Talk:Eclecticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Bible / Criticism  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Biblical criticism work group.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

First paragraph[edit]

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 134.67.6.44 (talkcontribs) 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)

Copied[edit]

Who copied whom?

Science Fair Project Encyclopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prell (talkcontribs) 11:15, October 28, 2004 (UTC)

The indicated website states that it mirrors wikipedia articles, so no problem here. --Blainster 10:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive[edit]

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)

Cleanup needed[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Lacuna[edit]

The entry should have a section on Eclecticism in religion, or Religious Eclecticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.246.204.115 (talkcontribs) 23:38, September 1, 2006 (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 [1] and [2]. Emptymountains (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Morning tea[edit]

Rather than a label asking for more info, can we just remove what is the admittedly nicely written words of a wum.RayTayMiht (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Uniformly Eclectic?[edit]

"The Hungarian capital has the biggest and most uniform eclectical city center in the World."

I'm no expert on eclecticism, nor am I a native english speaker, but can there be something that is uniformly eclectical? Rieby (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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)