Talk:Ash heap of history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject History (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

no prod[edit]

This is a famous marxist phrase. check google before proding. Ineverheardofit is NOT a reason.DGG 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Evil Empire Speech[edit]

According to the Evil Empire article the speech was not given at the house of commons but rather at a speech to the Nat'l Assn of Evangelicals in 1983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Trotsky did not coin this[edit]

See this discussion on Language Log for many cites (from Google Books) much earlier than Trotsky. Does this qualify as original research on LL's part, or can we use LL or Google Books itself as a citable source? --Rpresser 15:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You can cite to the sources and to the language log. Whether Trotsky originated it or not, his is one of the most prominent usages. S "coinage" is not the only issue. Just don't delete the other material. Add. 7&6=thirteen () 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

March 2012— Dustbin of history[edit]

Since today (3/14/2012) in the New York Times, an article describes the end of the Encyclopedia Britannica's 244 year run of print publication, sending Britannica into the "dustbin of history," it is especially appropriate to use Britannica to correct Wikipedia's mistaken entry for the expression, "Dustbin of History," attributed to Trotsky in 1917, instead of in 1903, when the split between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks occurred. (Other Wikipedia pages had the correct information at the time.)

Well said. 7&6=thirteen () 16:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
All sources point to the 1917 Petrograd Congress. If Britannica says 1903, then Britannica is mistaken. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I would also add that Britannica didn't cite its source.- Altenmann >t 15:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

image[edit]

adding the image in question for context --Mushonz (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Ash Heap of History.jpg

The objections were stated clearly in several edit summaries:

  • the image is nonnotable
    • Is there an official guideline in Wikipedia against notable images? I don't think so. And even if there was one (which there isn't and shouldn't be), this illustration involves a visual quote of a highly notable image by Eugène Delacroix, Liberty Leading the People. --Mushonz (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:GNG and WP:UNDUE are general notability guidelines for notability of everything. Basically, it is your job to find reliable sources which confirm notability of something.- Altenmann >t 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
        • WP:GNG#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article says: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." It is the subject of the article which should be notable, not the content that makes it (inc. images). If notability was a prerequisite in Wikipedia articles we would not have been able to use any image that was not initially canonized. Moreover, we would not have been able to use or edit any text that was not made notable earlier. --Mushonz (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • the image is of low artistic quality
    • On what ground do you make this value judgement? You might not like the image, but that would be a irrelevant subjective statement on your part. Wikipedia has not defined (nor should it define) absolute measures for valuing illustrative quality. If that was the case, we would've had to go and vet and possibly remove many of the images currently on Wikipedia. --Mushonz (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Once again, it is your job to prove that the image is known to be a valued work of art, not just doodles of a bored student during a lecture in history. - Altenmann >t 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Snarkiness aside (this was really inappropriate) again, you are assuming that images should be treated as references rather than genuine Wikipedia content. That is not the way images are used on Wikipedia. In fact, [Wikipedia:Image_use_policy|Wikipedia explicitly]: "…Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images." --Mushonz (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • the image is confusing
    • Images are not text, and they can have more than a single reading. Visual language and visual thinking works differently than oral language, yet it should not be discarded as non-thinking or simply "confusing". This non-linear aspect of visual thinking is one of the important qualities of images and should not automatically be considered a disadvantage. --Mushonz (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e. source of information, in particular, of clarifying things. Wherever there are different interpretatios or different opinions, they must be stated clearly. - Altenmann >t 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
        • An image is always an interpretation, I don't think it should be explicitly stated under each illustration. Either way, the illustration did include a caption. I would have been happy to see you edit the caption rather than blatantly delete the image on grounds that are truly a narrow perspective of the Wikipedia guidelines. --Mushonz (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • the image does not contribute to understanding of the sobject
    • This is again a very subjective. By visually quoting a notable historical image a whole additional dimension is added to the understanding of the topic. Granted it is a less verbal understanding (and trying to defend it textually by itself is a problem), but it is short-sighted (pun unintended) to think only one-dimensional technical description helps illustrate an idea or a term. --Mushonz (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
      • please explain what exactly information, supported by references form reputable sources, is added to wikipedia by this image.- Altenmann >t 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Being an obscure and esoteric term, portraying this physical place visually helps emphasize the poetics of the subject. Again, if words could have explained it better I would have not been wasting your time arguing for the importance of visual representation. --Mushonz (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • there is no proof that the image is somehow connected to article subject
    • Again I have to disagree, the image quite explicitly illustrate an opposite perspective to one of the strongest visual icons of an historical event. --Mushonz (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Pease prove this, by referring to reliable sourses. - Altenmann >t 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
        • The reliable source in this case is Liberty Leading the People. It is quoted and edited in a similar fashion to the way you would edit and quote a textual source. If you want to discuss the editing and quoting itself, then by all means. I would say you should even propose an edit on that edit, but your choice to reject and delete is in my opinion plain Deletionism and it is not in healthy for the article or for Wikipedia. --Mushonz (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • the image gives a false impression that fallen during the French Revolution are in the dustbin of the history
    • Funny point you're making there. Obviously none of us know what's "in the dustbin of the history" because history documented only what made it in. The term "Ash Heap of History" and the illustration that was created for it are both prompts calling us to imagine the people, the stories, the ideas that were not documented by history. --Mushonz (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh yes we know what's in the dustbin. Not all of it, of course. And of course we know this is a poetic expression, and, as such, we know what it was applied to. - Altenmann >t 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
        • And you argue that saying the word "poetic" is all the information we need. Admittedly that is a larger debate than this image only. But again, we do not agree here. Wikipedia is not some cold robotic database, it does not simply accommodate poetics by labeling it as such. It exemplifies poetics and embeds it within the contents of the writings and the imagery. You can see it in this article itself. The text itself admits this is a figurative place, yet you reject a figurative description. --Mushonz (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, when reverting, it is your job to explain your disagreement with edit summary, i.e., it is your job to take it to talk page, if you do not explain yourself in edit summary. - Altenmann >t 15:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

