User talk:Allixpeeke

Talk Archive

9 January 2014 – 4 August 2015

Romeo + Juliet

The page already existed but it was converted into a redirect (bad decision, imo). ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.  While I know it's discouraged for people to make pages out of pages that were previously voted to be deleted, I think Romeo + Juliet nevertheless does merit being rebuilt.  The script to Romeo + Juliet isn't identical to the script to Romeo and Juliet, as some characters are changed or even eliminated, and as some names are also changed, which none of the voters for deletion seemed to've taken into account.  But, moreover, a page for the film would have quotes and details that the page for the play necessarily lacks, including a list of taglines, a cast list, a unique introduction, quotes about the film from critics, and possibly even quotes from the film's soundtrack.  But, alas, I have not the time for such an endeavour.  Hopefully someone will.

Thanks for the heads up.  allixpeeke (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:DanielTom, if the Wikiquote community should ever come around to the opinion that Romeo + Juliet indeed does merit its own article, I have constructed a pretty good mock-up here.  The only thing it lacks are actual quotes from the film.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

See here again—the page had quotes. So you can get them from there. The only problem now is that for the page to be recreated, it would have to go through Deletion review, which can literally take forever. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but I worry about the preciseness of those quotes.  After all, the introduction on that page makes reference to two separate films, and just as the Romeo + Juliet script is not identical to Shakespeare's original, it's also not identical to Romeo and Juliet (1968 film).  We would need someone who has access to Romeo + Juliet in order to verify each line that is added to the new page, and although I own a copy of the soundtrack, I don't own a copy of the film.

Do you own a copy of the film?  If so, I grant you permission to edit the quotes from the film section of my mockup.  Further, if there is an audio commentary track, I likewise grant you permission to edit the quotes about the film section.

allixpeeke (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The quotes were all from the 1996 film, but, if you care to compare, you will note I made a few corrections (e.g., "'Tis I never saw true beauty 'till this night." → "For I never saw true beauty till this night."; "a pair of star crossed lovers take thier lives." → "a pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life.", &c.). I might add, there's an even better Shakespeare film of 1996: Branagh's Hamlet. Cheers! ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DanielTom, wonderful!  I do have to ask, though, is the line in the film "Romeo.  Oh, Romeo!  Wherefore art thou Romeo?" or "Oh, Romeo.  Romeo!  Wherefore art thou Romeo?"  The page says one thing and IMDb says another.

In any event, I went in and added some more pictures, added some links, added some quotes from the filmmakers, and, with the aid of YouTube, added a couple dialogues.  I also added notation to indicate where the film's script differs from Shakespeare's.

All in all, I think the page is looking good.  I think, given the many features of the article that are applicable to this film but not applicable to the original play (i.e., the introduction, quotes about the film, soundtrack quotes, and notes on the differences between this and the original), we would have a pretty solid case going forward in the deletion review.  Anything else you think should be added or changed before we make it official?

allixpeeke (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are some slight differences: In the play Juliet says "O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?", but in this film she says "Romeo. O Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?" (and "That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet"). I completely agree with your assessment. (If it were up to me, I would would even skip deletion review, and just create/replace the redirect Romeo + Juliet with what you have, but following the formal process is more recommendable.) The only thing I don't like in your current version is the red links, but that's merely an aesthetic concern. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

William Fergus Martin

William Fergus Martin has been listed at Votes for deletion after you removed a {{prod}} from it. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/William Fergus Martin. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm?  The only ones from which I removed {{prod}} were ones to which I added sources.  allixpeeke (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see.  Your reason was "This writer does not appear to be sufficiently notable for a Wikiquote article."  Although most {{prod}}s concern themselves with lack of appropriate sources, this one was about the notability of the author.  allixpeeke (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Your wise input would be appreciated

Curious about your thoughts here Talk:Jim Henson ?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Two cents delivered.  : )   allixpeeke (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you keep an eye on the page Jim Henson, and the deletion discussion page Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jim Henson ? It seems a method is being used to try to get the page deleted, by removing sourced quotes, from the page, while the page itself is in an ongoing deletion discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Kamen rider blah blah blah ...

Hi, thank you for your tagging (and I agree it'd better to be deleted), but a slight disagreement; the topic is not nonsense imo ... it's relevant to a Japan made TV show and perhaps derivative toy's commercial (I haven't watched though, but it's another matter). I suspect it's a whole script of tv commercial, and out of scope of our mission. But what you don't know is not always nonsense. The subject is notable - sort of. My two yen. --Aphaia (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.  allixpeeke (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Chinese language

Hello Allixpeeke, I noticed you added the section "external links" to the subj, and introduced the link zh.wikiquote.org/wiki/汉语 which currently leads nowhere (it is also not external but rather internal, if only it led to the page with that name). My question is, are you planning on creating this (currenly missing) page on Chinese wikiquote? -Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah.  I didn't realise the page didn't have quotes.  I replaced it with something more appropriate.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This surely is better, thanks! Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

two spaces

Have you read this? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

DanielTom,

The piece claims, "Because we've all switched to modern fonts, adding two spaces after a period no longer enhances readability, typographers say.  It diminishes it."  I could not disagree more.  Even if a case can be made that it is not "necessary," I still find it far easier to read texts that include the double-space between sentences than texts that don't.  There's just something…uncomfortable about seeing a new sentence start too close to the end punctuation of the preceding sentence.

For what it's worth, I far prefer this piece, published on the same site on the same day.  To quote the latter piece, "Manjoo's argument about beauty, like all such arguments, is easy enough to dismiss: I disagree.  I find it easier to read paragraphs that are composed of sentences separated by two spaces.  …  But there's also a deeper beauty to the two space rule—a sort of mathematical beauty."

Nevertheless, I thank you for the link.

Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that article too. " "Thanks for your reply. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

DanielTom,

The article is factually wrong.  It claims that the double-space was started because of typewriters (and, specifically, mono-spaced typewriters).  According to Wikipedia, the first commercially successful typewriter was invented in 1868, and yet the double-space was popular well before that.  Take for instance this 1845 publication.  Not only does it employ the double-space, its characters are not mono-spaced, to boot.

No, the reason why the double-space began falling out of favour was the commercial pressure to reduce cost in the mid-twentieth century.  By no longer adhering to the tradition of double spacing, the man-hours required to set type was reduced, thus saving the publishers money.  (They also saved a bit of money on paper.)

But now, we are in the age of the Internet.  I've no publisher breathing down my neck telling me I must buck the double-space tradition simply so that she or he needn't pay me as much, nor do I see any reason for concern over the miniscule cost increase associated with using a few more bits of data requisite to double space.

Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

may I please talk to you

regards Me-myself22 (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Commence.  allixpeeke (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I must wonder whether Me-myself22, User:Allah-waliah, and 58.106.168.148 are not the same person.  Yesterday, Me-myself22 (who had only ever made two other edits on all of Wikiquote, both relating to Karan Singh Grover) posts this random request to my talk page.  (Why this editor didn't simply say whatever it was she or he wished to say, instead of first asking permission to say it, is beyond me.)  I respond in the affirmative.  No further communication from Me-myself22.  Today, someone with the IP address 58.106.168.148 edited this section of my talk page to make this request.  (The person has to make five edits within the period of six minutes in order to perfect her or his message, apparently.  See 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.)  The message requests that I check out recent edits to Karan Singh Grover, claiming these edits are "wrong" and specifically calling out two editors, Dharmashdyan and digviijay.  Upon checking the page history, however, I can see that no such editors have made any edits, nor can it be said that any edits been made to vandalise the page.  It appeared that the request may have pertained to the Wikipedia page on Karan Singh Grover—a page, I must note, that I have never edited, nor even read, a page in which I have absolutely zero interest.  Yet, I can see no evidence of any editors by those usernames having edited that page, either.  Thus, this request appears utterly nonsensical.  These five edits are the only edits 58.106.168.148 has made on Wikiquote.  Forty minutes later, Allah-waliah greatly truncated the request, replacing the IP signature with her or his own username signature.  Although truncated, the basic request that I check the Karan Singh Grover for vandalism remained intact—but, of course, there was no vandalism done to that Wikiquote page, as I said above.  One minute after that, Allah-waliah (who also has almost no edits here) eliminates the request altogether, thus leaving the page as it had been yesterday.  I really do not want to deal with this sort of nonsense.  It appears that the only reason I am being involved in this nonsense is because of my keep vote here.  Should I receive any further requests that seem to pertain to the Wikipedia article on Karan Singh Grover, or that are nonsensical requests made by editors that seem to have simply created accounts here in order to promote Karan Singh Grover, I shall remove my keep vote.  allixpeeke (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Templates

Thanks for your work on the new templates for franchises - just pne note: it does not appear that the templates are working on all the pages. I assume you will eventually go back and fix them, but I wanted to call your attention to them. The templates do not always seems to work on the individual pages for the works in the franchise (see Despicable Me or Child's Play (1988 film) for example). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

UDScott,

I am not sure what you're talking about.  I checked all three Despicable Me pages, and the template is working on all of them.  Then I checked the five Chucky pages, and, again, the template was working on all five.  Perhaps it's your computer?

Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I don;t know - when I look at those pages (and a few others), I see a red-link to the template. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, never mind. When I re-sync the time, they appear. No worries. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Libertarian films

You might want to slow down with adding this category to so many pages - first, the category is being discussed at VFD (and it looks like it might be deleted). Second, I'm not sure what criteria you are using to select films for the category, but there are many that are not obvious to me why they would be included. In any case, I think the category should not be added to pages while it is under discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

UDScott,

The criteria for my inclusion was the following: any film in which there is an authoritarian or collectivist presence being opposed; or wherein individualism, justly-owned property, or the market economy is promoted; or where war, intolerance, and enslavement are rejected or unmasked as horrors.

For example, Daddy Day Care (which has been in the category since February) is included because it demonstrates how easily the regulatory state is exploited to give established firms a competitive edge over startups; in short, the film promotes free markets over corporatism.  It's heroes also promote individualism, acknowledging that even children are unique individuals.¹

For another example, Avatar is a film about defending property rights.  A militaristic, alien government attempts to impose itself upon the native Na'vi in order to steal what is rightfully theirs.  The Na'vi, in turn, engage in self-defence against this invading, imperialistic force.

In Ghostbusters and The Simpsons Movie, the villain is the same: a government agency calling itself the E. P. A.  Both films are chuck full of libertarianism.  Lake Springfield in The Simpsons Movie is an allegory for the tragedy of the commons, while the ineffectual nature of the wall Mayor Quimby builds around the fence is an allegory for similar walls proposed by the political class.²  And Dr. Ray Stantz famously says in Ghostbusters, "Personally, I liked the university.  They gave us money and facilities; we didn't have to produce anything!  You've never been out of college!  You don't know what it's like out there!  I've worked in the private sector—they expect results."³  The trio, as we all know, thereafter become entrepreneurs, starting their own small business, a small business which turns out to be so successful that they have to expand, taking on an additional ghostbuster.  (And, I feel I would be remiss if I did not mention that Lady Liberty walks through New York in the sequel, and even steps on a police car.)

Of course, the fact that Ghostbusters is libertarian should not shock anyone, since director/producer Ivan Reitman has admitted to having libertarian impulses.⁴  But, even non-libertarians make libertarian films.  Michael Moore, for example, is obviously not a libertarian, and yet his Farenheit 9/11, by virtue of being antiwar, nevertheless is libertarian (which isn't to say that the film can't be other things in addition to being libertarian, of course, only that it is libertarian).  In fact, sometimes statists make films hoping that they will promote a statist message, and fail so utterly that the product is a libertarian classic.  Take for example The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), produced by the statist Julian Blaustein, a libertarian classic for its subtle yet persistent rejection of xenophobia, its warnings against substituting fear for reason, its examination of the dangers of nuclear war and nuclear weapons generally, and its insistence that there is something socially problematic about any hypermilitaristic society.⁵  (Much to what I presume would be Blaustein's consternation, Professor Aeon J. Skoble has written on the film's classical liberal and libertarian themes.⁶)  And, of course, there is also Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984), based on 1984.  George Orwell, the author of that novel, was not a libertarian, but was rather an antiauthoritarian socialist who waffled back and forth during his life between "libertarian" socialism and democratic socialism.  As Jeff Riggenbach put it,

One doesn't have to read far into the works of George Orwell to discover that he had no understanding of economics whatsoever and was not personally a libertarian in the sense we have in mind when we use that word today.  He was a permanently confused but authentically and radically antiauthoritarian democratic socialist.  He was the kind of modern leftist few modern-day libertarians would have any trouble getting along with, making common cause with, collaborating with.  George Orwell presents us with yet another case of a writer who was not himself a libertarian as we understand the term today, but whose last two novels, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-four, have earned him a place in the libertarian tradition.⁷

But although Orwell was not himself a libertarian, 1984 was obviously very libertarian, as was Radford's film adaptation.  The libertarian hero of the film, Winston Smith, is a rebel, and his primary act of rebellion is to think independently.  He has sex, he falls in love, he eats foods reserved for a different class of citizens, he reads banned literature, he buys a few pieces of private property without the permission of the state, and most importantly, he quietly questions authority.  For all of this, but particularly for his independence in thought, he is brutally attacked by the state's henchmen.  It's his individuality ("ownlife" in Newspeak) that is most threatening to the political class, and thus it is his individuality that they aim to obliterate.⁸  Yes, the story is libertarian to its core.  (Should The Moon is a Harsh Mistress⁹ ever be made into a film, we might have to add it to the list of films made from material written by nonlibertarians, i.e., if we are to take into consideration what Wilson A. Clark, Jr. has to say about Heinlein.¹⁰)

I really do have good reason for each film I included.  The political class is the villain in many, including 2081 (the Handicapper General)¹¹, Æon Flux (the power-hungry Oren Goodchild)¹², Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (the mayor)¹³, Enemy of the State (the N. S. A.), Equilibrium (the Tetragrammaton Council and the Grammaton Clerics), 1966's Fahrenheit 451 (the Firemen)¹⁴, The Hunger Games (the Capitol), The People vs. Larry Flynt (censors), Pump Up the Volume (the F. C. C.), Rabbit-Proof Fence (the Chief "Protector" of the Aborigine Populace)¹⁵, Schindler's List (the Nazis), Short Circuit (the militaristic NOVA), the Star Wars films (the empire)¹⁶, THX 1138, The Toxic Avenger (the mayor and the military)¹⁷, and V for Vendetta.  Some films focus much more on the questions of individualism v. collectivism and nonconformity v. conformity, including some of the ones already mentioned plus as Antz¹⁸, Dark City, Disturbing Behavior, Divergent, The Fountainhead, The Matrix, Pleasantville (which also has the libertarian theme of being anti-xenophobic), and They Live (in which an alien race is clearly infringing upon self-ownership insofar as it alters humans' minds without their consent)¹⁹.  There are antiwar films such as The Americanization of Emily²⁰, The Book Thief (which is also anti-Nazi), Dr. Strangelove²¹, Shenandoah (which is also pro-property and anti-state)²³, and South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (which is also anticensorship).  There are films such as Brazil which focus on the horrors of bureaucracy, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix which demonstrates the burden of having myriad authoritarian rules, I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang which shows the devastating effects of incarceration, Minority Report which examines the dangers of the security state²³ and slavery²⁴ and promotes an appreciation for ethics²⁵ and an understanding of free will²⁶, all the while focusing on the injustice of punishing people who have not yet done anything wrong.  The Truman Show is about Truman Burbank's struggle for truth and liberty, which is contrasted with the security of the world created for him by Christof.²⁷  To Kill a Mockingbird is about tolerance and promotes the ideal that courts should not side against someone for purely prejudicial reasons.  In The Pursuit of Happyness, the protagonist struggles against the odds to become a business success, never giving in to defeat.  Then there's Sleeper (1973) in which Woody Allen informs us that "political solutions don't work," that "it doesn't matter who's up there, they're all terrible."²⁸  Similarly, Tammy Metzler in Election (1999) wins a student government election on the promise of doing nothing other than dismantling the student government.²⁹

Yes, I believe each film I added to the category fits the criteria of a libertarian film quite effectively.  I hope you understand my rationale for believing so.

Sincerely yours, allixpeeke (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to consider your words a bit more before providing a fuller response, but my initial feeling is that you are trying to ascribe a bit much into these films. Just because there may be elements of a film that have something to do with a particular theme does not mean that the entire film is about that theme. For example, if a comedy film has a scene or a character who picks pockets, this does not mean that it should be called a crime film. Many of the films that have now been characterized as being Libertarian films, to me, are similar in that there may be parts of the films that express an idea characteristic of libertarianism, but the film itself is not really a libertarian film. To me, to qualify in this category, the film's primary themes should be about a libertarian quality or ideal. I feel that putting all these films in the category is a stretch (and using some of your arguments above, nearly all films have some element of libertarianism in them - but not all should be in this category). ~ UDScott (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

UDScott,

You write, "Just because there may be elements of a film that have something to do with a particular theme does not mean that the entire film is about that theme."

Agreed.  I wouldn't put a single one of these films in a Category:Films about libertarianism.

You also write, "[A]nd using some of your arguments above, nearly all films have some element of libertarianism in them - but not all should be in this category."

Again, agreed.  It's not enough to just have a libertarian character or to just happen to have a scene in which someone happens to say, e.g., "But gun control doesn't work."  The libertarian theme must be important to the story or to the film's message.  Most films in which the state is the villain would automatically fall under the category of libertarian films—but, even that rule isn't absolute.  In most cases, films in which the state is the villain are libertarian films by virtue of the fact that it promotes the message that there can be or is something villainous about statism.  But, should a film exist in which the state is a villain, but in which the "heroes" are also statists, statists who are not opposed to statism per se but rather merely to the form of statism exemplified by their own state, that would not be a libertarian film.  (To state this case with a bit more example, almost every anti-Soviet Union film would be automatically libertarian, unless the film happened to be both anti-Soviet Union and pro-Nazi, in which case it would not.)  I feel the films I've included in the category are sufficiently libertarian to be included.  Take Avatar, for example: the theme of the film is thoroughly libertarian.  The entire film is about the just struggle of the Na'vi in defending their land from the violent, imperialistic fist of an invading military force whose sole objective is to steal said land.  Or take Dark City.  The entire film is about John Murdoch, an individual human, fighting against the Strangers, a group of beings who have a collective memory and who are manipulating humans without the humans' consent.  There's no way to divorce libertarianism from these films.

