Talk:Evolution and Ethics

Newbie's questions

I'm just trying to get acquainted with the ways of editing Wikisource, and this particular essay by Huxley presents me with the occasion for some questions. Huxley opens his article with this: Soleo enim et in aliena castra transire, non tanquam transfuga sed tanquam explorator. (L. ANNAEI SENECAE EPIST. II. 4.) This presents temptations to me to do some editing. Firt of all, the author quoted is more commonly known as "Seneca", and the quotation is from what is known in English most fully as "Moral Letters to Lucillus". Moreover, I believe the quotation is from "II.5". And, of course, it would be nice to have an English translation. My first temptation is to make links something like this: L. ANNAEI SENECAE EPIST. II.4^[1].

1. the correct reference is to II.5

Given that Wikisource does have an English translation for this, I am not so tempted as to give the translation: Although which sentence is being translated is not obvious. Any help for this newcomer? TomS TDotO (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We encourage wikilinks to other works, or to authors where they are relevant. What you propose is okay. We also have {{user annotation}} which we use sparingly, though can be useful for putting inside ref tags for particularly pertinent notation may be required — billinghurst sDrewth 14:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As a newcomer, I am confused about how to handle editor annotation to the text. I understand, and appreciate, the concept that there should be a pristine version of the text which approximates as close as possible to the original, and that editor's annotations should be unobtrusive. But I am, for some reason, incapable of understanding how to use the template {{tl|blahblahblah}}. Just now, I tried to change my annotations to Huxley's text. I wrote (in place of my original attempt) <ref>{{tl|the correct reference is to II.5}}</ref> and added near the bottom {{smallref}}. What appeared as a result was, in the text, a [[1]] footnote pointer, and, in the regular sequence, among Huxley's own footnotes, footnote #1 reading, in red, "the correct reference is to II.5". I'm obviously doing something wrong, and don't have a clue as to what to do, and don't have a clue how to find out. The description at Template:Tl is impenetrable to me. If nothing else, an example of its usage would give me something to work with in trying to understand what to do. Believe me, I'm trying to be helpful, not disruptive. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See what you think of my change to sidenote format. If you don't like it, you can go to the page history and click "undo." The {{tl}} template is intended to create a link to another template, like the one I just made to tl itself. --Eliyak T·C 14:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll wait a while to hear if anyone else has an opinion, and to sleep on it. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much other interest, but I'll press the subject a bit more. First of all, I'd really, truly like to see examples of how others have treated this sort of thing, and how it has been treated by the community of editors. I don't like the idea of trying to invent on my own a solution to a problem which has been solved by a meeting of minds. Second, I will defer to Eliyak's solution. There is no point in my quibbles making this into something of an edit war. But, while expressing my gratitude to Eliyak for helping me out, I have to express some reservations about this solution: It makes the already long text even longer with lots of white space, white space which is there only to accommodate a relatively few number of annotations. Next, I will enter an explanation for why I think that what I am trying is worthwhile. Huxley was quoting Latin, and we can assume that most of the readers are not fluent in Latin, but some would surely like to know what he was saying. Therefore, a link to an English translation seems warranted. But, where Huxley gave a wrong citation, even if only off by a bit, this would frustrate the Latin-less reader. I think that it is warranted to help the reader with these annotations. And, finally, after thinking and researching on Wikimedia options, I have come across what I think is a reasonable solution. To repeat myself, I am not going to change the article. But I'd like to hear from more experienced editors what they think of what I came up with. What I came up with was using two groups of references, and it requires having references nested within references, using #tag:ref. Here is a sample of what I thought of, which I hope gives the idea:

Soleo enim et in aliena castra transire, non tanquam transfuga sed tanquam explorator. (L. ANNAEI SENECAE EPIST. II.4^{[Ws 1]})

. . .

But that very sharpening of the sense and that subtle refinement of emotion, which brought such a wealth of pleasures, were fatally attended by a proportional enlargement of the capacity for suffering; and the divine faculty of imagination, while it created new heavens and new earths, provided them with the corresponding hells of futile regret for the past and morbid anxiety for the future.^[1] Finally, the inevitable penalty of over-stimulation, exhaustion, opened the gates of civilization to its great enemy, ennui; the stale and flat weariness when man delights-not, nor woman neither; when all things are vanity and vexation; and life seems not worth living except to escape the bore of dying.

. . .

For, although Buddhism recognizes gods many and lords many, they are products of the cosmic process; and transitory, however long enduring, manifestations of its eternal activity. In the doctrine of transmigration, whatever its origin, Brahminical and Buddhist speculation found, ready to hand^[2] . . .

Notes

1. "Multa bona nostra nobis nocent, timoris enim tormentum memorin reducit, providentia anticipat. Nemo tantum praesentibus miser est." (Seneca, Ed. v. 7. ^{[Ws 2]}) . . .
2. " . . . For all these are possessed of souls, and there is no essential difference between these souls and the souls of men--all being alike mere sparks of the Great Spirit, who is the only real existence." (Rhys Davids, Hibbert Lectures, 1881 ^{[Ws 3]}, p. 83.)
   
   . . . I have also found Dr. Oldenberg's Buddha (Ed. 2, 1890) ^{[Ws 4]} very helpful. . . .

Annotations by Wikisource editor

1. [sic], should be: II.5
2. [sic], should be: Ep[istulae] v.9
3. Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion: As Illustrated by Some Points in the History of Buddhism
4. Buddha: Sein Leben, seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde; English translation: Buddha: His Life, his Doctrine, his Order

And I thank everyone for their patience. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That grouping solution seems very appropriate to me, I am going to mention this discussion at the Scriptorium to see if other editors would like to comment. Since this is a pretty general topic and an important discussion (I think), it should be continued at the Scriptorium page, and may result in some changes to WS:ANN. --Eliyak T·C 02:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

attribution

The page history and contributions since the development of the annotated version was split to Evolution and Ethics (wikisource annotations). That title can moved to another, perhaps sub-paged from this title, if anyone got a better idea. If I fouled anything in the process, please let me know. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

complete source

Our dear friends at Gutenberg have a book with this text at Evolution and Ethics, Project Gutenberg, a scan is probably out there too. Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)