This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Being redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
From the opening paragraph of the article:
What the? Minerals? Yes there is, under any realistic interpretation of "conclusive". That sentence has been around for almost two years [1]. Well, no longer. dbenbenn | talk 04:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I cut the following text from this article, as it is seemingly unrelated to the ontological concept of being:
If that use of "Being" is important, perhaps it belongs in the Supreme Being article or in the Eckhart Tolle article or, if The Power of Now is an important enough book, in an article about that book. The Rod 05:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Continuing to make this article more about a single topic (ontological being), I cut the following content from the article, as it seems unrelated to the ontological concept of being:
If the existentialist aspect of the film is important enough, perhaps it belongs in Existentialism or perhaps the film merits its own article. The Rod 05:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I need the qualities or characteristics that differentiate a being from a not-being - Daëmon 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is an inappropriate mixture of definitions in this article. We start out by talking about the subjective meaning, how it is the inner self and all that. Then we start talking abouth the universal meaning of being, which is essentially objective. Which is it? The article goes on blithely speaking as if they were one and the same thing. The key to the problem is the lack of references. They seem to help clarify everything. Since the article clearly intends to cover the universal, or objective, status of being, I propose that is where we start. As this is a long-standing tagged article and everyone interested has had an ample shot at it I hope you do not mind if I turn my hand to organizing and referencing the article. There are a whole lot of articles on the same topic but they are all equally tagged and equally problematic. But, let's try to do it right and then see what we really have before we make any final decisions (if there is any such thing on WP).00:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the relationship between
Awareness and Being? There is no mention of it in the article?
AgentSmith 21:22, 18 March 2012 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
111.69.197.103 (
talk)
Actually the writing here as far as it goes is very good, nor have I yet found evidence of plagiarism. The name-dropping, however - well, that is something else. I know the walls of institutions, such as the Boston Public Library, have the names of great thinkers inscribed in them as a monument. This isn't a monument, however, it is an article. Nothing is said about the names, no information given, no refs, the articles do not mention this article, we are left to guess the relevance. I think what we want are the refs. The first ref I put in contains those names and gives more detail. So, I'm removing name lists, or shall we say monumental names, which are being dropped, shall we say, like names of battles invoked by people who never fought in them. Dave ( talk) 04:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"French Academy member Étienne Gilson wrote once that if a notion had to be universally recognized as the first of all principles of philosophy that would be being."
Try as I might I cannot find the source of this statement. Maybe he did say it, maybe not. Whatever the case may be, it appears to be out of context. However, it is signal that the editor should have chosen for this article probably the most notable Thomist of modern times, a metaphysician's metaphysician, an ontologist's ontologist. What he says is easily taken out of context because he often likes to develop the subject by going along with a given hypothesis to the point where it can't be gone along with any further, as a device for getting you to make the leap into an otherwise extraordinary realization. This method appears to imitate St. Thomas' method. The latter makes statements that have an ordinary and an extraordinary sense. He brings you along the ordinary path until you suddenly realize he cannot possibly be talking about the ordinary. Other metaphysicians abd ontologists do that also, although some prefer straight exposition. Now, I cannnot follow down any misunderstandings or statements out of context the editor may have had. I think for purpose of what he is trying to say he may dropped one name too many. However I will respect his wishes and start using Gilson as the main basis for this article! What is missing of course is about 2000 years of the philosophy of being; I presume the editor ommitted that as of no value, as he says. Well, there might be some small value. Might. There are so many articles around this topic one has to be careful to stick right to the topic, which is being and beings, as opposed to entities, ousia, existents, essences, and all the rest. Dave ( talk) 11:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless differences between Islamic and non-Islamic philosophies are going to be discussed, I see no purpose on keeping that there. Glorthac ( talk) 02:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Merging is not the answer...Any language is called a rich language, because it is rich in terms of trminology. It is noticeable clearly that the English language is shrinking lately by folloewing the method of merging (and other reasons which does not concern our subject, now)not specificaly, just an example, i.e; SOUL (Area = LIFE)while MIND (Area = THOUGHT). And now 'Existance' and 'Being'. though might be very close in SOME meanings, but never carries the same specs. Existence versus nothingness , while Being versus nonpresence. Actually what disturbes me most is the use of definitions derived from the brain understandings of the universe, especially when they don't exists as such, i.e; Time= is a sequence of moments,etc...past,present,future. Well excuse me but there is no such thing in oneness time...this is simply an understanding IN ACCORDANCE TO THE BRAIN, and not a definition of time, to be fair it might be a good understanding to the verb time, but what about time the noun? Michel Nakouzi ( talk) 22:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I highly recommend looking at the German wikipedia article on Being (Sein): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sein
It's much better than the English wiki one. -- Caute AF ( talk) 16:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The lede should introduce the philosophical term "being" in much the same way that the term might be introduced to a freshman philosophy class. The current version strays too far from the all ways the term is used. The definitions given have almost no connection with the traditional understanding of the term as used in classical philosophy, i.e. existence and essence, metaphysics, etc.