But, just because these films are libertarian does not mean that all, or nearly all, films are libertarian.  If we had a film in which the collectivistic Strangers were the heroes of the film and in which the individual was the villain, that would be a pretty unlibertarian film, as would a film in which the invading military force is depicted as the heroes and the landowners as the enemy.  While both RoboCop and Fight Club are great films, I don't consider either one to be particularly libertarian.  Some have argued that Fight Club is libertarian on the grounds that the narrator, upon discovering the reality of his situation, attempts to take personal responsibility—but I think that's a stretch, especially when one considers the rather collectivistic nature of Project Mayhem and Tyler Durden's anti-individualistic, anti-comsumeristic, "anarcho"-primitivistic rhetoric—he even makes reference to human life being of no greater value than an egg.  And RoboCop leaves the viewer with the false impression that government-monopoly policing is good, and that without it, there would be choas.  I find Johnny Mnemonic similarly unlibertarian; it's oddly anti-technology.  And as for In Time, the film is so economically confused that that it seems to be almost accidentally antilibertarian.

Then there are films that are neither libertarian nor unlibertarian.  12 Monkeys, for example, doesn't bother to comment on libertarian themes, whether positively or negatively.  The film is completely apolitical, focusing instead on epistemology.  Can James Cole ever be sure he is not insane?  Nor is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind either libertarian or unlibertarian.  Most horror films are likewise neither libertarian nor unlibertarian.  It's not enough that the villain merely be an evil killer and the victim be innocent, even if libertarians i[so facto side with the innocent characters and against the murderously evil characters.

But, when you have a film like The Truman Show, in which the entire film is about the protagonist's struggle to control his own destiny, to know about and be free from those who are manipulating the world around him, when the audience is shown cheering the fact that Truman chooses the uncertainty of freedom over the security of the show's set, the libertarianism is inescapable.

Respectfully yours, allixpeeke (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Allixpeeke for your thoughtful responses - I think I have a much better understanding of your view - and I admit, you've convinced me on many of your points. I retract my statement that you were trying to stretch an idea to make films fit into the box of Libertarian films. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Wage and Exploitation articles

• Thank you for your contributions to the wage article. The quotes you added are very interesting. You probably also noticed that questions about wages rely very much on questions about property rights. The quotes that you added seem to have a very optimistic outlook on property rights, and I would like to understand this better. This is a bit off the topic of Wikiquote, but I hope it might lead to some interesting future additions. Based on your work on Wikiquote, I can tell you are an intellectual leader in the libertarian world, and a dialog seems like it could be productive on many levels.

  For me the quotes and the sanguine outlook on property rights they presuppose raise at least two questions. (1) If the distribution of wealth is correct and just before a voluntary exchange, will it be correct and just after the exchange? and (2) How do we take history into account in deciding if the distribution of wealth is correct and just?

  In regard to question (2), questions like “How long is the statute of limitations for past economic injustice?” become important. I’m interested in what libertarian theory has to say about this. Libertarian theory, at least what I have read, is taut and logical in its derivation of many legal institutions, but when it comes to the statute of limitations, Rothbard and Mises suddenly fail to offer logical arguments, and abruptly change from apodictic rights-based reasoning to a much less logically compelling form of pragmatist reasoning. Suppose the statute of limitations for past economic injustice is four years. Doesn’t this mean that in our research into past economic injustice we have agreed to rule out the study of history beyond four years? What is the justification for this limitation on our study of history? I’m sure you’re familiar with the expression, “Possession is nine-tenths of the law.” If the government is strict in enforcing property rights, and not very particular about ensuring they are correct and just, then in enforcing property rights it may be enforcing injustice. Property rights carry forward in time for many generations. Why do the debts incurred for past crimes not carry forward with them? If the rate of return on capital (r) were less than the growth rate (g) of the economy, past injustice would fade out over time, and we could justify a statute of limitations of something on the order of 1/(g-r). For example if the economy grew at 4% per year and the rate of return on capital was 3%, past injustices would fade out exponentially with a time constant of 1/(0.04-0.03) = 100 years, and we could justify a one century statute of limitations. But Piketty has shown, I think, that in fact r>g. If this is true, then past injustices continue to grow over time, and there is no justification for any statute of limitations. Let’s look at the recent past as an example. If we consider that large corporations have been writing legislation intended to drive out small competitors and consolidate their power through non-market mechanisms, then we can question whether corporate debt and equity, which constitutes a huge fraction of total wealth, is a legitimate property right. Do we need a massive restitution for past injustice (like the Jubilee) to wipe out illegitimate property rights carried forward from our decidedly non-libertarian history before we can begin to found a truly just libertarian society? Or is the justice of a libertarian society entirely independent from the justice of its starting point? ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Another concern which is more on topic for Wikiquote, and which I will also include on the article talk pages: I suspect many of the quotations you have added to the wage and exploitation articles have been articulated in a context in which the author is describing his vision of an ideal libertarian society. In such a society, the ownership of resources is the result of just procedures and is therefore just. An employment agreement made between participants of such a society is therefore merely a voluntary trade and can't in any meaningful sense be called exploitation. By taking these quotations out of context, however, you have given Wikiquote readers the impression that these conclusions apply to present-day society, or indeed to any society no matter how the distribution of resources has come into place. To cite just one limiting case as an example: if a dictator confiscates all the land and resources of his subjects and then hires them as laborers, I think we would certainly call this employment contract exploitation.

  Ripping a quotation out of context always does it some injustice. But in this case I think the meaning is distorted particularly badly. Since the quotations you added are so long by Wikiquote standards, I get the impression that you felt more had to be included to make the quotation adequately comprehensible. But perhaps so much would have to be included as to make a brief quotation impossible? Or perhaps you could look backward in the texts to a point where the author defines the context in which he makes his later statements, and add that with an ellipsis? I'm not sure what the best approach is, but I'm not really satisfied with the present one. Peter1c (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Peter1c,

I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond.  I do wish to write a response at some point, but I haven't had a good opportunity.

Best, allixpeeke (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

hi

happy new year.to you and your family.--Sonia Sevilla (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Moon in film

A good addition, but we already have a similar category (Category:Moon-related films) - I would recommend only using one of them. I don;t have a preference which you use, but we shouldn't have this redundancy. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.  allixpeeke (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you be interested in improving the page for Michael Badnarik?

The page for Michael Badnarik requires a lot of additional citations, I was wondering if you might be interested. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetizing

I think alphabetizing by the last name of whoever is listed first on IMDB or wikipedia is better than the title; like with all the X-Men quotes on the pain page; the same way multi author works Chicago or MLA style, unless it's a work where the authors aren't known. I'm pretty sure when I was adding dialogue quotes from movies and television someone would have called me out on it if I was wrong that many times in a row like, like how I got called out on my formatting quotes throwing off the typography with two colons instead of a colon and asterix. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear CensoredScribe,

It took a good deal of searching on my part to figure out to what you were referring.  First, I searched some of the X-Men pages to see what edits I had made to them in or before January, but said edits were merely categorical.  Had I not gone into my talk page's edit history, I would never have found this, which is what clued me in to the fact that you were referring to an edit I'd made on the mutant page.  Next, it was your edit summery here that let me know that you knew that the concern you'd previously expressed was moot.  Thus, this just leaves me with the present concern.

I reviewed my edit on the mutant page.  I must admit, I am not entirely sure what my motivation was for alphabetising films and shows by title, although I have to suspect that it may have been borne out of a concern for (A) situations where there are multiple writers, (B) situations where a writer is unknown (which probably isn't as much of a concern for films as for episodes of shows), (C) situations where there are "written by," "screenplay by," and "story by" credits, and (D) having an expedient to keep related media (e.g., the various X-Men films) next to one another.

In reviewing your suggestion, I decided to reanalyse—or analyse more deeply—the concerns that I surmise motivated my method of alphabetising in the mutant article.  I came to the conclusion that my surmised previous concern was probably unfounded.

I am currently inclined, thanks to your suggestion, to think we should order quotes as follows:

