This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 2007 April 10. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
Gah, I'd still like this template to be "honed up" a bit more...-- Jazzwick 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say we should keep
Template:Enlightenment. Mainly because people (like me) forget the "The" at the beginning, as well as the space. Tell you what though, you've done an absolutly spiffy job here. Thank you man (or woman)!--
Jazzwick 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Why thank ye, it beats Applied IT any day ;-). I haven't really put it on that many pages involving the enlightenment, but I will over the coming days. Perhaps we should ask people on the discussion threads of the enlightenment to do the same. If anyone wants to add more, let them, but seriously, cheers for making it better. It's much appreciated *thumbs up*... --
Jazzwick 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Template: The Enlightenment has no pages linking to it and that 'Template: Enlightenment' has been editted such that the two have major differences. Can the former be deleted? -- Karophyr 02:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Karophyr
I've put the template on the pages of all the people in the original one. User:Logologist added some Poles. Could you have a look at User_talk:Logologist#Enlightenment_Template: I think we need to decide on the notability criteria for inclusion in the template – is it European-wide notoriety (which probably limits the list quite severely) or country-wide (which might inflate it to ridiculuous proportions). I'll invite Logologist to join the discussion here. As an option, we might have a more general template, and then create individual ones for separate countries – but that's a lot of hassle and I'm not convinced of its necessity. AVIosad 21:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Jesus man, you've done shit loads! Anything I can do?-- Jazzwick 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll get to work on the concepts...-- Jazzwick 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've now put this onto the concepts. However, should there be one on the science article? Looks awfully out of place.-- Jazzwick 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll put it on all three if that's okay. But as soon as I finish this, I have to log off. Self-control, see?-- Jazzwick 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The 17 men now listed in the
Template:Enlightenment Polish section are practically an irreducible minimum. Most (nine) are of such stature that they appear in the "
History of philosophy in Poland" article's "
Enlightenment" section.
The problem, I think, is not that this template's Polish section contains too many individuals, but that some of the other national sections contain too few. logologist| Talk 10:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree the template should be kept to a small number, or it will soon get blown out of proportions. I can think of three solutions. First, we keep the numbers to a small arbitrary number (5?). Second, we implement 'show/hide' functionality for each country, or for each person above 5. Third, we go with the first option but create national Englightment templates with would have many more names but be included only in national people/things, as an add-on to the general Enlightment templates. Bottom line is, as fond I am of the Polish Enlightnment, if we go with 17 Poles, we will have to include at least that many French, German, Italian, English and so on people... we will get a template with a hundred or more names and it will get TfD soon (with my support...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid Hugo Grotius is a bit too early to be included in the Enlightenment proper (or we would have to include Descartes as well, they lived at aroung the same time. I added George Berkeley to the American section – he was Irish, and live in London a lot, but also in America and I wanted to expand the American section a bit. Tell me if you disagree. Also, what's the consensus on the inclusion of people in the Template? -- AVIosad 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that someone had added the Enlightenment template to the Grotius page, so I added him to the Netherlands list. Then, of course, I checked here and realized that it was a recent matter of discussion (guess I should have checked first!). I'm fine with removing Grotius from the template, in which case we'll just remove the template from the Grotius page, too. Grotius is a very significant founding figure for the Enlightenment (in political theory especially), but there is a case to be made that his own thought is along more traditional renaissance-humanist-scholastic lines even though it lays the roots for something more. I am actually surprised not to find Descartes on the list. He is chronologically the contemporary of Grotius, but in his work, Enlightenment ideas (individualism, scientism, etc.) are well underway. I'll follow the discussion. Sarvodaya 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Goethe is not an Enlightenment figure; he is wholly a Romantic. But the Romantics were counter-Enlightenment. Therefore, Goethe ought not to be listed. The same argument could be made for Herder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.255.103 ( talk) 14:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
As observed by Richard Tarnas, Goethe's worldview represented in many ways an opposite direction to the Enlightenment, even though both movements were born under the same zeitgeist. "From the complex matrix of the Renaissance had issued forth two distinct streams of culture, two temperaments or general approaches to human existence characteristic of the Western Mind. One emerged in the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment and stressed rationality, empirical science, and a sceptical secularism. The other was its polar complement, sharing common roots in the Renaissance and classical Greco-Roman culture (and in the Reformation as well), but tending to express just those aspects of human experience suppressed by the Enlightenment's overriding spirit of rationalism. First conspicuously present in Rousseau, then in Goethe, Schiller, Herder, and German Romanticism, this side of the Western Sensibility fully emerged in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and has not ceased to be a potent force in Western culture and consciousness – from Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Holderlin, Schelling, Keats, Byron, Hugo, Pushkin, Carlyle, Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, and onward via its diverse forms to their many descendants, countercultural and otherwise, of the present era." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.10.230.183 ( talk) 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I thnik the template should also include a reference to neogreek enlightenment and it's main figures (Korais, Rigas Fereos, Iosipos Moisiodakas etc). 155.207.253.199 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have split the former 'Great Britain' category into England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Scotland has clearly a sufficiently distinct and significant intellectual history in this period to be separately listed (and this permits a proper link to the Scottish Enlightenment). I have more hesitation in the case of Ireland; Burke and Swift (who I have added) spent much of their lives in England and might be regarded as better placed in the English list; but their background and their cast of thought is Irish rather than English. I have further added Hutton, Ferguson, and Kames to the Scottish list.
