Talk:An Experiment with Time

message: I removed a citation needed template, without first considering the possibility that the template was referring to the statement made about the text, not the text itself.  At any rate, this entry is completely uncited, and there appears to be no reason to single out this one sentence among many.  -Jmh123 14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: I was wondering if there was any relation between this concept and the time traveling protagonist of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five.
Jamal Wills (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very likely, but how to prove it unless Vonnegut mentioned the connection?  Another possible influence is on C. S. Lewis, who used similar concepts of time in Mere Christianity and The Great Divorce.  Dunne's ideas are quite correct (ok, that's just original research), so it's no surprise that many writers and philosophers have had similar ideas. DavidCooke (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related story? 

message: Shouldn't serialism be in lowercase? It's not a proper noun, right? Kortoso  (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunne himself capitalised it. Some commentators, such as J. B. Priestley, followed his example while others, such as Anthony Flew added double-quotes, as "Serialism". I have not seen it in any wider context to indicate other theories besides Dunne's, so we probably should in fact take it as a proper noun. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am crazy? 

message: The book is as much about Dunne's precognitive dreams as it is about Time. So too is the wider perception of it. The article text seeks to make this clear. If it is not clear to you in spite of that, please discuss your concerns here, before attempting to airbrush stuff out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox should be kept as simple as reasonably possible. An irritating feature of the infoboxes of many articles about books is that they seek to cram as many things as possible into the "subject" field, sometimes as many as half-a-dozen or more items. It makes sense to stick to the main topic only. However, I am not planning to make any more edits to the article just now. I'll read the book soon (I managed to find a secondhand copy recently) and reconsider the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. However what you and I think the book says is a red herring - here on Wikipedia we must see it through the eyes of reliable sources, a selection of which are cited throughout the article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

text: To give just one example. In his review of the book for Nature, Hyman Levy remarks that, "There are two distinct portions to this book which ought to be dealt with separately, and the author practically does so. In the first part the startling experimental facts [for dream precognition] are described.... The theory [of time and consciousness] must wait...." (Hyman Levy; "Time and Perception: An Experiment with Time. By J. W. Dunne", Nature, 119, No. 3006, 11 June 1927, pp847-848.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of the book 

message: It is a dangerous thing to promote one's own work on Wikipedia. Nevertheless I have boldly used my role as an WP:EXPERT to make this edit, referencing a recent peer reviewed paper of mine. If you feel that this is premature or otherwise unwise, I trust that you will revert and discuss per WP:BRD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narnia 

message: Steelpillow, I find this edit by you, removing a link to Irréversible from the see also section, unreasonable. The article mentions An Experiment with Time. Saying that you want to keep the see also list "short, significant and contemporary" is no explanation for removing the link. The list of see also items is short even with Irréversible, and the link is "significant". In fact it was much more "significant" than any of the other items in the "see also" section (Dreamtime, Charles Howard Hinton, Modal realism, and P. D. Ouspensky), since none of those articles even mentions Dunne or An Experiment with Time. Finally, I do not even know what you mean by "contemporary". There is no rule that items in the "see also" section have to concern events that occurred only in the last few years, and such a requirement would be absurd (by the way, how does Ouspensky count as "contemporary?). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That is precisely the opposite of what the MOS:SEEALSO guideline tells us. It actually says;  It adds that  The problem with adding links to fictional mentions is that they tend to multiply and it becomes a fanboi playground. So they have to be pruned back. Topics that are often discussed alongside Dunne in mainstream literature are obviously of greater significance to the average reader and there are quite enough of them to maintain a sensibly-sized list. By "contemporary" I mean contemporary with the same referent as the other two adjectives in the series, i.e. Dunne's book. What was missing from the list was  for each. I will add these and I would ask you in future to read our relevant policies and guidelines for yourself and not need me to do it for you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Topics that are directly related to the topic of the article should obviously take precedence over those that are not. That indirectly related items are acceptable does not mean that they take precedence over directly related items, such as Irréversible. Your suggestion that the inclusion of the Irréversible link makes the "see also" list too long is clearly false. With that inclusion, the "see also" list would comprise four items only, which patently is not too many. Your claim that references to fictional items "tend to multiply" and become "a fanboi playground" is made without evidence and I see no reason whatever to believe that it is correct. You have removed a clearly appropriate and desirable link on totally hypothetical and specious grounds. My response would be that if too many fiction-related items are added, then one could discuss cutting them back. At this time, such a problem does not exist. There is therefore no reason to remove the link to Irréversible, which I will restore. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Topics that are directly related to the topic of the article should obviously take precedence over those that are not." is just your opinion, it is absolutely not borne out by the guideline I just quoted. If a topic is directly relevant and worth linking to then it should probably be in the main text. The whole point of the See also section is to link to less directly-related topics, it is not a dumping ground for fan links that have no place there. I have collected over forty references to Dunne in fiction and a dozen claims that I have yet to check out. A good many of of those must have Wikipedia articles. Only those which reliable independent sources verify as significant to Dunne's work should be mentioned, the rest are just WP:FANCRUFT here. You have provided no such third-party RS to lift Noe's film out of the pile. Allowing it to stay would open the door to an unreasonable number of similar cruft links. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You state, "If a topic is directly relevant and worth linking to then it should probably be in the main text." Sure, if there happens to be text about the topic that can be cited in the main text of the article. If not, then it is fine to place it in a see also section. The claim that a directly related item cannot be in the see also section is downright bizarre. WP:SEEALSO says nothing of the kind. Your view that only subjects that "reliable independent sources verify as significant to Dunne's work should be mentioned" appears to be simply made up; again it has no basis whatever in the WP:SEEALSO, which states, "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." If an article deals with An Experiment with Time, it is perfectly appropriate to link to it. As for your claim that allowing the link to stay "would open the door to an unreasonable number of similar cruft links", well, no. You provided no evidence of that and there is no reason to believe it. It is utterly unreasonable to remove the link due to purely hypothetical concerns based on no evidence. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say that "a directly related item cannot be in the see also section", please do not misrepresent me.  About twenty other mainspace articles reference the book in one way or another. That is too many to include here. Your film article  is nothing special; it makes one peripheral reference to the book and that is all, it is trivial. Neither of us will convince the other, we need to widen this discussion. I have posted a request at WP:TO. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: On this one, I rather tend to agree with . The reference made in Irréversible is not a central part of the work, just something a character happens to be reading in the film, so more of a passing mention. I don't think that's enough of a nexus to really justify a place in the See Also section. If this work were more central to the film, maybe, but that's just not a close enough linkage. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Steelpillow, if you write something like, "The whole point of the See also section is to link to less directly-related topics", then that does have the effect of implying that a directly related topic is somehow inappropriate, which is a strange and entirely baseless view. I'm happy to respect Seraphimblade's third opinion, however, so that's the end of the discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section