Talk:New Sincerity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sign and indent talk please 2 Sincere or 3 Policy 4 Gen Y? 5 Guide to referencing 5.1 Good references 5.2 Simple referencing 5.3 Test it out 5.4 Information to include 5.5 Citation templates 5.6 Same ref used twice or more 5.7 Example 5.8 Next step

[edit] Sign and indent talk please

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.

Also indent replies by putting a colon : in front of the text. Two indent double, put two colons and so on. See WP:TPG.

Tyrenius 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sincere or

Some one should say something about "the sound of young america"

After doing an essay on this term and the movement itself, the earliest example I can find of it's use is in a 1999 issue of Film Comment magazine refering to Wes Anderson's 'Rushmore'. If anyone knows of an earlier use of the phrase please speak up!

Here: “If I Can Dream: The Everlasting Boyhoods of Wes Anderson” by Mark Olsen, January 1999, Film Comment Magazine

These pages may also be of use:

“The O Factor” by Field Maloney, 2005 Location: http://www.slate.com/id/2123292

“Sincere or Insincere?” by Virginia M. Heatter, 2005 Link dead, this is the article

Sincere or Insincere?

Talk about the New Sincerity is all the rage in blogland these days. Small wonder then that Seth and I found ourselves discussing the matter over brunch this morning--or that now we've retreated to our separate computers to parse our thoughts in--what else?--writing.

I can't speak to the burgeoning(?) quasi-(?) destined to fail/succeed(?) movement as a whole, because I haven't kept on top of all the conversations. The mega-doses of irony in Joe Massey's manifestos, for instance, make my eyes glaze over and my head spin. I can, however, speak to what sincerity as a concept means to me, and why I am a fan.

First, some bullet-points on what sincerity, in my view, is and is not:

Sincerity is always emotionally honest, though it may play fast-and-loose with every other kind of truth. Sincerity is full of personality. That is, the human quotient always makes itself more palpably felt than the theoretical one. Even in poems whose primary subject is an Idea, one feels there is a flesh-and-blood consciousness at its core. Sincerity shuns sterility, and insofar as it is authentic, it cannot help but reveal the individual personality of its persona(s), character(s), and/or writer. Sincerity is not a catalog of suffering, written in the confessional style. No one wholly suffers, or if they do they owe it to themselves to seek help and try to heal. Life is as much about joy as it is about pain, and any poetics which deliberately excises the finer half of the human experience for the sake of art cannot properly be termed sincere. Sincerity understands the difference between joy and happiness and contentment and does not try to amplify cooler emotions for the sake of turning them into art. In other words, there are a very few things which actually make the heart leap, and the sincere writer will avoid turning mild gladness into an instance of the sublime. (Though this one may spark WWIII here at home) Sincerity does not employ myth unless Myth is itself the subject of the poem. Put another way, a sincere writer does not substitute heroes, gods, saints, or other archetypes in order to avoid looking directly at the people, emotions, or ideas they represent. Sincerity risks awkwardness rather than covering its ass with "I was only joking." Aside from the fact that my ribs are little sore from all the wink-wink, nudge-nudge, sincerity appeals to me because there is a glut of insincerity in the general culture. Politicians abuse language every day through the use of irony in its purest, dictionary sense--i.e. "The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning." Hollywood produces a celluloid world which bears little resemblance to real one. Television producers fabricate extraordinary environments, hand-select participants, then splice together dramatic moments, and call it "Reality TV." Magazines--even and especially women's magazines--proffer an idea of sex which is based on the fantasies of heterosexual, fourteen year-old boys. Advertisers...well, you get the point. All of which leaves me craving a little unguarded sincerity.

I may add to this list as new definitions occur to me, or I may not. Either way, I do think something in the notion of a New Sincerity, even if it began as a joke between friends, expresses a feeling in the air that irony, as a dominant feature of anything, may be long overdue for a hiatus.

Posted by Ginger Heatter at 02:17 PM

All good and well, but the main article is getting away from citeable references (if it ever was). In fact, the most recent addition (22:03, 5 April 2007) reads like a lengthy stretch of original speculation (not a good idea), and the article's going to be deleted if that's the direction it's heading in, plain and simple. --Enwilson 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No kidding--the latest addition is even further in this direction. At what point should the plug get pulled? --ND 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I reverted it and the user reverted it back. I don't do edit wars, so I've posted below to get a response. Tyrenius 01:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope I didn't overstep my bounds, but I did a rearrangement of the article tonight. It doesn't address the content issues (no edits past the Gen Y one), but hopefully it organizes the sprawl better. --Enwilson 05:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

If you want this article to stay it has to meet WP:N per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Tyrenius 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the reinstatement of this edit [1] as it has not verifiable reliable sources to back it and material without them can be removed by any editor. Tyrenius 00:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does this site not mention the main use of the term new Sincerity, as coined by Jim Collins in realtion to post-modern genre theory?! It is certainly NOT a post 9/11 term, having been in use since at least the mid 1990s! This page is hugely misleading! 128.250.6.243 07:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)boshno

[edit] Gen Y?

The most recent addition (19:06, 23 April 2007, JeffreyAtW)just muddies things further. No other place in the article even mentions the Gen Ys, and the quotes aren't "criticism" of any form of New Sincerity. I'm deleting it and requesting that if the contributor reinstates it, he includes material addressing the relevance to the topic. --Enwilson 04:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to referencing

Click on "show" to open contents.

Using references (citations)

I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. [edit] Good references A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use Reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is Original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research. [edit] Simple referencing The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code: ==Notes and references== <references/> The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap): <ref>             </ref> Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference. [edit] Test it out Copy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page: ==Reference test== This is the text which you are going to reference.<ref> Substitute your own text in this space </ref> ==Notes and references== <references/> (End of text to copy and paste.) [edit] Information to include You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this: <ref> Smith, Timothy: "A Guide to Planets", page 29. Solar Publishing, 2001 </ref> An online newspaper source would be: <ref> Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]]. </ref> Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use double apostrophes for the article title, and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Wikilinks (double square brackets which create an internal link to a wikipedia article) function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings. [edit] Citation templates You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference [edit] Same ref used twice or more The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code: <ref name=smith> DETAILS OF REF </ref> The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again: <ref name=smith/> You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. [edit] Example You can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is. [edit] Next step When you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section, "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another, "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book: Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9. If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information: Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style Wikipedia:Citation templates Wikipedia:Footnotes I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know. Tyrenius 23:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)