Talk:The Egg (Weir short story)

Novels: Short story / Fantasy / Sci-fi Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

Science Fiction Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

proper category

I almost added this to Category:American science fiction short stories, as I think speculative fiction is an appropriate genre for "The Egg". Thoughts? - Paul2520 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it woulda fit well within the pages of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, which uses to, or used to, publish all kinds of speculative fiction with a higer literary and/or philosophical merit. --2003:71:4E07:BB23:9163:E32E:3FE1:A5D3 (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History Section removal

I've removed the History section because it made an outright claim that the story was plagiarized while offering no sources, data, or evidence. Sephalon1 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egocentric presentism

I believe that this book doesn't actually invoke solipsism, but rather it invokes contextual egocentric presentism. If absolute, egocentric presentism would be a subcategory of solipsism, but I believe the story subverts it's initial solipsism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A927:1900:9147:8665:2BA8:2620 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior Art/Inspiration Claims

I've reverted contents of this article claiming that this story is inspired by an earlier work. The citation provided is simply a link to the earlier work, which is insufficient evidence of the claim being presented. This statement requires a source explicitly stating it is an inspiring work. There are two sources I think would be valid here:

A primary source stating the inspiration from the author or a person or organization otherwise directly associated with the work this page is about. For instance, in this case, an acknowledgement from Andy Weir, his editor, or his publisher as an organization.
A neutral source stating that the origin of the story has been contested, for instance a news article about a court proceeding.

The addition of the author of the earlier work as a "co-author" can only be substantiated by a direct acknowledgement by the author, publisher, or perhaps a relevant court decision. As this work is not presently published with that distinction, it is nonfactual.

Further User:Chiyote is the author of the work they are adding as a citation. Though this doesn't have direct bearing on the factual status of the claim, it appears to be a possible WP:COI, especially since the factual status seems dubious and adding this claim to this page has been the majority of the activity by this user account. Dylan (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism Claim

The contents of recent 'Plagiarism Claim' section seem to be related to the 'Prior Art / Inspiration Claims' which have previously been subject to an editing war and were eventually removed. These claims are only supported by the personal site of the person making the claim that the work is plagiarized and as such, may not be notable enough to justify inclusion in the article.

It should be noted that the 'Jeromie Gentry' cited as making the plagiarism claim is the same User:Chiyote whose account was blocked due to edit warring on this article about these same plagiarism claims. As such, I believe that any future additions about this topic should be scrutinized heavily.

I suggest that this section either be removed or, at minimum, the claims sourced using an independent source other than the personal site of the person making the plagiarism claim. As I recently removed the 'Origin' section I will defer to others so as to not get involved in an editing war on this page. 24.35.79.78 (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of if one believes the claim or not, it is a fact that the claim is being made. Mr. Gentry has spent many months publicly making the claim on Reddit, Facebook, Quora, and even on this Wikipedia article as you pointed out. It should also be noted that Andy Weir is the same User:Sephalon1 who has removed claims of plagiarism on this article in the past. This is a conflict of interest as he would have a personal interest in removing negative claims even if the claim was valid.

As far as sources, Mr. Gentry is the source of the claim as they are the one making the claim. An independent source would also source Mr. Gentry directly.

Considering the lengths Mr. Gentry has gone through to make the plagiarism claim, it is a notable part of The Egg's history. For the sake of maintaining a truthful and unbiased article, the fact that a claim is being made should be included. 205.144.221.118 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]