Talk:Ishmael (Quinn novel)

message: I am just wondering if this book fits in the "Alternative History" category. It doesn't really provide an alternative history it simply gives one person (gorilla's?) interpretation of history. Jhawk1024 07:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Category  

message: Does anyone like the idea of having a separate section for the "Mother Culture" idea? I found it an interesting notion, but I'm not sure it's unique to Ishmael. Can anyone help with a possible source/referrence? Kwarizmi 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there should be a whole new article about Mother Culture and the entire world view that Quinn proposes. Because... it's not all about this book, there are several others and articles, essays, interviews that bring a lot of clarity into the matter. 86.106.43.93 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too think that there should be a whole new article about the world view that Quinn proposes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.186.205 (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother Culture 

message: :Image:DanielQuinn Ishmael.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DanielQuinn Ishmael.jpg

message: not that it's that big of a deal, but i don't think beyond civilization goes with the other three books in the series. the three in the series all have similar cover designs and are..yknow...fiction.
quinn writes about similar ideas in all his books, this doesn't make them all the same series.
--74.97.142.249 20:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tetrology? 

message: :Image:DanielQuinn Ishmael.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DanielQuinn Ishmael.jpg

message: Since much of Daniel Quinn's work is fiction, he doesn't cite sources, and my cursory investigation yielded no evidence that he even has source material. While I certainly don't believe that his work can only be valuable if there are "legitimate" scholarly sources for his interesting theories, I do think that for the sake of academic or artistic integrity, we should be clear about it. Daniel Quinn's books present themselves with an air of authority that seems to imply that though they are technically fiction, they are actually non-fiction wrapped in a narrative story.  I think that because of the implied authority of the Ishmael character, the article should be clear about whether anything Ishmael says is actually backed up by real evidence.
For example, a significant chunk of the book centers around Ishmael's interpretation of the Genesis story.  Is this interpretation something that Quinn concocted for the purposes of making a point, or is there actual historical evidence that this interpretation might be accurate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.58.108 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In which way "accurate"? Genesis story isn't accurate in factual or historical sense so you can only interpret it in some way or another. Ishmael is clearly non-fiction written in a form of fictional story, a Socratic dialogue. Quinn's interpretation is obviously based on Jungian psychology and views of Mircea Eliade and others but since we haven't any academic work (at least not that I know of) on his book, we can't elaborate on that. JJohannes (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Quinn Have Any Citations?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ishmael (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629132957/http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1535383/20060629/story.jhtml to http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1535383/20060629/story.jhtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just watched the movie, havent read the book. This paragraph seems mostly wrong:
"Daniel Quinn did not approve of the script or movie before transferring the rights, which were transferred as part of the Turner Award. The movie and book share no common story elements, and the philosophical connection to the book is reduced to some pictorial format and a few seconds of on-screen dialogue."
The second sentence can't be right. I read this page after seeing the movie, and the majority of it was already familiar to me, from the movie. The bit about "some pictorial format and a few seconds of dialogue" is apparently referring to the map Powell draws on the wall in one short scene, but it's just silly to talk as if that is the only part of the book retained in the movie. Judging by this page, a lot of the themes and specific content of the book are retained in the movie. It even seems wrong to say there are no shared story elements. There are some, literally and metaphorically.
Also, getting "movie options" with the award, means that you automatically give away the rights? That doesnt sound right.
I wanted to delete this whole paragraph, but as a first-time visitor I thought that may be going too far, so I Left it alone. It does seem all wrong though. 110.20.157.59 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortuitously, I only know the novel. Can you tell me what story parts (i.e. plot points) you suspect are shared in common? Wolfdog (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  problematic paragraph 

message: This entire paragraph was recently added to the Ishmael section: 
:
:There are a number of problems from unsourced claims and original research to incorrect Wikipedia formatting to an unencyclopedic writing-style. Let's start with the first problem: can you verify any of these statements with an outside source? Wolfdog (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in popular culture