The criteria for listing in this template seem rather unclear. If Grotius, Hobbes, and Spinoza are to be included, the assumption is that the Enlightenment extends back over the sevententh century. Arbitrarily, I would have thought that cut-off dates for contributions might be about 1730 and 1800. But this is just to add my tuppence worth to the debate; I see there is no consensus for any cut-off by date. It is even more unclear what, if any, criteria for significance are being used; if Poniatowski is included, why not another dozen kings? Ariwara 20:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This template is getting a bit bulky. Any chance we can make it collapsable? Kaldari 15:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Can Eugenio Espejo be added to the template? Dalobuca 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It has been a week since I left my last message, and there have been no replies. So I will assume that I can add his name to the template. Dalobuca 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In this template, Anders Chydenius is listed under Sweden. However, he was born in Finland, and in his article, he is considered to be Finnish throughout the text. Of course, Finland was part of Sweden during his entire lifetime, but shouldn't there still be a row for Finns as well, where he could be listed instead? For instance, Scotland and England are kept separate, too.
I'm not saying this just because I'm Finnish, it's just something that caught my eye. If you decide to keep him Swedish in the template, I won't cry myself to sleep over it. :P
84.248.26.163 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, this template is now completely out of control, it's a behemoth. I think there can be very little argument that it needs to be reined in a bit (or maybe a lot). So, if anyone is watching this page, I call on you to participate actively in the discussion.
What needs to be made, first and foremost, is the decision on notability. As I see it, the main problem with the template at the moment is the amount of Enlightenment philosophers, who, thoough undoubtedly influential and important in their own countries, are often not very well known otherwise. In my opinion, the best way to solve that is to decide on a fixed list of the most notable personae. All others would then be moved to lists, linked from the template (see Template:Philosophy topics for an example of how this could be done). This will also leave space for concepts and major works, &c. This is my proposal; if you disagree, advance your own.
If anyone is still watching, please contribute to the discussion. If no-one responds within a week, I'll assume no-one is, in which case I will be bold and change it all by myself. -- AVIosad( talk) 13:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"Greece" is out of alphabetical sequence in the template. Could someone please put it in its place? Nihil novi 06:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This template is useless clutter. Hugo Grotius died in 1645, for crying out loud. -- Ghirla -трёп- 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose that, within each country, the individuals be listed chronologically by birth order, from earlier to later. Currently, in England, the 17th-century Lord Shaftesbury follows the 18th-century Mary Wollstonecraft. Nihil novi 21:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The "USA," "Venezuela" and "Related concepts" sections, at the end of the template, have gotten lost in the visible text (they are still present in the "edit" format). They were last visible to readers in the 14:25, 1 November 2007, version. Perhaps someone with technical expertise could restore them? Nihil novi ( talk) 04:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just deleted Pitt the Elder from the English section and the Old and Young Pretenders (to use a POV term) from the Scottish section. They have no connection with the subject matter other than living in the same period of history; a connection which, with the inclusion of Grotius who died in 1645, doesn't even seem to be necessary! Agreeing with an earlier editor, this is clearly supposed to be a "a philosophy/intellectual history template" I appreciate that 'importance' is necessarily subjective, and that there will always be issues on the margin, but I can't see that the mere fact of political notability can be enough. ariwara ( talk) 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This list is entirely ridiculous. It needs to be said.