1. All books, novels, essays, articles, plays, films, and television episodes that have a single author should be ordered by the surname of said author.
2. All books, novels, essays, articles, and plays that have multiple authors should be ordered by the surname of the author whose surname comes first alphabetically (although all authors should be listed).
3. All films and television episodes that have some mixture of "story by," "screenplay by," and "written by" credits should be ordered by the surname of the screenplay writer.  In the case of multiple screenplay writers, it should be ordered by the screenplay writer whose surname comes first alphabetically.  (All screenplay writers, "written by" writers, and story writers should be listed, however.)
4. All films and television episodes that have some mixture of "story by" and "written by" credits but no "screenplay by" credits should be ordered by the surname of the "written by" writer.  In the case of multiple "written by" writers, it should be ordered by the "written by" writer whose surname comes first alphabetically.  (All "written by" writers and story writers should be listed, however.)
5. All films and television episodes that only have a "story by" credit should be ordered by the surname of the writer.  In the case of multiple "story by" writers, it should be ordered by the writer whose surname comes first alphabetically.  (All "story by" writers should be listed, however.)
6. If no author of the book, novel, essay, article, play, film, or television episode is known, but the work has been attributed in antiquity to a known author (e.g., Prometheus Bound, attributed in antiquity to Æschylus), the work should be ordered by the surname of the attributed author (with notation that the authorship is disputed).
7. If no author of the book, novel, essay, article, play, film, or television episode is known, and no author has been attributed to the work in antiquity, the work should be ordered by the work's title.
8. If neither the work's title nor author are known or attributed, the quote should be ordered by the character's surname (although actors' names should be parenthetically listed, too).
9. If neither the work's title nor author are known or attributed, and the character's surname is not known, the quote should be ordered by the name that is known (although actors' names should be parenthetically listed, too).
10. If neither the work's title nor author are known or attributed, and there are multiple characters speaking in the quote, the quote should be ordered by the surname of the character whose surname comes first alphabetically, or in the case of characters whose surnames are not known, the character's known name (although actors' names should be parenthetically listed, too).
11. If neither the work's title nor author are known or attributed, and the character's name is not known, but the character is clearly the narrator (e.g., Edward Norton's character in Fight Club), the word "Narrator" should stand in for the character's name and the quote should be ordered by as though "Narrator" were the character's name (although actors' names should be parenthetically listed, too).
12. If neither the work's title nor author are known or attributed, the character's name is not known, and the character is not a also a narrator, the word "Unknown" should stand for the character's name and the quote should be ordered by the actor's surname, unless that is not known, in which case it should be ordered by the name by which the actor is known.
13. If the work's title, the work's author, the character's name, and the actor's name are all unknown and not attributed, or if the work's title, the work's author, and the character's name are unknown and there is no actor (as in the case with literature), the should should be attribited to Anonymous and should be ordered as though "Anonymous" is the author's name.

I think this is a fairly good mock-up.  What do you think?

Sincerely yours, allixpeeke (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Where

Where is the the categories of people by death and births, where is dates in Wikiquote?!--Sonia Sevilla (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Deaths: Category:Dead people.  Births: no such category currently exists.  allixpeeke (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Your recent additions to Wikiquote

Hi allixpeeke. I have looked over your recent additions to Wikiquote, and have the following comments.

• Please avoid linking to nonexistent articles.
• It's OK to capitalize the first letter of a quotation when it is not capitalized in the original. There is no need to place the capital letter in brackets.
• Author headings in theme pages and in the "about" section of author pages are problematic because when additional quotes are added that alphabetically follow the last author, they will appear under that author's heading. This means that once we have author headings for one author, we have to have them for all authors that alphabetically follow the first author with a heading. The table of contents also becomes unnecessarily large, requiring the reader to scroll down to see the first quote. I can see why you might want to avoid repeating the author's name, but I think this is the better solution.
• The two-column approach to citing a quote in the original language and in translation seems like a good idea, and works well in the Gustave de Molinari article. There are some problems, however.

• I think we want to avoid having so much HTML in pages that it becomes difficult for other editors to see what is going on. I suggest using very minimal HTML, or using Wiki markup instead. See Ernst Meister for an example.
• In the Gustave de Molinari article, the headings do not line up.
• In the Gustave de Molinari article, the use of headings is not consistent. In some cases French and English headings are provided. In other cases the heading is a number on one side and text on the other.

• In the Exception article, I am concerned that many of the quotes do not provide any new information to the reader about exceptionality. Examples are appropriate for theme articles when the example tells the reader something new and interesting about the theme. But when the example is a typical example of the theme, what does it tell the reader about the theme? For example:

• In politics, love is a stranger, and when it intrudes upon it nothing is being achieved except hypocrisy.
  • Hannah Arendt, letter to James Baldwin (21 November 1962).

I like this quote, but what does it tell the reader about exceptionality and exceptions? Readers will come to the page looking for quotes that will tell them something new and interesting about the nature of exceptions.

• The redirects you added are appropriate and helpful.
• Maybe "Divine right of the State" should just redirect to "State"? Is this really the same as divine right of kings?
• In Divine right of kings, I don't see the necessity of having two different New Testament translations. Citing one translation, or the Greek and one translation, is sufficient. If readers want more translations, they can easily find them.
• In Divine right of kings, I don't agree with the practice of dividing up into "Biblical quotes" and "Other quotes." Alphabetize quotes from the Bible by their traditionally assumed author (e.g. pseudo-Pauline letters under Paul, etc.).
• In Divine right of kings, I am concerned that the extensive use of HTML makes it difficult for other editors to follow what you are doing.
• In Divine right of kings, the use of HTML formatting similar to other websites gives the impression that the HTML was copied from another website. If this is the case, this is a Presentation copyright violation. Did you copy this HTML from another website?
• Gustave de Molinari quotes have been added to some theme articles where they are very relevant and helpful (e.g. Division of labor). But I'm concerned that you have become so enamored of these quotes that you are not objectively assessing their relevance to all the places you've added them. Could you go through these additions again and try to assess the relevance objectively?

Thanks again for your thought-provoking contributions to Wikiquote. ~ Peter1c (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Peter1c,

First, thank you for your level-headed approach to discussing your concerns.  I do not say that sarcastically.  I aim to address them with the same balance.

1. My attitude toward redlinks is that they encourage article creation.  Maybe I overdo it sometimes (and if so, I'm sorry for that), but I do think it reasonable to permit at least a certain degree of redlinks.

   You may notice that, per your suggestion, I removed most of the redlinks from the Randolph Bourne page, but still left a few.  I hope that by leaving the ones I did, I will help encourage the creation of articles such as autocracy, Constitutional Convention (United States), dominance, evasion, heredity, horror, inanity, orthodoxy, poignancy, sedition, skeleton, sophism, tragedy, uniformity, War of 1812, and warmth—all of which definitely should have pages sooner or later.

   I know for a fact that my leaving of redlinks has inspired page-creation.  Just over a year ago, I left nut (fruit) as a redlink, and within days, a page for it was created.  And BD2412 specifically told me that the redlink I'd left at Frances Bean Cobain inspired her or him to create a page for Friday the 13th.

   So, perhaps I might overdo it at times with the redlinks (and, again, sorry if I do), but I maintain that some degree of redlinking is worthwhile.  Do you think the degree of redlinks I left intact at Randolph Bourne is acceptable?

   (Also, I removed all recursive links from the page.  Previously, no link recurred within any specific quote, but links did recur throughout the page as a whole.)

2. You may find it acceptable to capitalise the first letter of a quotation when it is not capitalisation is not in the original, but I do not.  It is deceiving to the reader.  Further, inclusion of brackets takes absolutely nothing away from the page.  Personally, and please don't take offence to this, I find your removal of brackets on par with someone removing ellipses from quotes.  If a student (or any other writer for that matter) comes here and incorporates one of our quotes into her or his essay, the student, wishing to quote the author faithfully, will want to know whether the letter is capitalised or not in the original.  Therefore, I strongly encourage you to cease removing brackets from quotes.

   I hope that didn't come off sounding unreasonably harsh, but I feel very strongly about this one.

3. You write,

   Author headings in theme pages and in the "about" section of author pages are problematic because when additional quotes are added that alphabetically follow the last author, they will appear under that author's heading. This means that once we have author headings for one author, we have to have them for all authors that alphabetically follow the first author with a heading. The table of contents also becomes unnecessarily large, requiring the reader to scroll down to see the first quote. I can see why you might want to avoid repeating the author's name, but I think this is the better solution.

   If quotes were to be added under quotes that are within an author section, that would be a problem.  But, that's not a problem with the use of author subcategories; it's a problem with the editor not realising that she or he is placing the quote in the wrong place.

   For example, if an editor moves from Column A to Column B, the problem is with the editor not realising that she or he is supposed to move from Column A to Column C:

	Column A		Column B		Column C
	Quotes about X Quote John A, Source Quote John D, Source Quote John F, Source John M quotes Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source John P quotes Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source		Quotes about X Quote John A, Source Quote John D, Source Quote John F, Source John M quotes Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source John P quotes Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source Quote John R, Source Quote John S, Source Quote John V, Source		Quotes about X Quote John A, Source Quote John D, Source Quote John F, Source Quote John R, Source Quote John S, Source Quote John V, Source John M quotes Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source John P quotes Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source

Compare this with how we handle quotes on people pages.  Although we typically place an author's quotes chronologically, we're not going to move from Column A to Column B, but rather from Column A to Column C:

	Column A		Column B		Column C
	Quotes Quote Source (2002). Quote Source (2003). Quote Source (2004). Specific novel/play/work (2005) Quote Page 1. Quote Page 27. Quote Page 42. Specific novel/play/work (2006) Quote Page 13. Quote Page 144. Quote Page 666.		Quotes Quote Source (2002). Quote Source (2003). Quote Source (2004). Specific novel/play/work (2005) Quote Page 1. Quote Page 27. Quote Page 42. Specific novel/play/work (2006) Quote Page 13. Quote Page 144. Quote Page 666. Quote Source (2007). Quote Source (2008).		Quotes Quote Source (2002). Quote Source (2003). Quote Source (2004). Quote Source (2007). Quote Source (2008). Specific novel/play/work (2005) Quote Page 1. Quote Page 27. Quote Page 42. Specific novel/play/work (2006) Quote Page 13. Quote Page 144. Quote Page 666.

Obviously, we should go from A to C in this latter example, as opposed to A to B.  So, any editor who, in the former example, goes from A to B instead of A to C is clearly in the wrong.