There is a little continental philosophy there, which is fine, but an introduction should be more even handed between Heidegger's understanding of the term and it's traditional usage. There are also several statements which are obviously false. I'm thinking of the discussion of personal experience, sentience, etc. I don't think these would be part of a traditional account of being.
I've asked over at Wikiproject philosophy if anyone else wants to take a crack at it. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 08:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
OK Charles. Go ahead and put something together along these lines and we'll see how it flows, and give you pointers - anything missing, suggested re-wording etc. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 22:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Like many philosophically interesting notions, existence is at once familiar and rather elusive. Although we have no more trouble with using the verb ‘exists’ than with the two-times table, there is more than a little difficulty in saying just what existence is. Existing seems to be at least as mundane as walking or being hungry. Yet, when we say ‘Tom is hungry’ or ‘Tom is walking’, it may be news to those not in Tom's vicinity, whereas ‘Tom exists’ would be news to no one who knew Tom, and merely puzzling to anyone who did not. Again, we know what it is like to be hungry or to walk, but what is it like to exist, what kind of experience is that? Is it perhaps the experience of being oneself, of being identical with oneself? Yet again, we can readily indicate what is meant by Tom's walking, but surely Tom's existing is not something we can indicate to anyone. On the face of it, there would seem to be no way at all in which we can explain what existing is.
had to check if I started this thread, sounds so much like me ( user:lycurgus) but apparently not. I'm retired here but have to chime in with others how risible the use of 'deploy" is in the lede. Apparently someone tried without success to wipe it. 198.255.198.157 ( talk) 21:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The current version of the article is filled with pretentious, unclear writing. For example, the first sentence of the lead is:
The first sentence of the body is:
The section titled "The transcendental being" begins:
I haven't read the whole article, but most of what I've sampled is similarly unclear, irrelevant, and pretentiously worded. To future editors: Please don't hesitate to delete large portions of text, even the entire article, and write from scratch. Much writing in philosophy, and especially in philosophy classes, is pretentious, unclear, and incoherent. An encyclopedia article should not follow that precedent. An encyclopedia article should summarize the main facts about the topic, in a form understandable to a nonspecialist reader.
For some guidance on writing appropriate for Wikipedia, please see WP:BETTER. WP:TONE is a good place to start. For guidance specifically about the lead, please see MOS:INTRO. The place to start editing to fix the article is probably the body, not the lead, as explained at WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. To get content to put into the article, start with leading secondary sources such as textbooks, not with the philosophers' writings, and certainly not with your own philosophical ideas (see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). Just summarize the main facts, accompanied by references to the sources. That's all there is to it. (It's much harder than it sounds, though, especially with a topic like "being".)
When all the pretentious writing is replaced with straightforward, factual writing, then it will be time to remove the {{tone}} tag.
— Ben Kovitz ( talk) 16:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Being&namespace=0
NoToleranceForIntolerance ( talk) 01:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I transpose the initial paragraph in Ontology article.
Surprisingly the entire lead of the present article on Being contains no mention to Ontology. If there is no serious objection to it, I will proceed to introduce this missing connection.-- Auró ( talk) 12:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs mention Presocratics, Heidegger, William James, and W.V.O. Quine, leaving out the whole history of the development of the concept of being. Thus, the article appears to ignore the whole philosophical tradition, which resulted in the contemporary popular notion of being and enabled aforementioned recent philosophers to advance their ideas. Based on the choice of terminology and authors, I suspect that the author of the introductory paragraphs does not have an appreciation for the history of philosophy from Plato to recent times, but this makes the further sections, discussing some of the most important developments in the theory of being, look like unimportant minutiae.
Also, "Metaphysics" is the term which means "theory of being" in philosophical traditions, which continue to develop the concept of being found in Aristotle. Again, to ignore this term, even if, as it seems, ignoring it is based on Heideggerian developments, leads to a skewed perspective on the development of the theory of being, and prevents the reader from achieving an adequate understanding of the concept of being, even if the author of the introductory paragraphs thinks otherwise. A wikipedia article should be a comprehensive survey of perspectives on the concept of being, not a one sided take on it, implicitely devaluing other approaches.
