Talk: Jalaj Gangwar
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jalaj Gangwar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? See the welcome page.
Contents
1. Are the Razors actually original? [edit]
I've read the Razors section and feel it's being presented as more original than it is. The "Totality Rejection Principle" is essentially just circular reasoning / begging the question dressed in new clothes. This is covered extensively in any intro logic textbook. The article shouldn't be presenting it as a novel contribution without at least acknowledging the prior literature.
That's a pretty uncharitable reading. Begging the question concerns circular arguments. The Totality Rejection Principle is about the epistemic scope of evidence — it's closer to something in Neurath or late Quine than anything in a logic 101 textbook. You might disagree with it but calling it unoriginal requires actually engaging with what it says.
I've read Quine. This isn't Quine.
That's not an argument, that's a vibe.
Can we keep this civil please. I think the underlying question is whether the Razors page needs a "See also" section linking to related established concepts. That seems like a reasonable improvement without implying plagiarism.
Agreed, a "See also" would be appropriate. Thanatos' Razor in particular is very close to Popper's falsifiability criterion. The article already acknowledges this in the body text but a cross-reference would strengthen it.
Fine. But I still think Prometheus' Razor is just restating the distinction between understanding and knowledge that goes back to Aristotle. I'm adding a [citation needed] tag.
Please don't just tag-bomb the article. If you have a specific source that predates this formulation, add it. Otherwise the tag is not constructive.
Adding [citation needed] to unsourced claims is literally what the tag is for??
2. Codex entries lack citations [edit]
The Codex page presents invented words as if they are established philosophical terminology. "Mireth," "Mouraxis," etc. have zero external citations. How is this encyclopedic?
They're coined terms. The article says so explicitly. A coined term by definition won't have external citations — it's original vocabulary. The Codex page is documenting the coinage, not claiming the words are in the OED.
This is a personal compendium, not an encyclopedia claiming neutral coverage. The "lack of citations" critique applies to Wikipedia articles about other people, not to a writer's own collected works. It's like complaining that Shakespeare didn't cite his sources for Hamlet.
The Shakespeare comparison is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
I didn't say he was Shakespeare. I said the citation standard doesn't apply the same way to primary creative works.
I actually think "Mouraxis" is a genuinely useful concept and I've started using it in conversation. Does that count as a citation
No.
lol but also kind of yes — organic adoption is how words enter a language. That's kind of the whole point of coining them.
I want to flag that "Blossom Blue" appears in one of his poems as well as the Codex. That cross-referencing is actually a strength of this compendium — the concepts recur across modes. Seems worth noting in the article.
3. Poem VII — copyright concern + quality dispute [edit]
"Sympathy for the Devil" is the name of a Rolling Stones song. Is there a copyright issue with titling a poem the same thing? Also I want to say I think this is the weakest poem in the collection — the political allegory is very on-the-nose and the "I wear a suit, I wear a tie" opener feels undergraduate.
Titles cannot be copyrighted. This is basic IP law.
The "on the nose" critique is interesting but I'd push back. The poem knows it's on the nose — the speaker is explicitly the devil who has learned "better grammar." The directness is the point. Subtlety would undercut it.
That's a generous interpretation. "The directness is the point" is what people say when they're defending something that's just direct.
And "it's too on the nose" is what people say when they want to sound critical without making an actual argument.
I think "Sticks and Stones" is the best poem actually. Does the most with the least. Eight lines and it completely dismantles the proverb.
Agreed. "they find the hour you're most alone" is the best line in the collection.
Hard agree. Though "She's Gone" is close. The restraint in that one is remarkable — it knows exactly when to stop.
You're all ignoring "The Life Is Yours" which is doing something structurally really interesting — it sounds like a love poem until suddenly it doesn't.
4. Notability of subject [edit]
I'm going to be blunt: does this person meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? I see no third-party coverage, no publications with an ISBN, no academic citations. This reads like a vanity page. Nominating for deletion.
It's a personal compendium. It's not claiming to be a neutral Wikipedia article about a notable public figure. The notability guideline doesn't apply here in the way you're applying it.
The format implies the standard. If you build something that looks like Wikipedia, people will evaluate it like Wikipedia.
That's actually a pretty interesting point about form implying epistemological standard. Someone should add it to the Razors.
Please stay on topic.
Notability is earned, not inherited. Plenty of notable people were unknown before they were known. The work either holds up or it doesn't. I'd argue it holds up.
Closing this thread. Deletion nomination declined — this is a personal site, not a Wikipedia article. The notability policy is being applied in bad faith here.
You can't just "close" a talk page thread, this isn't how Wikipedia works
ok but she did though
5. Miscellaneous / other concerns [edit]
Minor thing but the bio says he "pursued an education that cut across disciplines" — this is vague to the point of saying nothing. Can we be more specific or just remove it?
The vagueness is deliberate I think. He hasn't published a CV.
"He has cited boredom, clarity, and the inadequacy of existing words as his three primary creative motivations" — where is this sourced from? I can't find an interview.
The work itself is the source. Read the Codex introduction.
Unrelated but I found this site at 2am and have now read everything twice. The quote "God forbid I am loved" genuinely stopped me. That's all, carry on.
Same. "Doors are open but the path is broken" has been living in my head for a week.
Can we keep this professional please
No