation overkill' strategy in an attempt to make Wheat's theories appear more notable than they actually are. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability/reliability. See also my comment here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello, Atticusattor. I noticed that in several recent edits - here, here, and here - you used the edit summary "Reverts vandalism." Please be aware that "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: it covers only edits that are deliberately intended to be harmful or disruptive. It is not meant to describe situations where an editor simply disagrees with another editor about the content of an article. Please see WP:VANDAL. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing user pages
Hi! I don't log into my account here much anymore, but I noticed your thank-you from.. geez over a year ago. You're welcome, but if you could, please keep edits and messages on talk pages. The user pages are usually reserved for the user to edit. I moved your comments to my talk page. Have a good one! Kajmal (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)