You also expressed concern about having too many items in the table of contents.  But, it seemed that that concern was borne out of the fear that the only way to solve the problem posed by Column B was to move from Column A to Column D, where Column D is:

	Column D
	Quotes about X John A quotes Quote Source John D quotes Quote Source John F quotes Quote Source John M quotes Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source John P quotes Quote Source Quote Source Quote Source John R quotes Quote Source John S quotes Quote Source John V quotes Quote Source

If we were to move from A to D, that indeed could lead to overly-full tables of contents.  But, since the appropriate movement of A to C does not add any additional items to the table of contents, luckily, the concern is not too grave.

4.  

1. Per your suggestion, I did a test edit, replacing the HTML on the page with Wiki markup.  The result was this.  I immediately saw two huge problems:

1. Whereas I can programme in a bit of space between the two text columns in HTML, I can't do that in Wiki markup.  (Well, I can, but then the space between the two columns would be just as wide as the column itself.)  Thus, in this appearance, the two text columns really seem to be encroaching upon one another.  That said, that problem is nothing compared to the next one.
2. The Wiki markup doesn't want to play nice with the images.  They don't want to play side-by-side.  As such, the entire text is getting pushed downward below the image column.  We simply can't have that.

So, I undid my edit to restore the HTML.

2. True, the headings are not perfectly aligned, but as you can see, they don't align any better with Wiki markup.

   That said, there is a way I could make them align:

   If I were to change ;<big>[[s:The Production of Security/0|The Production of Security]]</big> to ===[[s:The Production of Security/0|The Production of Security]]===, then both of those headers would align.  If I were to do the same thing for each and every header, they would all align.

   But, that would cause ten new items to add to the table of contents.

   Methinks it better to simply let each section of the essay be listed only once each in the table of contents.  Between double listings in the table of contents and the slight misalignment we're seeing, the slight misalignment is the lesser of the two evils.

3. Actually, they are consistent (at least insofar as they can be), although I see why it appears otherwise at first glance.

   In the original French, the lead section has no title or number, and all of the following sections are labelled I., II., III., IV., V., VI., VII., VII., IX., and X.

   In McCulloch's English translation, the lead section has no title or number, either.  But, confusingly, instead of simply labelling the following sections I., II., III., IV., V., VI., VII., VII., IX., and X., McCulloch chose to label them The Natural Order of Society, Competition in Security?, Security an Exception?, The Alternatives, Monopoly and Communism, The Monopolization and Collectivization of the Security Industry, Government and Society, The Divine Right of Kings and Majorities, The Regime of Terror, and The Free Market for Security.

   In short, the seeming inconsistency is purely McCulloch's fault.

   Feel free to take a look at the original French text and McCulloch's English translation if that helps any.

5. I wrote up a little something over at Wikiquote:Village pump#Except about this.  Please direct responses there.  (I hope you like what I've come up with.)
6. Thank you.
7. Good question.  But, since the only author I know of who has ever used the phrase 'Divine Right of the State' is Bourne, and since he was making direct comparison to divine right of king in the one instance where he used said phrase, since I wouldn't even have bothered creating a 'divine right of the state' redirect to anything had it not been for my just recently having read it in his essay, I felt it was appropriate.  That said, if you were to sway the redirection from 'divine right of king' to 'state,' I wouldn't object.
8. I like citing the two since (A) the King James Version is rather ornate-sounding to the modern reader whereas the New American Bible is much easier for most to comprehend and since (B) the King James Version tends to be favoured by Protestants whereas the New American Bible is a Catholic translation.

   Between the two reasons, the first is probably more compelling than the second.  After all, how many Protestants or Catholics are likely to come to this page and say, "How dare you, Wikiquote, only quote the other sect's translation!"

   I guess the question is, if we were to edit one of the two translations out of the page, which do we choose?  The beautifully poetic-sounding, albeit less comprehensible translation from the seventeenth century, or the easy-to-comprehend, albeit more-boring translation from the twentieth?  Your thoughts?

9. I was placing the quotes in the order in which they appear in Biblical canon, but your suggestion seems reasonable, too.  I went ahead and did a test run.  Here are the results.  For comparison, here is what it looked like prior to the edit.  Personally, I'm still inclined to think the former appearance is cleaner than the current appearance (and slightly more user-friendly), but I don't feel very strongly about it either way.  I'll let you decide.  If you prefer the integration schema, then go ahead and leave it as it is; if you agree that the previous incarnation was slightly better, go ahead and undo the most recent edit.
10. I don't really know how to integrate Wiki markup into that page and have it still look good, unless we simply forgo line-by-line alignment (which would have the added benefit of allowing us to combine the lines in the New American Bible column so as to appear as they actually appear in that translation).  It would probably end up looking something like this:

• 13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

  ² Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

  ³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.  Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

  ⁴ For he is the minister of God to thee for good.  But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

  ⁵ Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

  ⁶ For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

  ⁷ Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

  • Romans 13:1–7 (KJV).

• Obedience to Authority. ¹ Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. ² Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. ³ For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil.  Do you wish to have no fear of authority?  Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, ⁴ for it is a servant of God for your good.  But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. ⁵ Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. ⁶ This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. ⁷ Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
  • Romans 13:1–7 (NABRE).

Actually, in hindsight, that doesn't look as bad to me as I thought it would.  What do you think?  Should I go ahead and integrate Wiki markup into this article?

11. Did I copy this HTML from another website?  No.  I learned some basic HTML back in high school and have since taught myself everything else I know about HTML.  While I copied the biblical quotes from biblegateway.com, the HTML was written exclusively by me.
12. I thank you for bringing this concern to me.  Apologies if I've been a bit overzealous.  (Indeed, with regards to choice, you were probably right to remove my addition thereto.)  I'll try to be a bit more judicious in future edits.

    That said, I have felt at times that some of the quotes are more relevant than for which they are being given credit.  Please consider the following two examples:

1. First, please consider this quote, which I had uploaded to production:

• Either communistic production is superior to free production, or it is not.

  If it is, then it must be for all things, not just for security.

  If not, progress requires that it be replaced by free production.

  Complete communism or complete liberty: that is the alternative!

  • Gustave de Molinari, tr. J. Huston McCulloch, §VI of The Production of Security (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2009; orig. 1849), p. 40.

You called this an "Off-topic quote[]" that "pertain[s] to security, only tangentially to production."  Ningauble reiterated your claim, referring to it as an "Off-topic quote[] only tangentially [related] to production."

And, yet, I see it as an absolute reversal.  In my eyes, this isn't so much a security quote that is only tangentially related to production, but rather a production quote that is only tangentially related to security.

The main meat of that quote is its comparison of two modes of production, liberal production and communistic production.  Indeed, as proof of this, I offer the following:

• Either communistic production is superior to free production, or it is not.

  If it is, then it must be for all things…

  If not, progress requires that it be replaced by free production.

  Complete communism or complete liberty: that is the alternative!

  • Gustave de Molinari, tr. J. Huston McCulloch, §VI of The Production of Security (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2009; orig. 1849), p. 40.

The fact that we lose absolutely nothing by ellipsing security entirely from the quote seems to prove that security is the tangentially-related element in that quote, not production.  (Contrariwise, it would be impossible to ellipse production out of the quote without rendering the entire quote utterly meaningless, and precisely because production is the subject of the quote.)

Of the three quotes that you and Ningauble removed from that article, I would like it if you reconsidered this one, and whether you still believe it is only tangentially related to production.

2. Second, please consider the quotes I uploaded to consumption (economics).  Please keep in mind, when considering these quotes, that consumer redirects to consumption (economics).  The page isn't only for quotes about the nature, causes, and effects of consumption itself, but also for quotes about consumers, their nature, their interests, their habits.

   While I think both quotes I added to consumption (economics) deserve reconsideration, I want to focus specifically on this one:

• [T]he interests of the consumer of any commodity whatsoever should always prevail over the interests of the producer.
  • Gustave de Molinari, tr. J. Huston McCulloch, §III of The Production of Security (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2009; orig. 1849), p. 22.

This quote is clearly about the interests of consumers.  And, yet, both you and Ningauble described it as "off topic."  Unless you are suggesting that consumers should be split off into its own article with its own quotes, how is this not completely on-topic?

Thank you again for bringing your concerns to me and expressing them so courteously.  I look forward to your response.

Yours truly,
allixpeeke (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

P. S.  While your username leads me to suspect that you are a male, I have been using the generic "she or he" to refer to you just in case.  Would you mind adding yourself here so that I can refer to you correctly?  Thanks in advance!  05:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Allixpeeke. Thanks for your response. I see you have given a lot of thought to the questions I raised, and I am grateful for that. I have some responses to your responses, which I'll number with the same numbers you used.

1. My concern with redlinks is that they make Wikiquote pages look like projects under construction rather than finished products. I understand that from the point of view of the editors it is nice to have a reminder of pages that should be created. But I don't think inclusion of redlinks in places where not just editors but also our audience can see them is the best way to accomplish this. Of course Wikiquote is, in reality, always under construction. But I don't think this implies the construction should be visible to the readers when it can be concealed.

2. I guess here we are getting into the same kind of dispute as we have has with periods at the end of sources. And, as in that case, I don't really have a very strong opinion one way or the other. But I do think that the WQ community should agree on a standard practice and stick to it. If you can persuade other editors to adopt the practice of bracketing initial capitals, and are willing to change all the existing pages, then I am OK with it. Otherwise, I think we have enough momentum going with the existing practice that it doesn't make sense to adopt a different one. We don't want WQ to look like it is cobbled together by different editorial teams with different practices. I think we will eventually reach consensus on the periods at end of sources. But in regard to practices were there is already very broad consensus, new editors can make the most helpful contributions if they are willing to adopt the consensual practice.