One further thought - While I wouldn't want to do this on my own to avoid rocking the boat too much, I wonder if we could cut down on the misplaced patriotism by switching from "by region and country" to "by language." So Americans, Scots, and Irish would become English, Paine would get cross-listed, or solely listed, under "French," and if (a big if!!) they stayed, Frederick, Catherine, and Spinoza would become, French, French, and Latin, respectively. (This would also cure the silliness of having "Holy Roman Empire" instead of "German.") 134.174.140.216 ( talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I consolidated the regions. Much easier to use now. Hopefully I'm done, although I'll keep checking to see if anyone has more ideas. 134.174.140.216 ( talk) 20:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The current table is based on mistaken geographical premises. Poland, for example, is not in Eastern but in Central Europe. Nihil novi ( talk) 20:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The template does only mention Eastern and Central Europe, then jumps to Great Britain. When I read the first sentence of Central Europe it says: somewhere between East and West. And that looks right to me. Unfortunately, for this template, the only "West-European" country would be the Netherlands (as Great Britain has its own section, and France is part of Latin Europe). But still it is quite strange to find the Netherlands as a Central European country..... Dick Bos ( talk) 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that the template has been purged, Cesare Beccaria once again looks quite alone in the Italian list. So I'm wondering about the possible inclusion of Bernardo Tanucci, who seems to be a notable figure of the Italian enlightenment. If no one objects to his inclusion, I shall add him in a few days.
Also, I'm wondering if thought has been given to the removal of this navbar from the articles that were deleted from it? If the navbars are not removed, this might confuse future readers and editors, and the navbar will start filling up again with the removed articles?
Another suggestion might be to note prominently at the top of this talk page, or even on the main Template page if appropriate, for editors to check the Discussions before adding more names. Otherwise, over time, there will be future loading of the template, perhaps even edit wars. Prominent notice of the deletions with links to the discussions where the deletions were talked about might help to alleviate future editorial problems. .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I redirect this orphaned template here. This is how it looked like before. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This template should be renamed to Template:Figures of Age of Enlightenment, as this is what it covers. This is not just a technicality, as we do need a proper Template:Age of Enlightenment template, one with concepts (which should be kept from the current template and not moved). Most crucially, I think the new main section of this template should be "by country", i.e. list articles such as American Enlightenment, Enlightenment Spain, Enlightenment in Poland, Russian Enlightenment, Scottish Enlightenment. I also think we desperatly need more "Enl. by country" articles (it is shocking we don't have British, French, Italian). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Three years after I last purged the list, I see that all the crap has crept back onto it, with absolutely no attempt to engage with the long discussion on the Talk page about which figures are suitable for inclusion. As a result, I will purge the list again. I strongly hope that the next person who wants to add their pet historical figure will engage in discussion before changing the template.
I remind you, this is Wikipedia, not the Special Olympics. We don't put historical figures on our templates to make them feel good about themselves, we do it so that people interested in a topic have an excellent research tool at their disposable. We cannot include every person born between 1650 and 1850; we cannot include everyone who ever wrote a book; we cannot include everyone to the left of Attila the Hun. For a more detailed discussion of the criteria for inclusion, look earlier on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.8.22 ( talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Once again, someone has added a large number of marginal figures to the template without any discussion on the talk page or engagement with the principle that we need to limit the "notable figures" to the truly notable, rather than allowing each country in the European Union to add several dozen of their own intellectual heroes. I will delete them while awaiting some sort of fruitful dialogue here. 71.235.239.9 ( talk) 15:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Montesquieu, one of the greatest representatives of the enlightenment in France, did not at all support secularism, and neither did a host of other important enlightenment thinkers; there is therefore no justifiable basis for grouping it under "Age of Enlightenment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.126.230 ( talk) 20:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The Age of Enlightenment portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 07:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
-- Dioskorides ( talk) 16:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)== Gauss ==
I think Gauss should be removed from this list. He had read Kant, but this is too little to make him a philosopher of enlightment. He was a brilliant mathematician, astronomer, physicist, and geodesist, but despised the contemporaneous philosophy of his time, the "naturphilosophie". If we list Gauss, then we must list all the great amount of French mathematicians and astronomers of his time. I think this would be out of sense. We should keep only the real philosphers. Dioskorides ( talk) 13:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 2007 April 10. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
Gah, I'd still like this template to be "honed up" a bit more...-- Jazzwick 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say we should keep
Template:Enlightenment. Mainly because people (like me) forget the "The" at the beginning, as well as the space. Tell you what though, you've done an absolutly spiffy job here. Thank you man (or woman)!--
Jazzwick 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Why thank ye, it beats Applied IT any day ;-). I haven't really put it on that many pages involving the enlightenment, but I will over the coming days. Perhaps we should ask people on the discussion threads of the enlightenment to do the same. If anyone wants to add more, let them, but seriously, cheers for making it better. It's much appreciated *thumbs up*... --
