297:’s freak out over Tarkovsky’s interpretation of the book. My talk, on the other hand, was mostly about funding and censorship, only secondarily about film language, and had nothing to do with memory and representation. The complaining scholar went on to give a detailed secondary “lecture” on Lem’s reaction to Tarkovsky, then went on to talk about fax machines and something about gay rights in the Soviet Union and the impact on Gorbachev. To trigger memory, this was in the lobby of Cubberley Hall after the screening, and he was standing next to another Russian in CS named “Andrei” who had red hair and freckles and was a regular at all the Russian screenings. (Admittedly, my recollection might be like Kelvin recalling his wife’s dress.) The gay rights and fax machine comment should help place the year. Was anyone who is reading this at that talk, and if so, do you have a copy of my lecture handout with the title?
243:
about film funding and censorship, in addition to film language.) The Steven Dillon's 2006 book title is completley independent of my use over those eight years. I had never heard of him before someone called me up and said to check the title out. So both mine and Dillon's uses likely came from some coinage back in the 1970's.
242:
Not a neologism nor a one user expression. I regularly used the expression "The
Solaris Effect" at my Stanford University lectures (given to audiences of about 500 people every week) from 1984 to 1992, after first hearing it a film lecture at UCLA back in the 1970's. (I actually also used it to talk
400:
Knowledge articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on
284:
I was soundly and publicly chewed out for “mistranslating” the expression “the
Solaris effect”, following my lecture of the same title, and screening, at Stanford U. (I had never seen it in print at the time.) The complaining person, a visiting scholar from the Soviet Bloc in computer science,
135:
only used by this professor and no one else. The article also claims that the
Solaris Effect is just an expansion of what Ingmar Bergman or James Monaco said - all these two said was that Tarkovsky had a lot of influence (indeed he had), but this does not make this neologism more notable.
403:
My best guess here is that author is authoritative because he is a critic and film historian, and that book has a reliable publication process being published by
University of Texas Press, so the only missing adjective here is "third-party". I can live with that in this context.
203:- how can you call it a "non-notable" neologism when the work that coined it is an academic work published by a serious academic press? Writing a book about your neologism and getting UT Press to publish a book about your neologism kinda makes it notable, not so?
358:: Unacceptable argument. Many if not most math articles cite books that are not freely available on the net; the same goes for many other fields. Knowledge is not "the encyclopedia of stuff freely available online".
219:
Because the book is not about the neologism, but about the influence of
Tarkovsky on contemporary cinema. Without having read the book, but just looking at book description and the content at
124:
132:
153:
BlueSalo is correct that
Bergmann and Monaco did not use the expression (as far as I am aware of). That was not for notability, but historic context.
91:
86:
95:
78:
394:
automatically unreliable as you imply. Citing primary sources is commonly done for most features of software, book/movie plots etc.
17:
223:, it looks to me that the word Solaris effect is just a catchy book title, and not even a neologism that describes a concept.
447:, per above comments, until more written sources of uses of expression, prior to the book or following it, are acquired.
490:
36:
472:
456:
431:
411:
383:
365:
353:
335:
306:
272:
252:
232:
212:
195:
162:
145:
60:
489:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
469:
408:
362:
269:
379:
331:
285:
asserted that the expression was used in cybernetics circles in the Soviet Bloc to refer to some aspect of “
82:
452:
302:
248:
158:
466:
405:
359:
266:
341:
290:
220:
55:
448:
298:
244:
154:
208:
175:
429:
349:
228:
141:
74:
66:
262:
188:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
420:
49:
315:
204:
440:
424:
345:
224:
137:
395:
371:
319:
112:
375:
327:
323:
131:
non notable neologism that has been coined by one professor and is according to
444:
286:
483:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
294:
119:
108:
104:
100:
388:::: Primary sources can be cited; a primary source is
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
493:). No further edits should be made to this page.
370:::That is a primary source; it does not satisfy
398:is a guideline and uses "should" not "must" in
344:for a limited preview of the book in question.
261:Does media cite you using it? Otherwise it's
8:
293:”, and arose from discussions related to
461:: Exactly what I was going to suggest (
174:: A neologism used by only one person.
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
473:00:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
457:22:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
432:20:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
412:00:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
384:22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
366:00:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
354:20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
336:20:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
307:17:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
273:00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
253:17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
233:16:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
213:16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
196:16:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
163:17:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
146:16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
61:19:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
282:Question - Was anyone there?
322:and as such I am unable to
46:redirected to Steven Dillon
510:
486:Please do not modify it.
326:that this term is used.
32:Please do not modify it.
465:if anyone's counting).
314:. The article does not
346:Голубое сало/Blue Salo
225:Голубое сало/Blue Salo
138:Голубое сало/Blue Salo
291:mental representation
75:The Solaris Effect
67:The Solaris Effect
44:The result was
194:
501:
488:
463:keep as redirect
427:
421:Andrei Tarkovsky
320:reliable sources
191:
186:
184:
181:
178:
122:
116:
98:
58:
52:
34:
509:
508:
504:
503:
502:
500:
499:
498:
497:
491:deletion review
484:
443:, with link to
425:
189:
182:
179:
176:
118:
89:
73:
70:
56:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
507:
505:
496:
495:
478:
476:
475:
459:
434:
414:
386:
368:
356:
338:
309:
278:
277:
276:
275:
256:
255:
236:
235:
216:
215:
198:
168:
167:
166:
165:
133:Google Scholar
129:
128:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
506:
494:
492:
487:
481:
480:
479:
474:
471:
468:
464:
460:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:Steven Dillon
438:
435:
433:
430:
428:
422:
418:
415:
413:
410:
407:
402:
397:
393:
392:
387:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
367:
364:
361:
357:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
283:
280:
279:
274:
271:
268:
264:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
250:
246:
241:
238:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
197:
192:
185:
173:
170:
169:
164:
160:
156:
152:
151:
150:
149:
148:
147:
143:
139:
134:
126:
121:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
485:
482:
477:
462:
436:
417:Delete/Merge
416:
399:
390:
389:
342:Google Books
318:accessible,
311:
281:
240:KEEP, Strong
239:
221:Google Books
200:
171:
130:
45:
43:
31:
28:
51:Fabrictramp
449:EricDiesel
439:to author
437:REDIRECTED
299:EricDiesel
263:WP:ILIKEIT
245:EricDiesel
155:EricDiesel
57:talk to me
205:Guettarda
201:Question'
426:Reywas92
401:context.
125:View log
445:Solaris
289:” and “
92:protect
87:history
376:Stifle
340:: See
328:Stifle
324:verify
312:Delete
287:memory
172:Delete
120:delete
96:delete
396:WP:RS
372:WP:RS
177:Schuy
123:) – (
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
453:talk
380:talk
350:talk
332:talk
316:cite
303:talk
249:talk
229:talk
209:talk
190:talk
159:talk
142:talk
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
419:to
391:not
295:Lem
467:VG
455:)
423:.
406:VG
382:)
374:.
360:VG
352:)
334:)
305:)
267:VG
265:.
251:)
231:)
211:)
161:)
144:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
54:|
48:.
470:☎
451:(
409:☎
378:(
363:☎
348:(
330:(
301:(
270:☎
247:(
227:(
207:(
193:)
187:(
183:1
180:m
157:(
140:(
127:)
117:(
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.