3. Thanks for taking the time to clearly explain the practice you had in mind. I understand now. But the other issue is that in a page on author X we see names of commentators on X prominently displayed in the table of contents. In fact we see them before we see any quotes from X. This seems to me like an unwelcome distraction. In general we limit to three quotes from any one author in pages that are not about that author. I guess I don't understand, what is wrong with just repeating the author's name three times?

4 and 10. This is what I had in mind.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same

For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.

For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Making a separate table for each passage you want to be aligned ensures that the passages are aligned.

By the way, I like the passage you picked as an example. This is a very interesting passage, since in the very next verses, Paul goes on to say there is no law but to love our neighbors as ourselves, directly contradicting the earlier passage. Since the anarchical statement comes later, it might be argued that it is actually the more authoritative one, the outcome or synthesis of a dialectical thought process. We go from (1) "Obey the rulers because they were appointed by God" to (2) "Rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct," which is clearly false if rulers are unjust and therefore implies we must sometimes disobey in order for our conduct to be good, and finally to (3) there really isn't any law but the law to behave justly. This is arguably a dialectical progression toward a kind of anarchism.

Thanks again for your contributions to Wikiquote. ~ Peter1c (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A further thought regarding redlinks: perhaps after writing the article, the redlinks could be copied to the Wikiquote:Requested_entries page and then removed from the article. For example, I have done this for the redlinks in the Divine right of kings article in Wikiquote:Requested_entries#Some_desirable_theme_pages. ~ Peter1c (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Peter1c,

1. Are you saying there's a way to make redlinks visible only to editors who are logged in?  Since redlinks are allowed on Wikipedia (which says "proper redlinks are created only in the hope that an article will eventually be written" (source); see also this), I never had any compunction about adding redlinks here, but if there is a way to make them only visible to editors who are logged in, I can see how that would be preferable to my practice.
2. You write, "If you can persuade other editors to adopt the practice of bracketing initial capitals, and are willing to change all the existing pages, then I am OK with it."

   How can I possibly change all existing pages if someone has been going around removing brackets?  I mean, brackets should only be used to capitalise a letter when that letter was not capitalised in the original text as published by the original author; in those situations where the letter was already capitalised in the original text, no brackets would be inserted.

   I can't possibly go around adding brackets, as it would be a complete guess for me as to which quotes had had their brackets removed.

   Only two persons know whether a given quote requires brackets: (1) the editor who originally uploaded the quote and (2) the editor who went around removing the brackets.  The person who uploaded the quote already did her or his job by including the brackets when appropriate and not including them when they were inappropriate; that person has already done her/his job.  Thus, if the onus is on anyone to correct the problem, it is on the person who went around creating the problem by removing the brackets in the first place.

   It's standard when quoting people to (A) quote them faithfully, to (B) use ellipses whenever truncating a text in order to denote that words were removed by the quoter, and to (C) use brackets whenever itserting changes to a text, including changes in spelling or capitalisation and clarifying notes.  Nothing in the manual of style or the guide to layout says anything about it being acceptable to not use brackets when changing the capitalisation of text on Wikiquote.

3. You write, "In fact we see them before we see any quotes from X. This seems to me like an unwelcome distraction."

   Ideally, we would also see titles of various works by the original author also in the TOC before the titles of various works about the author, but even in the situation where we don't, I'm not sure why this is a problem.  Are readers going to be so bogged down by seeing a few 'about' subcategories listed in the TOC that they somehow forget that there are also going to be quotes by the original author on the page?

   You also write, "In general we limit to three quotes from any one author in pages that are not about that author. I guess I don't understand, what is wrong with just repeating the author's name three times?"

   I'm glad you asked this.  There is nothing 'wrong' with just repeating the author's name however many times that author is quoted.  That's not exactly the reason I create subcategories.  I create them because they make things easier for the casual user.  When things are grouped together into subcategories, readers instantly know how much of the content is contained within said subcategories and whether they wish to read that subcategory completely or skip it.  In short, it helps the reader in processing information.

   For example, per your suggestion, I integrated the Biblical and non-Biblical quotes over at divine right of kings.  Yet, I'm sure you will agree, back when I had the page looking like this, it was easier for readers who wanted to skip over the Biblical quotes or, conversely, to read only the Biblical quotes.

   But, there is nothing 'wrong' with not subcategorising.

10. I thought there were some other insurmountable problems with the Biblical quotes, but I think I just figured a solution to them.  I'm going to go tweak the divine right of kings page and see how it works.  (Needless to say, the aforementioned problems with incorporating Wiki markup into the Gustave page stand.)

    Regarding the passages I selected, I selected them as they were suggested to me by w:divine right of kings.  I did not know that Paul's verses followed the sequence you describe.  Interesting.

Okay, I'm off to test my solution on divine right of kings.  I'll report back here when done.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

P. S.  I look forward to your thoughts on numbers 5 and 12.  Cheers!

Okay, I'm back.  I tested replacing HTML with Wiki markup, and this is what happened.  Again, the wiki markup doesn't want to appear side-by-side with the images on the page, and the result is that the text is getting pushed downward below the image, creating an unsightly gap on the page.  I had no choice: I had to undo my own edit, reincorporating HTML into the page.  allixpeeke (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Allixpeeke. Sorry I didn't know the WML tables interact so badly with thumbnails. I guess that takes us back to HTML tables. Maybe using a separate table for passages that we want lined up would still make sense. Sorry I took us off on an unfeasible tangent there, and thanks for helping me understand the limitations of the WML table templates.

Regarding the bracketing of added initial capitals, I very much sympathize with your point of view, and I agree it is a more precise representation of the quoted material. I have been changing the initial bracketed capitals when I find them for the sake of consistency only, not because I have a strong opinion. I haven't changed very many, and I don't find very many, leading me to think that most editors past and present have adopted the "silent" capitalization technique.

Here's what Chicago Manual of Style has to say on the matter:

• Aside from proper nouns and some of the words derived from them (see 8.1), words in English publications are normally lowercased unless they begin a sentence (or, often, a line of poetry). To suit this requirement, the first word in a quoted passage must often be adjusted to conform to the surrounding text. In most types of works, this adjustment may be done silently, as such capitalization does not normally affect the significance of the quoted matter, which is assumed to have been taken from another context. In some types of works, however, it may be obligatory to indicate the change by bracketing the initial quoted letter; for examples of this practice, appropriate to legal writing and some types of textual commentary, see 13.16.
  • Rule 13.13 in the 16th edition

This is from the 15th edition:

• If a quotation that is only a part of a sentence in the original forms a complete sentence as quoted, a lowercase letter may be changed to a capital if appropriate.
  • Rule 11.18
• In legal writing, textual commentary, and other contexts where silently changing from capital to lowercase or vice-versa might mislead readers or make reference to the original text more difficult, any change in capitalization should be indicated by brackets.
  • Rule 11.19

I'm not sure which rule applies in Wikiquote. But I hope you'll agree consistency is important.

I'll think more about the other issues you raised, and get back to you again later. ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Peter1c,

I do hold consistency to have value.  That said, just because most quotes we find don't have brackets doesn't mean that people are using the silent capitalisation method: it could just as easily mean that most people upload quotes that include the complete sentence.  I know that, most of the time, that's what I do; it's very rarely that I upload a quote starting mid-sentence.

Yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Update

Hi Allixpeeke, thanks for all your work here. Completely unaware of this discussion I noticed several of the thing @Peter1c: listed in his initial comment here above. Although realizing you put a lot of effort in the Gustave de Molinari lemma (and I think this kind of lay-out could have a future as alternative lay-out in Wikiquote), I moved forward with the article making it accessible for other editors again, and adding some more relevant quotes. I think it could help if you yourself should search for secondary sources, to ensure that the most relevant quotes are listed. Good luck -- Mdd (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments on your addition to Youth

Hi Allixpeeke. Thank you for your continuing contributions to Wikiquote. I have the following comments on your addition to Youth:

• Editors seem to agree that there is such a thing as overlinking. See policy at General points on linking style.

• Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article.
  • General points on linking style

• Please avoid linking to nonexistent articles. If concepts need clarification and there is no Wikiquote article, please link to Wikipedia or Wiktionary.
• Links should be only on words where where a reasonable reader would be motivated by the text to seek additional information. So, for example, linking "is" to Being is not helpful in a sentence that is not about being.
• With almost perfect regularity, Wikiquote has adhered to a single space after period rule. What inspires you to use the two spaces after period, even in existing articles where this will conflict with the other entries?

Thanks again for your contributions. ~ Peter1c (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter1c,

See-also sections, in my opinion, should only include items that relate in some meaningful way to the subject of the page, not necessarily to the topics that are meaningful to the specific quotes that happen to be on the page.

As I wrote above, "My attitude toward redlinks is that they encourage article creation.  Maybe I overdo it sometimes (and if so, I'm sorry for that), but I do think it reasonable to permit at least a certain degree of redlinks.  …  I know for a fact that my leaving of redlinks has inspired page-creation."  You note that your "concern with redlinks is that they make Wikiquote pages look like projects under construction rather than finished products," but Wikiquote—just like Wikipedia—is a project under construction.  Here is what Wikipedia says about dealing with redlinks:  "Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Wikipedia for creation of a new article" and "a valid red link term like driving in Madagascar should not be dealt with by removing the link brackets, simply to temporarily reduce the amount of red text in an article."

