User talk:Corduroyalmond

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Corduroyalmond, 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! Orlady (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2010 (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

Re: Childhood's End
Hi. Interesting user name. What does it mean? I see you are working on Childhood's End. In the lead section, we should be careful to start with a straight plot summary rather than with an interpretation or reference to similar ideas. You appear to have reversed the order. The fact is, we are dealing with an alien invasion story, so it isn't accurate to say it is less of one and more about a "next step in human evolution". That's an interpretation. Keep in mind, the alien invasion story is considered benevolent, with the Overlords acting as "midwives". For a plot summary in the lead, we just want to stick to basic facts, and follow up with interpretations and links to similar ideas. Now, as for saying it it is a "narrative about a next step in human evolution", that jumps outside the frame of our science fiction novel, implying that is somehow true, when in fact, we the reader (and the Overlords) know very little about this. You also say that the novel "prompts teleological inquiries like those posed in the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey", which I'm sure is a good interpretation, but again, muddies the water a bit. For example, "teleology" and science are two things that don't necessarily go together. Now, since we are in the realm of science fiction, we have more freedom to explore these ideas, but again, we need to be very careful and stick to the facts. It is true that these things were also posed in 2001, but it is more accurate to say that this novel influenced the ideas in that film, or that some of the ideas in the novel were incorporated into the film. Now, if we are going to talk about "teleological inquries", then that would appear after the plot summary, not before it. Obviously, the article needs a lot of work. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We disagree as to both fact and interpretation. As to the facts, there is no alien invasion qua alien invasion.  Invasion presupposes an occupation.  There are scant few Overlords present on Earth even when they reveal themselves.  There is a conquest of sorts, but that is different.  As to the interpretation, there is an encounter with a powerful alien species, to be sure, but it is in service of a goal: human evolution.  The encounter is a vehicle for Clarke to pose questions about how humans might be develop.  There is a lot of scientistic philosophy/theology in this novel and remarkably little science.  I yield to your insistence on the order of addressing straight plot summary.  However that plot needs to be characterized accurately.  Corduroyalmond (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Per my talk page guidelines (displayed when you click "edit"), I prefer to keep a discussion in one place rather than fragmented across talk pages. I have your talk page on my watchlist, and we can move this to the article talk page if you so desire.  Regarding your first point about "alien occupation", you may want to visit our article on alien invasion, as an "occupation" is only one of many scenarios that we find in a SF alien invasion.  As I said above in my original comment, we are dealing with a beneficial alien invasion, so occupation is not required.  However, the metaphor of colonialism is illustrated in the book by the comparison with the British occupation of Colonial India and the implications of first contact:
 * "Though it was much the largest, the Freedom League was the only one of the organizations that opposed Karellen-and, consequently, the humans who cooperated with the Overlords. The objections and policies of these groups varied enormously: some took the religious viewpoint, while others were merely expressing a sense of inferiority. They felt, with good reason, much as a cultured Indian of the nineteenth century must have done as he contemplated the British Raj.  The invaders had brought peace and prosperity to Earth-but who knew what the cost might be.  History was not reassuring: even the most peaceable of contacts between races at very different cultural levels had often resulted in the obliteration of the more backward society...(3:21)"
 * The most charitable description of the alien invasion scenario in harmony with other themes in the novel can be found in The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction (2003):
 * "Arthur C. Clarke managed to combine the efficient story-telling of American sf with Well's social awareness and Olaf Stapledon's visionary grandeur. Part utopia, part comic variation of the alien-invasion story, Childhood's End finishes with a haunting image of the mutated children of Earth destroying their world as they leave material existence behind.(2:42)"
 * I think this safely puts to rest your argument about the alien invasion and dispenses with the "less than...more of" argument. I'll move on to the rest of your points when you've acknowledged this. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So rather than reason you rely upon received wisdom? Sure you don't have a Bible quote for me?  Corduroyalmond (talk)
 * I have reasoned, and I have provided you with evidence that supports those reasons in the form of sources. After you were given this information, you changed "alien invasion" to "alien conquest", which is not supported.  Every good source refers to this as an alien invasion, not a conquest, and the aliens themselves are referred to as "invaders" in the novel. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bruce Clarke, Texas Tech University writes: "The Overlords arrive not to conquer but to deliver a dark message." And according to the book, the message was allegedly one of "liberation". Wikipedia's article on invasion states: "An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution."  That about ends this discussion, I think.  It most certainly was not a conquest. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * your reasoning and your evidence float free of one another. Please examine the Wikipedia page defining invasion.  I think you will be amazed.   Seems that its many authors are under the apparently mistaken impression that it involves a "military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity."  How silly of them.  Perhaps you will need to set them straight. Corduroyalmond (talk)
 * My reasoning is directly supported by the evidence, and the above discussion shows that to be true. See below for further information. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Corduroyalmond (talk)