Jazzwick 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Template: The Enlightenment has no pages linking to it and that 'Template: Enlightenment' has been editted such that the two have major differences. Can the former be deleted? -- Karophyr 02:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Karophyr
I've put the template on the pages of all the people in the original one. User:Logologist added some Poles. Could you have a look at User_talk:Logologist#Enlightenment_Template: I think we need to decide on the notability criteria for inclusion in the template – is it European-wide notoriety (which probably limits the list quite severely) or country-wide (which might inflate it to ridiculuous proportions). I'll invite Logologist to join the discussion here. As an option, we might have a more general template, and then create individual ones for separate countries – but that's a lot of hassle and I'm not convinced of its necessity. AVIosad 21:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Jesus man, you've done shit loads! Anything I can do?-- Jazzwick 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll get to work on the concepts...-- Jazzwick 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've now put this onto the concepts. However, should there be one on the science article? Looks awfully out of place.-- Jazzwick 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll put it on all three if that's okay. But as soon as I finish this, I have to log off. Self-control, see?-- Jazzwick 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The 17 men now listed in the
Template:Enlightenment Polish section are practically an irreducible minimum. Most (nine) are of such stature that they appear in the "
History of philosophy in Poland" article's "
Enlightenment" section.
The problem, I think, is not that this template's Polish section contains too many individuals, but that some of the other national sections contain too few. logologist| Talk 10:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree the template should be kept to a small number, or it will soon get blown out of proportions. I can think of three solutions. First, we keep the numbers to a small arbitrary number (5?). Second, we implement 'show/hide' functionality for each country, or for each person above 5. Third, we go with the first option but create national Englightment templates with would have many more names but be included only in national people/things, as an add-on to the general Enlightment templates. Bottom line is, as fond I am of the Polish Enlightnment, if we go with 17 Poles, we will have to include at least that many French, German, Italian, English and so on people... we will get a template with a hundred or more names and it will get TfD soon (with my support...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid Hugo Grotius is a bit too early to be included in the Enlightenment proper (or we would have to include Descartes as well, they lived at aroung the same time. I added George Berkeley to the American section – he was Irish, and live in London a lot, but also in America and I wanted to expand the American section a bit. Tell me if you disagree. Also, what's the consensus on the inclusion of people in the Template? -- AVIosad 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that someone had added the Enlightenment template to the Grotius page, so I added him to the Netherlands list. Then, of course, I checked here and realized that it was a recent matter of discussion (guess I should have checked first!). I'm fine with removing Grotius from the template, in which case we'll just remove the template from the Grotius page, too. Grotius is a very significant founding figure for the Enlightenment (in political theory especially), but there is a case to be made that his own thought is along more traditional renaissance-humanist-scholastic lines even though it lays the roots for something more. I am actually surprised not to find Descartes on the list. He is chronologically the contemporary of Grotius, but in his work, Enlightenment ideas (individualism, scientism, etc.) are well underway. I'll follow the discussion. Sarvodaya 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Goethe is not an Enlightenment figure; he is wholly a Romantic. But the Romantics were counter-Enlightenment. Therefore, Goethe ought not to be listed. The same argument could be made for Herder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.255.103 ( talk) 14:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
As observed by Richard Tarnas, Goethe's worldview represented in many ways an opposite direction to the Enlightenment, even though both movements were born under the same zeitgeist. "From the complex matrix of the Renaissance had issued forth two distinct streams of culture, two temperaments or general approaches to human existence characteristic of the Western Mind. One emerged in the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment and stressed rationality, empirical science, and a sceptical secularism. The other was its polar complement, sharing common roots in the Renaissance and classical Greco-Roman culture (and in the Reformation as well), but tending to express just those aspects of human experience suppressed by the Enlightenment's overriding spirit of rationalism. First conspicuously present in Rousseau, then in Goethe, Schiller, Herder, and German Romanticism, this side of the Western Sensibility fully emerged in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and has not ceased to be a potent force in Western culture and consciousness – from Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Holderlin, Schelling, Keats, Byron, Hugo, Pushkin, Carlyle, Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, and onward via its diverse forms to their many descendants, countercultural and otherwise, of the present era." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.10.230.183 ( talk) 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I thnik the template should also include a reference to neogreek enlightenment and it's main figures (Korais, Rigas Fereos, Iosipos Moisiodakas etc). 155.207.253.199 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have split the former 'Great Britain' category into England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Scotland has clearly a sufficiently distinct and significant intellectual history in this period to be separately listed (and this permits a proper link to the Scottish Enlightenment). I have more hesitation in the case of Ireland; Burke and Swift (who I have added) spent much of their lives in England and might be regarded as better placed in the English list; but their background and their cast of thought is Irish rather than English. I have further added Hutton, Ferguson, and Kames to the Scottish list.