DanielTom and I discussed the double-space above.  The history of the double-space is actually more interesting than one might think.  (Or, maybe that's just me.)

Yours respectfully,
allixpeeke (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I am very skeptical of the need for a Wikiquote article devoted to the topic of driving in Madagascar. Just saying.... ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly, I am, too.  But, Wikipedia's point is nevertheless valid.  Thus, if, for example, one fictional character says derisively of another, "Pfeh.  That girl gets all of her ideas from System of a Down lyrics," that would be a valid redlink, and could spur the creation of a useful page that Wikiquote theretofore lacked.  allixpeeke (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

P. S.  Keeping in mind that the moot question of overlinking is separate from the question of whether any individual redlink is appropriate, I ask—rhetorically—whether any of us would disagree that the following topics, for example, deserve pages on Wikiquote?

• anomaly or anomalies
• answer or answers
• evasion or evasiveness
• hiding
• reaction or reactions
• silliness or inanity
• sophistry or sophism
• warmth or heat

For what it is worth, fear not, I would not leave a redlink to driving in Madagascar on any Wikiquote page, not even on the Madagascar page itself (if we had one).

For proper nouns like System of a Down I think it is more informative for the reader to link to an actual article at Wikipedia rather than to use red ink. Anyone who is not familiar with the reference is not helped by making the page ugly. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

To pick your brain a bit, Ningauble, let me ask this:

Which of the following two hypothetical renderings do you think is better, and why:

1. Pfeh.  That girl gets all of her ideas from Rage Against the Machine lyrics.
2. Pfeh.  That girl gets all of her ideas from Rage Against the Machine lyrics.

Yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

A local link is to be preferred when the target article exists. It should link to Wikipedia for further information. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So, would it be correct to say you list your personal preferences in the following order:

1. Pfeh.  That girl gets all of her ideas from Rage Against the Machine lyrics.
2. Pfeh.  That girl gets all of her ideas from Rage Against the Machine lyrics.
3. Pfeh.  That girl gets all of her ideas from Rage Against the Machine lyrics.

…?  allixpeeke (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Peak

Hi Allixpeeke. Am I correct in understanding, from the portrait and external links on your Wikipedia userpage, that you are the Alexander S. Peak indicated therein? If so, it may not be appropriate for you to link to alexpeak.com like this in Wikiquote articles. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

That link was provided because (1) I knew that that page contained a reliable transcription of the text being quoted, which may or may not have been the case with links from other websites; (2) I knew that that website was (A) not going to suddenly remove the page that included the source material being quoted and (B) wasn't going to shut down, either of which might occur with some other website's URL and would leave Wikiquote with a broken link; and (3) it included an anchor directly to the portion of the text from which the specific quote quoted was lifted, making it useful to readers insofar as it aided them in being able to identify the context in which the quote itself appeared in the source material.  My-name-being-in-the-URL was never once a reason for my having included a link, and I have frequently linked to sites that do not include my name in their URLs.  Indeed, when I can, I prefer to link to Wikisource, even when an alternative link that happens to have my name in the URL is also available

I'm not saying that you do think this, but if there is one who thinks that I included a link to a URL that has-my-name-in-it because I somehow delusionally thought that by including said link on Wikiquote (of all places), people around the globe would actually read the characters of the URL itself and notice (and remember) the name therein, thereby somehow causing me to suddenly become world famous, rest assured: I am not that delusional.  In fact, I am a bit surprised that you even noticed my name in the URL (or cared enough to mention it).  I was inclined to suspect that, even amongst those who actually clicked on the link, zero would ever notice the meaningless name in the URL, and I was content with that because, as I said, the inclusion of my name in the URL was never a factor for me.

And, since I was never under the delusion that I would bring myself fame or fortune through the inclusion of that little link, there was thus no "interest" for my action to be in conflict of.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be evading a direct answer to the question above. (It is not the text of the URL that prompted my question but, as indicated above, the content of your Wikipedia user page.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The content of my Wikipedia user page?  I'm not understanding.  You're saying it's problematic to provide this link:

**[[Linda & Morris Tannehill]], [http://alexpeak.com/twr/tmfl/ch4.html#ex2 Ch. 4, "Government—An Unnecessary Evil"], ''The Market for Liberty'' (1970), pp. 33–34.

…because of the fact that I have a picture of myself here, along with the following three external links: alexpeak.com, DownsizeDC.org, and College Libertarians of Towson (the third of which coincidentally is actually a dead link these days)?

And, although I thought this was clear, I am Alexander Peak.  Please forgive me for saying that if that actually was clear.  Conversely, if it was not clear, I did not realise this until now.  In my case, Alex (the name as it appears in the URL) is just a nickname.  I respond to either name, although I've very recently started to switch my preference in favour of the longer form.  Either way, as long as you don't shorten it to Al, we're all good.

I don't mean to be evading anything.  I'm probably being overly clear now, for which I apologise, but this is the best way to make sure I'm not leaving this matter unclear.  If, somehow, I still am being not clear, though, do let me know.

Yours,
Alexander Peak, a. k. a. allixpeeke (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question directly. (It did seem evident to me, based on some interpretation and inference, but I was not aware of it being explicitly stated anywhere in your own words. I would not want to assert it publicly without being certain you were willing to be identified.) Now that this is acknowledged, we can discuss the potential problems raised by citing your own website at Wikiquote. I will post about this later, as I don't have a lot of time today. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I was not "citing [my] own website" (emphasis added).  Not at all.  I was citing a book, a published book—indeed, one that was published before either I or the World Wide Web existed.

My website wasn't being "cited."  Rather, the site was being used as a source or link.  I could just as easily have used this as my source (all the while maintaining exactly the same citation), but I felt that that link was inferior, and precisely for the reasons I stated already.

With this alternative link, the reader would have to go to the cited chapter her-/himself, and then find the quote somewhere in said chapter her-/himself.  With the link I did use, not only does the reader go directly to the chapter at hand, but—thanks to the anchor that was embedded—she/he goes directly to the quote itself as it appears in the chapter.  And this is a good thing, because it helps those readers who want to to more easily and quickly identify the context in which the quote itself appeared in the source material.  So, should I use an inferior link over a superior link simply to avoid linking to a page uploaded to "[my] own website"?  Is Wikiquote really made better by inserting inferior links into citations for such spurious reasons?

Also, there's some history behind the availability of this text online.  Once upon a time, Jeffrey Tucker was Vice President of Something at the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI).  At that time, a .pdf of The Market for Liberty (TMFL) was made available at Mises.org.  Then, at some point, Laissez Faire Books (which I think was owned by the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) at the time) asserted a copyright holding on the book, at which point Mises.org took the .pdf down.  After Laissez Faire Books (LFB) was bought out by Agora Financial, Tucker left the LvMI and became president of LFB.  Under his leadership, it seems the copyright restriction was either loosened or lifted, for at some point after that, TMFL was once again made available on Mises.org.  Who's to say that the next owner of LFB won't cause Mises.org to once again take the .pdf down?  Should I use a link that might not always be there over a link that will always be there simply to avoid linking to a page uploaded to a website I own?  Is Wikiquote really made better by inserting links that might die into citations for such spurious reasons?

I could possibly understand the consternation if I could see where the conflict of interest lies, but I don't.  It doesn't affect me personally one way or the other regardless of which link is used, so I don't really have an "interest" that could be in conflict with Wikiquote's interest.  Further, it is certainly not in Wikiquote's interest to use inferior links over superior ones.  And that, really, is the only interest for which I was looking out when I included that link in that citation.

To drive this point home, let me ask you a non-rhetorical question.  Now, obviously, you removed that quote not just due to the link in the citation, but also due to the quote itself being, in your opinion, not relevant-enough as providing a description of something as nonsense.  But, let's say, hypothetically, that you didn't have this alternative objection, that your only point of consternation had been the link in the citation.  Indeed, better yet, let's say it were a quote you were adding to a page yourself, and that you had to choose between using this link and this link in the citation.  This scenario takes me completely out of the picture.  Keeping in mind that you do not own either website, my non-rhetorical question is, which of those two links would you have preferred to insert into the citation had you been the one adding the quote, and why?  (And, although I don't think any disrespect can be inferred by my asking of this question, I just wish to make clear that I ask it respectfully and sincerely.)

Yours truly,
allixpeeke (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To address the hypothetical question (it is hypothetical insofar as it expressly posits a counterfactual) about the edit in question –

1. It was not an alternative objection. The primary objection stated is "lengthy screed alleging something is nonsense, says nothing about nonsense per se".
2. I also mentioned the link because (a) I disapprove of linking to obscure, non-notable, or user generated websites and (b) I was beginning to notice that there has been quite a bit of apparent self-linking to that site.  N.B. – This is not the reason I removed the quote, it is the reason I mentioned the link.
3. If I were to provide a link for the work in question (with a succinct, noteworthy quote in an appropriate context), I would choose this document at GoogleBooks.