To summarize, the introduction is inadequate, as it ignores the most basic common terminology and important authors in favour of a one-sided approach, based on a rather peculiar tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernambuco1 ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This sounds like a joke article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotofnot ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The entire Vedanta philosophy is based on the topic of "being" and is arguably the most ancient one too. It is the foundation for the Buddhist philosophy as well. Yet it is not covered (not even mentioned) in this article. Also, the introduction mentions that the very first idea on this topic came from the West, which is again biased in the light that the Vedas already contain rich discussions on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serratiamars ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
.change from: In philosophy, being means the material or immaterial existence of a thing. ..change to: Phenomena [1] of being, in philosophy means material or immaterial existence 75.82.19.242 ( talk) 23:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Another way to put it...being is about the differences between understanding and knowledge...thanks for the challenge. Arnlodg ( talk) 00:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC) 75.82.19.242 ( talk) 00:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
References
167.201.243.117 ( talk) 19:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Meaning of being without a source of acknowledgment is meaningless ! If all intentions and intelligence(if there is any!) all man made words come to a play ground to just play, we can play for ever and ever !!
where is that anchor, that can give us stability of meaning without words fight !
The only answer, is if we understand and deep down we believe there is a glorious source of being ! How? who? where? we will never have any answers for these questions, if we haven't found The ONE Source of Being !
Evil(who/what ever waste human resource, physical, mental, spiritual) loves to play with words to waste our time (in reality our gifted presence, right Now!)
Being has a source , in all aspects of being , Being needs permission to fellow , permission to exist!
after reviewing the content of this article, it appears that almost all of it was original research, which has now been removed. I've restubbed the article and retained what little content was supported by academic, secondary sources. I'm not sure if this article even needs to exist or if any content that could be put here would be better off being covered by pages like dasein, metaphysics, ontology, and existence, but I'm creating this topic for discussion in case anyone has concerns about the removal of content. I do not think any of the removed content should be re-instated without support from secondary sources, as most of it was both inaccurate and poorly written. - car chasm ( talk) 21:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Being redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
From the opening paragraph of the article:
What the? Minerals? Yes there is, under any realistic interpretation of "conclusive". That sentence has been around for almost two years [1]. Well, no longer. dbenbenn | talk 04:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I cut the following text from this article, as it is seemingly unrelated to the ontological concept of being:
If that use of "Being" is important, perhaps it belongs in the Supreme Being article or in the Eckhart Tolle article or, if The Power of Now is an important enough book, in an article about that book. The Rod 05:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Continuing to make this article more about a single topic (ontological being), I cut the following content from the article, as it seems unrelated to the ontological concept of being:
If the existentialist aspect of the film is important enough, perhaps it belongs in Existentialism or perhaps the film merits its own article. The Rod 05:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I need the qualities or characteristics that differentiate a being from a not-being - Daëmon 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is an inappropriate mixture of definitions in this article. We start out by talking about the subjective meaning, how it is the inner self and all that. Then we start talking abouth the universal meaning of being, which is essentially objective. Which is it? The article goes on blithely speaking as if they were one and the same thing. The key to the problem is the lack of references. They seem to help clarify everything. Since the article clearly intends to cover the universal, or objective, status of being, I propose that is where we start. As this is a long-standing tagged article and everyone interested has had an ample shot at it I hope you do not mind if I turn my hand to organizing and referencing the article. There are a whole lot of articles on the same topic but they are all equally tagged and equally problematic. But, let's try to do it right and then see what we really have before we make any final decisions (if there is any such thing on WP).00:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the relationship between
Awareness and Being? There is no mention of it in the article?
AgentSmith 21:22, 18 March 2012 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
111.69.197.103 (
talk)
Actually the writing here as far as it goes is very good, nor have I yet found evidence of plagiarism. The name-dropping, however - well, that is something else. I know the walls of institutions, such as the Boston Public Library, have the names of great thinkers inscribed in them as a monument. This isn't a monument, however, it is an article. Nothing is said about the names, no information given, no refs, the articles do not mention this article, we are left to guess the relevance. I think what we want are the refs. The first ref I put in contains those names and gives more detail. So, I'm removing name lists, or shall we say monumental names, which are being dropped, shall we say, like names of battles invoked by people who never fought in them. Dave ( talk) 04:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"French Academy member Étienne Gilson wrote once that if a notion had to be universally recognized as the first of all principles of philosophy that would be being."