Corduroyalmond, having looked into this a little closer, I think the problem here is your literal approach. Arthur C. Clarke is known for taking banal stories and "twisting" them around in an ironic manner. You may not be aware of this fact, and this may explain your apparent confusion on the subject. In other words, this is most certainly an alien invasion, but it is not the typical alien invasion we expect as the reader. And, that is exactly Clarke's style. It may help if you consult the critical sources in the article or do some more research on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, look who is interpreting! tu quoque Corduroyalmond (talk)
 * It is not an interpretation; it is precisely what the sources say about Clarke's style. Please read them.  Since you are interested in themes, I would be happy to see you develop this part of the article if it interests you, but please use sources.  The plot section also needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comments are an effort to shift the discussion from the absurdity of detaching the term alien invasion from the term invasion in Wikipedia. As they stand, they are logically inconsistent.  That won't go away no matter matter how many references you cite. You must engage the logic before you go hunting for citations.  Corduroyalmond (talk)

Your edits to alien invasion
I've reverted your edits to alien invasion as both original research and pointy. You inserted your personal opinion into this article in order to support your unsourced personal opinions in Childhood's End. Please do not do this again. If you are a new user, it may help to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines on how to edit articles. If you are a returning user under another account name, your edits could be interpreted as disruptive. I will assume that you are a new user who is in need of basic guidance. If that is true, I would be happy to point you in the right direction or answer any questions you might have. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am uninterested in either your emotional reactions or speculations. Corduroyalmond (talk)
 * Well, I think you should get interested. We edit based on sources, and we don't change articles to suit our personal opinions. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No Vididitas, I should not become interested in your emotional emotions or speculations. That you want me to do so is trollish.  Even creepy.  Corduroyalmond (talk)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may 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. --SineBot (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Alien invasion, 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. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Twentynine Palms, California, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There several reasons to omit the entry you made to 29 Palms. The first is the material is not notable. Not being notable, it is simply WP:SPAM for the author and book since they are deriving their "fame", such as it is, from the place, and not the other way around.
 * A second reason is there is at least one other editor who agrees with this position. Student7 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point on notability. Having read discussions on various policy statements, most editors regard this section as a nuisance trivia section that we cannot get rid of. It tends to distract from the place no matter how worded.
 * Frank Sinatra is already famous and dead. A mention here cannot help him one way or another. Maybe it can help Led Zepplin, but they are already famous and perhaps passe.
 * A quick way of determining whether a name or title or store should be added to an article is to determine how much the author/owner would appreciate it and want it. For places that are already notable, like McDonald's fast food, a mention in Wikipedia won't help nor hurt them. Everyone has been there and has formed an opinion already. In the case of "Joe's diner", it could potentially help or hurt them, and therefore is not allowed. So the rule of thumb? If they could use the mention, it shouldn't be there. If they could care less (McDonald's), then it can be mentioned if germane.
 * The book is not famous. The author is not famous. QED, he could use the publicity, and therefore shouldn't be there. We are neither a commercial site (not a .com). His book can be placed elsewhere for publicity. Just not here. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You impute motivation to me, something impossible unless you possess mind reading abilities. I did not seek to give the author or his book publicity.  Simply to contribute to the sort of general referencing that seems the only good excuse for open media.  The idea that one could possibly detract from a place like Twentynine Palms, California by making a cultural reference seems rather silly.  Even sillier is the idea that people with real jobs are going to spend a lot of time learning Wikipedia's little laws when all that would mean is arguments over interpretation with editors who would support one another in any case. Corduroyalmond (talk) January 5, 2011