That pretty much covers my thinking about the case in point. I will post something about the general issue of linking to one's own website at a later time under a new heading. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Google Books is certainly a reasonable source, the only drawback being that one can only get as precise in one's linking as the page upon which the quote appears, not the line itself being quoted.  But, that's not a big drawback, I admit.

And, apologies for interpreting that the link was a reason for the removal, rather than merely a comment.

Please allow me to refine my hypothetical question.

Hypothetical question refined:

In the hypothetical scenario where you were posting the quote (a hypothetical scenario in which you hypothetically did find the quote relevant to the topic), which of those two links would you have preferred, assuming, hypothetically, that they were the only two links available?

New, additional hypothetical question:

A few years back, the essay "Cupid's Yokes" by Ezra Heywood was not available anywhere on the entire Internet.  I scanned the essay page-by-page in order to create this .pdf.  After I created the .pdf, I also created an .html page and a .txt page.  Now, this was rather painstaking work, since I couldn't merely copy and paste the contents from the .pdf.  One line, for example, copied from the .pdf would appear as "rn :! ~l'~ ~g~ ~t ;t" ~:!,:, ~ ~ ~!~ lity , ~ut, r~tlic. , r. dc.ic6 W be: umeudeJ, Vi," when the line should have read "marriage institution a finality, but, rather, a device to be amended, or."  When I got done rendering the three versions, I made this page to house links to the three versions, along with a brief introduction.  (A fourth page, dedicated to quotes, was never completed.)  Now, since I uploaded this essay, a few other websites have copied the .pdf from my website and uploaded it to their own (this can be verified by anyone who compares the faded spots on the various pages, or even the slight variations in page sizes), but none, at this point, has uploaded .html or .txt copies (as evidenced by this Google search).  Now, it's true that my website is obscure—although I don't think that that is at all important.  The essay, on the other hand, is an extremely important work in the free-love movement, and is thus, to that extent, notable.  So, in the hypothetical scenario in which you were to upload a quote to Wikiquote from this essay, which link would you insert into the citation?

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you be willing to petition on wikipedia for the removal of the X rated image of an underage child on the bestiality page?

I think the two pages for bestiality and pedophilia should follow the same rules and be devoid of X rated images of children, seeing as it makes those pages illegal to look at in several countries, diminishing the ability of Wikipedia to educate people from them on those topics. Would you be willing to petition for the removal of said image and others on wikipedia? I wasn't sure what the libertarian stance on this issue would be, I assume you will probably say no seeing as it involves a liberty being infringed, but perhaps not.
Also, I was wondering if you're familiar with Conan the Barbarian, I recall you adding the libertarian films category to several works and what Robert E. Howard says about barbarism being the natural state of man and lawmen hiding behind tin badges made me wonder what your interpretation of the work would be. Have you heard of the BioShock series? CensoredScribe (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

CensoredScribe,

Firstly, there is some debate within libertarianism over child–adult sexual relationships and child porn, but the majority of libertarians—like the majority of nonlibertarians—are inclined to say that young children lack the mental facility necessary to consent to involvement in such things.  The real stickiness of the matter involves the question of exactly when a child gains the necessary mental faculty.  To simply say "at age eighteen" or "at age sixteen" seems far too simplistic, too one-size-fits-all; not all eighteen-year-olds are equally mentally mature, nor are all sixteen-year-olds, etc.  Even nonlibertarians will, for the most part, agree that there are no entirely-satisfactory solutions to this conundrum.  What we have in these United States is a situation where each state government sets its own age-of-consent laws, with most states (31 of them) setting the age at sixteen.  Since most libertarians are minarchists (only ten-to-fifteen percent of us are anarchists), most libertarians will probably say that letting individual states or counties set these ages is, although an imperfect solution, probably the best solution that will come about.  Anarchist libertarians would tend to be more inclined to say that courts should be used to develop local common-law regarding popular age of consent with private arbitration employed to determine whether any given individual has been sexually violated due to lack of sufficient mental capacity.

But, secondly, and more relevantly to the present topic, libertarians have no problem, in principle, with Wikipedians petitioning Wikipedia to adopt, reject, or change its policies.  Wikipedia is a private entity, and, as such, it has the right to prohibit any content it wishes to prohibit, regardless of whether any given libertarian personally likes or dislikes the prohibition in question.  Thus, Wikipedia also has a right to change its own policies if its membership wishes to see said changes made.  Finally, Wikipedians have every right to petition Wikipedia to make changes to its policies (although, whether they have the privilege of using Wikipedia as the platform for said petitioning is, of course, up to Wikipedia).

If Wikipedia adopts a strict no-child-porn policy, that is not an instance of liberty being infringed.  Liberty, properly understood, is freedom from aggression, where aggression is understood to refer specifically to initiatory force or fraud, not to force per se.  Wikipedia is not "initiating force" simply by making a decision as to what it will and will not allow on its own property.  In fact, if it adopts a strict no-child-porn and someone goes ahead and posts child porn on its platform anyway, it is that person who has infringed upon liberty—Wikipedia's liberty.

Regarding Conan the Barbarian, I have not seen or read any of the works relating thereto.

Is barbarism the "natural state of man"?  Unfortunately, I cannot find a definition of barbarism that is clear enough to make such a determination.  To make matters worse, it's not precisely clear to me what Howard meant by the "natural state of man."  I am inclined to say that humans have a nature, but that part of this nature is the human's inclination toward adaptability. There are various states to which the human can adapt itself, some more easily than others.  If barbarism is to refer simply to the lack of being civilised, and if the statement is meant to imply that it is "unnatural" for man to be civilised, I then would have to fullheartedly disagree with the claim; there is nothing unnatural about being civilised (assuming, of course, that no one is "packing" into the definition of civilised some meaning that oughtn't be there).  Conversely, if the statement is simply meant to imply to imply that humans, in their most primitive state as they were just beginning to evolve into humans, had not yet developed the social norms that we would today intersubjectively regard as "civil," I would say that that hypothesis has face validity.

Next, are "lawmen" people who "hid[e] behind tin badges"?  (I am going to ignore the literal, scientific meaning of tin, as I am sure that that is beside the point.)  One has to question, if analysing this claim, what constitutes "lawmen" and, indeed, "law."  I am a natural-law anarchist and libertarian, in the tradition of Spooner and Rothbard.  I believe that "justice" is more than just some fiction dreamed up by wishful thinkers, that there is a truth behind the question of whether a given human action is just or unjust and—more importantly—that the truth is not whatever is arbitrarily determined by some government edict.  (I highly recommend checking out Natural Law; or The Science of Justice (1882) by Lysander Spooner.  It's not very long, in part due to the fact that Spooner died before authoring a 'Part Second.'  For a much longer and far-more elaborate exposition, see The Ethics of Liberty (1982) by Murray N. Rothbard; I do not endorse 100% of what Rothbard writes in this work, but I do ensorse the vast majority of it.)  Since justice, in order to have any meaning in reality, must be a natural principle, discoverable by reason, that implies that there are natural laws dictating what sort of interactions between humans is just.  I have no problem, in principle, with humans enforcing these natural laws; indeed, I advocate their enforcement.  So, what would we call a person who enforces the precepts of natural law, who acts to protect individuals' natural rights qua persons?  Can we call such a person a "lawman"?  Well, why not?&bsp; And would such agents constitute people "hiding behind tin badges"?  Not necessarily.  Provided a person is solely acting to defend another's natural rights, to prevent the infringement of natural law, I would say that the "tin badge" metaphor is superfluous.  The metaphor becomes poignant, in my opinion, only when the so-called "lawman" is a state or mafia apparatchik.  The state is nothing more than a criminal band writ large (I'm paraphrasing Rothbard here), in that the state, by definition, must violate natural law in order to constitute a state.  For example, just in the area of law-enforcement, states obtain and enforce monopolies over that sector of the economy/society—something to which they have no right.  Further, as government employees, these "law officers" are paid with assets that have themselves been expropriated from hapless taxpayers; they are, in other words, beneficiaries of theft on a truly colossal scale.  To so violate natural law in the name of so-called "law enforcement" is logically inconsistent, and perverts and undermines the entire concept of law to the extent that it is not exposed for the hypocrisy it is.  Government-monopoly cops, thus, do indeed hide behind "tin badges."  And this is before we even take into account that many of the so-called "laws" that these so-called "lawmen" enforce are, themselves, in violation of natural, i.e., true, law.  Even a government-monopoly law-enforcement officer who chooses to only enforce those government edicts that are in concert with natural law is, technically speaking, and by virtue of the fact that they work for violently-maintained monopolies that acquire wealth through mass exploitation of the economic class, acting in violation of natural law.  But, most government-monopoly "law"-enforcement officers do not limit themselves so.  Most proceed boldly into the realm of enforcing government edicts in violation of individual natural rights—even in English-speaking countries.  The wars on drugs, on guns, on prostitution, on gambling, on tax evasion—all of these are in violation of natural law, and yet civilians in English-speaking countries are regularly familiar with their enforcement.  In other places, one might also find people being murdered by their so-called "law" enforcers merely for being homosexual, or Jewish, or a woman who has accidentally shown what they arbitrarily determine to be "too much skin."  Even if murder is not the punishment for these so-called "crimes," any punishment for them would be unjust, including, but not limited to, being forced into internment camps, being imprisoned or caged, or even just being taxed or fined.

Finally, I have heard of, but know nothing about, BioShock.

Yours truly,
allixpeeke (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)