Try as I might I cannot find the source of this statement. Maybe he did say it, maybe not. Whatever the case may be, it appears to be out of context. However, it is signal that the editor should have chosen for this article probably the most notable Thomist of modern times, a metaphysician's metaphysician, an ontologist's ontologist. What he says is easily taken out of context because he often likes to develop the subject by going along with a given hypothesis to the point where it can't be gone along with any further, as a device for getting you to make the leap into an otherwise extraordinary realization. This method appears to imitate St. Thomas' method. The latter makes statements that have an ordinary and an extraordinary sense. He brings you along the ordinary path until you suddenly realize he cannot possibly be talking about the ordinary. Other metaphysicians abd ontologists do that also, although some prefer straight exposition. Now, I cannnot follow down any misunderstandings or statements out of context the editor may have had. I think for purpose of what he is trying to say he may dropped one name too many. However I will respect his wishes and start using Gilson as the main basis for this article! What is missing of course is about 2000 years of the philosophy of being; I presume the editor ommitted that as of no value, as he says. Well, there might be some small value. Might. There are so many articles around this topic one has to be careful to stick right to the topic, which is being and beings, as opposed to entities, ousia, existents, essences, and all the rest. Dave ( talk) 11:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless differences between Islamic and non-Islamic philosophies are going to be discussed, I see no purpose on keeping that there. Glorthac ( talk) 02:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Merging is not the answer...Any language is called a rich language, because it is rich in terms of trminology. It is noticeable clearly that the English language is shrinking lately by folloewing the method of merging (and other reasons which does not concern our subject, now)not specificaly, just an example, i.e; SOUL (Area = LIFE)while MIND (Area = THOUGHT). And now 'Existance' and 'Being'. though might be very close in SOME meanings, but never carries the same specs. Existence versus nothingness , while Being versus nonpresence. Actually what disturbes me most is the use of definitions derived from the brain understandings of the universe, especially when they don't exists as such, i.e; Time= is a sequence of moments,etc...past,present,future. Well excuse me but there is no such thing in oneness time...this is simply an understanding IN ACCORDANCE TO THE BRAIN, and not a definition of time, to be fair it might be a good understanding to the verb time, but what about time the noun? Michel Nakouzi ( talk) 22:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I highly recommend looking at the German wikipedia article on Being (Sein): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sein
It's much better than the English wiki one. -- Caute AF ( talk) 16:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The lede should introduce the philosophical term "being" in much the same way that the term might be introduced to a freshman philosophy class. The current version strays too far from the all ways the term is used. The definitions given have almost no connection with the traditional understanding of the term as used in classical philosophy, i.e. existence and essence, metaphysics, etc.
There is a little continental philosophy there, which is fine, but an introduction should be more even handed between Heidegger's understanding of the term and it's traditional usage. There are also several statements which are obviously false. I'm thinking of the discussion of personal experience, sentience, etc. I don't think these would be part of a traditional account of being.
I've asked over at Wikiproject philosophy if anyone else wants to take a crack at it. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 08:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
OK Charles. Go ahead and put something together along these lines and we'll see how it flows, and give you pointers - anything missing, suggested re-wording etc. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 22:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Like many philosophically interesting notions, existence is at once familiar and rather elusive. Although we have no more trouble with using the verb ‘exists’ than with the two-times table, there is more than a little difficulty in saying just what existence is. Existing seems to be at least as mundane as walking or being hungry. Yet, when we say ‘Tom is hungry’ or ‘Tom is walking’, it may be news to those not in Tom's vicinity, whereas ‘Tom exists’ would be news to no one who knew Tom, and merely puzzling to anyone who did not. Again, we know what it is like to be hungry or to walk, but what is it like to exist, what kind of experience is that? Is it perhaps the experience of being oneself, of being identical with oneself? Yet again, we can readily indicate what is meant by Tom's walking, but surely Tom's existing is not something we can indicate to anyone. On the face of it, there would seem to be no way at all in which we can explain what existing is.
had to check if I started this thread, sounds so much like me ( user:lycurgus) but apparently not. I'm retired here but have to chime in with others how risible the use of 'deploy" is in the lede. Apparently someone tried without success to wipe it. 198.255.198.157 ( talk) 21:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The current version of the article is filled with pretentious, unclear writing. For example, the first sentence of the lead is:
The first sentence of the body is:
The section titled "The transcendental being" begins:
I haven't read the whole article, but most of what I've sampled is similarly unclear, irrelevant, and pretentiously worded. To future editors: Please don't hesitate to delete large portions of text, even the entire article, and write from scratch. Much writing in philosophy, and especially in philosophy classes, is pretentious, unclear, and incoherent. An encyclopedia article should not follow that precedent. An encyclopedia article should summarize the main facts about the topic, in a form understandable to a nonspecialist reader.
