Talk:Sine qua non

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was wondering if the example is proper. Sine qua non is a term meaning 'essential'. Something like "The Indian President's presence is considered a sine qua non during the Republic Day Parade". Apart from confusing the usage, the proffered example goes on to make other funny claims. For example, leaving the engine running is not as careless as leaving Dennis the Menace free to bump into someone else. The careless people are the child's parents, in the proffered example. Priyatu 11:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other uses

Undid an entry for a minor vineyard in California which uses the name. Is this acceptable? Perhaps a disambiguation page is required? Should alternative uses be restricted to literary/legal/arts & sciences? Is so then SQN Electronics should probably be deleted too.--John Gibbard (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think any noteworthy non-legal use should be included. I'm not familiar with this wine so I don't know if it specifically should be included. However, any noteworthy product called 'sine qua non' ought to be. As a hypothetical example, if there were a major car model called 'sine qua non,' I'd say it should be included.141.166.80.24 (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battlestar Galactica

Any particular reason other than snobbery that the fact that an Episode of Battlestar Galactica (2003) has the Title "Sine Qua Non" isn't allowed to be on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.189.76 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The relevance of the information itself (that there is a BSG episode by that name) for this article is exactly nil. At the same time, easy usage is taken care of with the disambiguation page link at top of the article: Sine qua non (disambiguation). dorftrottel (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually that sounds like snobbery, Dort. The episode name, and the term's repeated use in that episode, is probably the most recognizable use of the term 'sine qua non' outside academia. And the terms popular use is in fact relevant. So, I would add, are other popular uses of the term. 141.166.80.24 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to snobbery, I recommend this article. dorftrottel (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, it appears you also think the literary uses are irrelevant...what do you have against Dostoyevsky?141.166.80.24 (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you arrive at the conclusion that I 'have something against Dostoevsky? I removed this and other "in popular culture" mentions because they lacked both the primary source reference and, more importantly in the context of your wish to add the BSG reference into the article, no secondary source to establish how they are even remotely relevant in the context of this article. It's a frequently encountered legal term, nothing special to mention it, and of no relevance to this article. The section on undue weight in our neutral point of view policy states that An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. dorftrottel (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Such a major edit - here the deletion of half the article - should require a consensus. So far, it is 2-1 against your position, Dort. 141.166.80.24 (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, it looks more like some Galactica fans who should be editing BattlestarWiki rather than an encyclopedic project. Also, WP:Consensus is not a majority vote. Beyond that, there is simply no encyclopedic justification to mention the episode in this article beyond the straightforward disambiguation link at the top. dorftrottel (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)