The criteria for listing in this template seem rather unclear. If Grotius, Hobbes, and Spinoza are to be included, the assumption is that the Enlightenment extends back over the sevententh century. Arbitrarily, I would have thought that cut-off dates for contributions might be about 1730 and 1800. But this is just to add my tuppence worth to the debate; I see there is no consensus for any cut-off by date. It is even more unclear what, if any, criteria for significance are being used; if Poniatowski is included, why not another dozen kings? Ariwara 20:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This template is getting a bit bulky. Any chance we can make it collapsable? Kaldari 15:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Can Eugenio Espejo be added to the template? Dalobuca 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It has been a week since I left my last message, and there have been no replies. So I will assume that I can add his name to the template. Dalobuca 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In this template, Anders Chydenius is listed under Sweden. However, he was born in Finland, and in his article, he is considered to be Finnish throughout the text. Of course, Finland was part of Sweden during his entire lifetime, but shouldn't there still be a row for Finns as well, where he could be listed instead? For instance, Scotland and England are kept separate, too.
I'm not saying this just because I'm Finnish, it's just something that caught my eye. If you decide to keep him Swedish in the template, I won't cry myself to sleep over it. :P
84.248.26.163 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, this template is now completely out of control, it's a behemoth. I think there can be very little argument that it needs to be reined in a bit (or maybe a lot). So, if anyone is watching this page, I call on you to participate actively in the discussion.
What needs to be made, first and foremost, is the decision on notability. As I see it, the main problem with the template at the moment is the amount of Enlightenment philosophers, who, thoough undoubtedly influential and important in their own countries, are often not very well known otherwise. In my opinion, the best way to solve that is to decide on a fixed list of the most notable personae. All others would then be moved to lists, linked from the template (see Template:Philosophy topics for an example of how this could be done). This will also leave space for concepts and major works, &c. This is my proposal; if you disagree, advance your own.
If anyone is still watching, please contribute to the discussion. If no-one responds within a week, I'll assume no-one is, in which case I will be bold and change it all by myself. -- AVIosad( talk) 13:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"Greece" is out of alphabetical sequence in the template. Could someone please put it in its place? Nihil novi 06:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This template is useless clutter. Hugo Grotius died in 1645, for crying out loud. -- Ghirla -трёп- 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose that, within each country, the individuals be listed chronologically by birth order, from earlier to later. Currently, in England, the 17th-century Lord Shaftesbury follows the 18th-century Mary Wollstonecraft. Nihil novi 21:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The "USA," "Venezuela" and "Related concepts" sections, at the end of the template, have gotten lost in the visible text (they are still present in the "edit" format). They were last visible to readers in the 14:25, 1 November 2007, version. Perhaps someone with technical expertise could restore them? Nihil novi ( talk) 04:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just deleted Pitt the Elder from the English section and the Old and Young Pretenders (to use a POV term) from the Scottish section. They have no connection with the subject matter other than living in the same period of history; a connection which, with the inclusion of Grotius who died in 1645, doesn't even seem to be necessary! Agreeing with an earlier editor, this is clearly supposed to be a "a philosophy/intellectual history template" I appreciate that 'importance' is necessarily subjective, and that there will always be issues on the margin, but I can't see that the mere fact of political notability can be enough. ariwara ( talk) 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This list is entirely ridiculous. It needs to be said.