For some guidance on writing appropriate for Wikipedia, please see WP:BETTER. WP:TONE is a good place to start. For guidance specifically about the lead, please see MOS:INTRO. The place to start editing to fix the article is probably the body, not the lead, as explained at WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. To get content to put into the article, start with leading secondary sources such as textbooks, not with the philosophers' writings, and certainly not with your own philosophical ideas (see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). Just summarize the main facts, accompanied by references to the sources. That's all there is to it. (It's much harder than it sounds, though, especially with a topic like "being".)
When all the pretentious writing is replaced with straightforward, factual writing, then it will be time to remove the {{tone}} tag.
— Ben Kovitz ( talk) 16:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Being&namespace=0
NoToleranceForIntolerance ( talk) 01:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I transpose the initial paragraph in Ontology article.
Surprisingly the entire lead of the present article on Being contains no mention to Ontology. If there is no serious objection to it, I will proceed to introduce this missing connection.-- Auró ( talk) 12:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs mention Presocratics, Heidegger, William James, and W.V.O. Quine, leaving out the whole history of the development of the concept of being. Thus, the article appears to ignore the whole philosophical tradition, which resulted in the contemporary popular notion of being and enabled aforementioned recent philosophers to advance their ideas. Based on the choice of terminology and authors, I suspect that the author of the introductory paragraphs does not have an appreciation for the history of philosophy from Plato to recent times, but this makes the further sections, discussing some of the most important developments in the theory of being, look like unimportant minutiae.
Also, "Metaphysics" is the term which means "theory of being" in philosophical traditions, which continue to develop the concept of being found in Aristotle. Again, to ignore this term, even if, as it seems, ignoring it is based on Heideggerian developments, leads to a skewed perspective on the development of the theory of being, and prevents the reader from achieving an adequate understanding of the concept of being, even if the author of the introductory paragraphs thinks otherwise. A wikipedia article should be a comprehensive survey of perspectives on the concept of being, not a one sided take on it, implicitely devaluing other approaches.
To summarize, the introduction is inadequate, as it ignores the most basic common terminology and important authors in favour of a one-sided approach, based on a rather peculiar tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernambuco1 ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This sounds like a joke article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotofnot ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The entire Vedanta philosophy is based on the topic of "being" and is arguably the most ancient one too. It is the foundation for the Buddhist philosophy as well. Yet it is not covered (not even mentioned) in this article. Also, the introduction mentions that the very first idea on this topic came from the West, which is again biased in the light that the Vedas already contain rich discussions on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serratiamars ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
.change from: In philosophy, being means the material or immaterial existence of a thing. ..change to: Phenomena [1] of being, in philosophy means material or immaterial existence 75.82.19.242 ( talk) 23:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Another way to put it...being is about the differences between understanding and knowledge...thanks for the challenge. Arnlodg ( talk) 00:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC) 75.82.19.242 ( talk) 00:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
References
167.201.243.117 ( talk) 19:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Meaning of being without a source of acknowledgment is meaningless ! If all intentions and intelligence(if there is any!) all man made words come to a play ground to just play, we can play for ever and ever !!
where is that anchor, that can give us stability of meaning without words fight !
The only answer, is if we understand and deep down we believe there is a glorious source of being ! How? who? where? we will never have any answers for these questions, if we haven't found The ONE Source of Being !
Evil(who/what ever waste human resource, physical, mental, spiritual) loves to play with words to waste our time (in reality our gifted presence, right Now!)
Being has a source , in all aspects of being , Being needs permission to fellow , permission to exist!
after reviewing the content of this article, it appears that almost all of it was original research, which has now been removed. I've restubbed the article and retained what little content was supported by academic, secondary sources. I'm not sure if this article even needs to exist or if any content that could be put here would be better off being covered by pages like dasein, metaphysics, ontology, and existence, but I'm creating this topic for discussion in case anyone has concerns about the removal of content. I do not think any of the removed content should be re-instated without support from secondary sources, as most of it was both inaccurate and poorly written. - car chasm ( talk) 21:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)