 | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Sections with no replies in 31 days are automatically moved here. | [edit] Harry Hill Citation? Do you have any citations for Harry Hill/Hall? I've reverted last change. Norfolkdumpling (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Why remove external link on Non Sequitur? Just curious why you reverted back the external link I provided to the Non Sequitur entry (youTube overdubbed Star Trek). I reverted it back, and I'm sure you'll redact my reversion. Rest assured, if you do, I won't revert it back again, because I'm really not committed to Wikipedia's policies and don't want to participate in yet another edit war, but curious as to why it's not kosher. It is a much better example of what a non sequitur is than any of the examples given in the article. StrangeAttractor (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC) - Hello. It just seemed like the juxtapositions of straightforward surrealism, rather than a specifically useful example of non sequitur. The lines aren't "following" anything, they're just playing off the expectation of what a Star Trek character would normally say, without any build-up. Surely there are better (and more copyright-friendly) examples out there. --McGeddon (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Well, I really disagree with you. Very little of the content was related to Star Trek itself. If I was teaching a class and wanted an example of the term non sequitur, I honestly can't think of a more pure example than that video. Yes, the humor comes from watching familiar Star Trek figures deliver ridiculous lines, but the content of those lines is not (with a few exceptions) derived from Star Trek at all.
-
- With all due respect, on the discussion board for that entry, and in your response to my question, you position yourself as an expert on the subject, but I find myself doubting your expertise. Your use of the term "surrealism" is not accurate, for example. The video I linked to is not an example of surrealism. Surrealism relies on unusual juxtapositions, yes, but not nonsensical ones. Surrealism (historically) was deeply influenced by a contemporary (Freud-inspired) fascination with dream imagery. It attempts to create unusual meanings by juxtaposing unlikely combinations of objects or images within a unified, coherent scene, in order to create a meaningful, but unsettling impression on the viewer. In other words, surrealism is about conveying meaning. The purpose of a non sequitur (or rather its purpose as a literary device) is to thwart the audience's expectation of an ordinary, meaningful response with a nonsensical one. In short, surrealism is about *creating meaning*, and the non sequitur is a device used to render a dialogue *meaningless.*
-
- On the copyright issue, you at least make sense to me. However, the video is a short series of excerpts -- a collage of clips spliced together and with entirely new dialogue for the purposes of humor. Although it is not a satire in the literary sense of the term, it is certainly satirical under the terms of "fair use" in copyright -- it makes deliberate use of Star Trek clips to subvert them for humor. I don't see how this can possibly be viewed as anything but fair use.
-
- Probably I should have started this conversation with you on the discussion board for the article, but nonethless, I am interested in your response. I frankly don't see what gives you unilateral right to delete a reference that is not spurious, and guides the reader of the article to a useful example of the subject. StrangeAttractor (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh, I'm not claiming any "unilateral right" or positioning myself as an "expert", I'm just removing one link that I didn't think was appropriate, once. We're all on the same level here. (Another editor has removed the link again since, and you're right that this would be more usefully discussed on the talk page of the article.)
- The Star Trek video clearly attempts to set up some running jokes and characterisation, so seems closer to "unusual juxtapositions" than "does not follow". Surely the purest video example of a non-sequitur would be a clip where one character says something, and another character says something strange that deliberately doesn't follow on from it? But even then, it'd be more useful just to quote that in the article rather than link to a video clip. --McGeddon (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Ok... so what if some of the dialogue were quoted in the article instead. I really do think you haven't listened to it carefully -- you say "Surely the purest video example of a non-sequitur would be a clip where one character says something, and another character says something strange that deliberately doesn't follow on from it?" That is exactly the case with the video. Really, almost every single line has virtually nothing to do semantically with the line that precedes it, but is delivered in a fashion to make you think it might (*might*) have some coherence or relation to the actual ST-TNG characters.
-
-
-
- So do you think it would be a fair addition to the article to quote some of its dialogue as an example? (I will choose well.)
-
-
-
- Also, do you think I should cut and paste this entire conversation to the talk page of the article so that anyone else might weigh in?
-
-
-
- BTW, I have *nothing* whatsoever to do with the creators of the video, and no vested interest in it, and I do not think it is most hilarious thing I've ever heard in my life*** (although I do think it is LOL funny, a rare thing in itself, at least for me). And though I've long been a fan of the Star Trek franchise in all its permutations, I am not even remotely a fanatic. (Never attended a convention, never watched all episodes of any of the series, except *maybe* by accident the original).
-
-
-
- ***Either Monty Python or The Marx Brothers would probably qualify for that honor, masters of the non sequitur themselves... but honestly, nothing as pure as the video I'm waxing on about. The most other pure example that comes to mind is some of the work of the dadaists... but it's not funny. The Dadaists weren't really about funny. (That WWI artists' movement was about single-handedly destroying the entire art tradition of Europe in the most humiliating, ridiculous manner possible.) StrangeAttractor (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] linkfarm at Anxiety? A bunch of the external links on Anxiety were added 2 months ago (21 November [1]). Should they be deleted? Links to generally informative sites often seem to be tolerated as long as they are not obviously self-serving, and web sites of non-profit organizations would seem to fall under 'sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources' as sites which may be considered for inclusion. (The category 'links making up for the fact that the article in its present state is not fully comprehensive', and an article like Anxiety can probably never be fully comprehensive, seems not to be called out explicitly in the guidelines but maybe it should be.) Is your objection to the length of the list of links or in the nature of the links? I'm asking you for your views (and links to any relevant discussions elsewhere); I'm neutral. --Soiregistered (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Mornington Crescent I am not sure if you have understood the point of my edit. My amendments were not "my" joke as such; the whole Mornington Crescent thing is a joke. The whole idea has for (30? 40?) years been that there are no rules to the "game". I accept you may have known this and removed my edit anyway. Perhaps you would also go into a dictionary of computer terms, and remove the entries for "Loop" and "Circuitous Reference": "Loop: see Circuitous Reference" "Circuitous Reference: see Loop" If Wiki is so po-faced that it cannot accept this sort of thing, then no doubt the Father Christmas page, if there is one, will be telling children that Father Christmas does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.121.230 (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Hi, can you please state your opinion on the talk page? Thanks. LikeTreasure (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