One further thought - While I wouldn't want to do this on my own to avoid rocking the boat too much, I wonder if we could cut down on the misplaced patriotism by switching from "by region and country" to "by language." So Americans, Scots, and Irish would become English, Paine would get cross-listed, or solely listed, under "French," and if (a big if!!) they stayed, Frederick, Catherine, and Spinoza would become, French, French, and Latin, respectively. (This would also cure the silliness of having "Holy Roman Empire" instead of "German.") 134.174.140.216 ( talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I consolidated the regions. Much easier to use now. Hopefully I'm done, although I'll keep checking to see if anyone has more ideas. 134.174.140.216 ( talk) 20:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The current table is based on mistaken geographical premises. Poland, for example, is not in Eastern but in Central Europe. Nihil novi ( talk) 20:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The template does only mention Eastern and Central Europe, then jumps to Great Britain. When I read the first sentence of Central Europe it says: somewhere between East and West. And that looks right to me. Unfortunately, for this template, the only "West-European" country would be the Netherlands (as Great Britain has its own section, and France is part of Latin Europe). But still it is quite strange to find the Netherlands as a Central European country..... Dick Bos ( talk) 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that the template has been purged, Cesare Beccaria once again looks quite alone in the Italian list. So I'm wondering about the possible inclusion of Bernardo Tanucci, who seems to be a notable figure of the Italian enlightenment. If no one objects to his inclusion, I shall add him in a few days.
Also, I'm wondering if thought has been given to the removal of this navbar from the articles that were deleted from it? If the navbars are not removed, this might confuse future readers and editors, and the navbar will start filling up again with the removed articles?
Another suggestion might be to note prominently at the top of this talk page, or even on the main Template page if appropriate, for editors to check the Discussions before adding more names. Otherwise, over time, there will be future loading of the template, perhaps even edit wars. Prominent notice of the deletions with links to the discussions where the deletions were talked about might help to alleviate future editorial problems. .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I redirect this orphaned template here. This is how it looked like before. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This template should be renamed to Template:Figures of Age of Enlightenment, as this is what it covers. This is not just a technicality, as we do need a proper Template:Age of Enlightenment template, one with concepts (which should be kept from the current template and not moved). Most crucially, I think the new main section of this template should be "by country", i.e. list articles such as American Enlightenment, Enlightenment Spain, Enlightenment in Poland, Russian Enlightenment, Scottish Enlightenment. I also think we desperatly need more "Enl. by country" articles (it is shocking we don't have British, French, Italian). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Three years after I last purged the list, I see that all the crap has crept back onto it, with absolutely no attempt to engage with the long discussion on the Talk page about which figures are suitable for inclusion. As a result, I will purge the list again. I strongly hope that the next person who wants to add their pet historical figure will engage in discussion before changing the template.
I remind you, this is Wikipedia, not the Special Olympics. We don't put historical figures on our templates to make them feel good about themselves, we do it so that people interested in a topic have an excellent research tool at their disposable. We cannot include every person born between 1650 and 1850; we cannot include everyone who ever wrote a book; we cannot include everyone to the left of Attila the Hun. For a more detailed discussion of the criteria for inclusion, look earlier on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.8.22 ( talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Once again, someone has added a large number of marginal figures to the template without any discussion on the talk page or engagement with the principle that we need to limit the "notable figures" to the truly notable, rather than allowing each country in the European Union to add several dozen of their own intellectual heroes. I will delete them while awaiting some sort of fruitful dialogue here. 71.235.239.9 ( talk) 15:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Montesquieu, one of the greatest representatives of the enlightenment in France, did not at all support secularism, and neither did a host of other important enlightenment thinkers; there is therefore no justifiable basis for grouping it under "Age of Enlightenment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.126.230 ( talk) 20:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The Age of Enlightenment portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 07:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
-- Dioskorides ( talk) 16:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)== Gauss ==
I think Gauss should be removed from this list. He had read Kant, but this is too little to make him a philosopher of enlightment. He was a brilliant mathematician, astronomer, physicist, and geodesist, but despised the contemporaneous philosophy of his time, the "naturphilosophie". If we list Gauss, then we must list all the great amount of French mathematicians and astronomers of his time. I think this would be out of sense. We should keep only the real philosphers. Dioskorides ( talk) 13:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)