To conclude, I think the image actually helps to better understand this complicated term, and removing it does a disservice to the topic and to Wikipedia as a whole. I would highly appreciate you rethink your position and allow the image back in. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your arguments and to discuss this. --Mushonz (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You failed to explain what exactly additional information is conveyed by the image. As to my (or your) personal position, it bears no weight in determining the fate of the article. Please learn to think not in terms of likes and dislikes of wikipedians, but in terms of quoting references, verifying information from reliable sources, etc., you should know the drill.
    • I hope my points and our fundamental disagreement are more clearly illustrated now. --Mushonz (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your intention to make wikipedia less boring (and I do find this contribution of your bunch very useful), but commons has thousands of images of verifiable relevance to various subjects, such as this one, randomly picked by me, and we better use, and popularize them them, rather than endeavors of aspiring masters in fine arts. In this way we will both give a chance for readers to exercise their "nonlinear thinking" and educate them in "non-dustbin" cultural treasures of the mankind. - Altenmann >t 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • This is a nice image, again proving that your limited perspective on the role of images in Wikipedia would only make room for dead contributors who's work is outside of the ash heap of history, and in the public domain.
  • P.S. I suspect you are unaware of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Taskforce. Please join. - Altenmann >t 15:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I am actually familiar with this project and like many other image makers am reluctant to join. I have no interest in technical illustrations, and as you can see from the activity on this page (no edits in the past 11 months) it is not an actual viable or attractive proposition even for ones who are.

Wikipedia has to think outside of its own box to actually attract visual contributions. I'm afraid deletionism and Fordian task forces are taking us in the complete opposite direction. I would be happy if you could swallow your pride, see the bigger picture and reedit the work back into the page. I would be even happier to see you improve it (better caption seems like a good place to start). Either way, thanks for a fascinating debate, I hope we can use it going forward. --Mushonz (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the concept of an encyclopaedia, nor the concept of an encyclopaedic illustration. An encyclopaedia, by definition, is descriptive and provides (or should aspire to provide) a description of facts, not the writer's opinions or impressions. The current pictures in 2012 Houla massacre or in Glorious First of June (to pick out two random examples from today's first page) are descriptive, and provide direct information relevant to the article. Your artwork is not descriptive (since an actual ash heap of history does not exist) and is merely a so-called "artist's impression". These can be acceptable on Wikipedia if the artist or author is notable enough, in which case the illustration throws some light on reactions to the issues discussed in the article by contemporaries or other people of note. But not just any random artist impression - this is still an encyclopaedia and not a platform for self-promotion! Similarly, an (hypothetical) article by George Orwell discussing the Ash Heap of History would be appropriate here under "Bibliography" or "Footnotes"; an (hypothetical) blog entry on the same subject written yesterday by me would not. Aviad2001 (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dustbin[edit]

Two of the three examples in the text - including Trotsky's quotation, which is given as one of the first notable instances - refer to the dustbin of history. The first reference suggests that trash heap and dust heap are more popular formulations, and of the six citations only Reagan's example refers to an ash heap. Why is this article at Ash heap of history? -87.114.117.189 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

'Cause historically, they killed it with fire. --J. D. Redding 21:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible Watchmen Reference[edit]

Or no? [1] 216.21.161.163 (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like a reference. It doesn't use "of history". For me, "cinder" is a reference the whole world, not to a place where outdated things are relegated. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)