|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
It seems, in the first sentence, that there is a typo:
Eclecticism is an approach to philosophy and other fields that does not hold rigidly to a single mode of thinking, but instead draws upon multiple theories to gain complementary insights of phenomena, or applies only certain theories in particular cases.
should perhaps be:
Eclecticism is an approach to philosophy and other fields that does not hold rigidly to a single mode of thinking, but instead draws upon multiple theories to gain complementary insights of phenomena, or applies only to certain theories in particular cases.
I don't claim to be a grammatical expert, but the sentence seems to be missing something at that point. Perhaps I'm miss reading the sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 12:50, October 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I think the "to" can make a difference between what the subject of the sentence is: the eclecticism, or the theories. I'm thinking one sentence means applying a theory to a certain principle (in which the principle is the idea that is being altered, challenged, whatever), but the other sentence meaning you apply a certain principle to a theory (in which the theory is the idea that is being altered, challenged, whatever). I could be wrong, of course, but we all have likely experienced situations in the past where one little preposition can change an entire meaning or context of what we wish to express. Since I don't know the intended original meaning of the article, I'm leaving it alone. --I am not good at running 00:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Who copied whom?
- The indicated website states that it mirrors wikipedia articles, so no problem here. --Blainster 10:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I have just added a cleanup tag to this article. If anyone has the chance to give it some attention, such as dividing it into sections and adding more information (there is more to eclecticism than is written here), that would be great. Also, above is a note about possible copyright violation. I haven't had a chance to check out the link yet, but this is potentially another problem. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Image needs descriptive title
The image of the window is titled 'eclecticism in architecture', but does not tell how. My personal view is that it is because of multiple architecture styles used. But I am not sure, and from reading the first paragraph, it may refer to some other vague meaning, because article refers to many meanings of 'eclecticism'. Please add more descriptive title to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anupamsr (talk • contribs) 01:28, July 13, 2006 (UTC)
- That picture, along with its placement and especially the amazing caption, together comprise probably the most hilarious thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Please don't change it! :O — flamingspinach | (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Better late than never, but I agree. While religious syncretism is featured heavily in the article on syncretism, I was surprised that there was not a section on religious eclecticism here. I guess the first step would be to know exactly what the differences between the two are, assumming there is a difference as per  and . Emptymountains (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"The Hungarian capital has the biggest and most uniform eclectical city center in the World."
- Good point. You have prompted me to check the credentials cited for that photo caption, and it is highly suspect: it is a link to a website that not only offers the (Hungarian) Wikipedia as a link, but actually quotes two paragraphs from it. The "uniform eclectic" notion appears to be a mangled translation from the Hungarian Wikipedia article quoted there, the operative phrase being "városképe a világon egyedülállóan egységes", which I make out to mean "the city is a uniquely unified image of the world", which is not quite the same thing, is it? In any case, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (not even the Hungarian Wikipedia!), and that intersection appears to be perfectly uniform architecturally, and not at all eclectic. I suggest it be removed, together with the offending caption and its unreliable source, since all it can possibly do is confuse the reader. Perhaps its addition was a prank?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)