Talk:Purist

2008-05-6 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mostly made up of stereotypes and individual observations. But it is very entertaining to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.77.184 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

practically no citation and some of it is simply opinion.i mean really,look under the music section,it even specified bands,and abunch of weasel words thrown in,can someone please clean up the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.166.115 (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tone? Neutrality? Quality of Content?

I'd recommend doing something about the tone of this article ASAP.

Not only is it blatantly a personal reflection, it is for the bulk of its content written in a disapproving manner.

Also, rather than simply state fact, it would do this article well if concrete, if concise, arguments were provided as to the reasons for purists taking their stance on the issues in question.

While I can only echo 0.213.77.184's views that this makes for entertaining reading, seeing lines like "in jazz music, purists usually have some year after which they think jazz music went bad" on Wikipedia really hurts the eyes. Perhaps people who themselves feel strongly about the subjects listed (and not listed) should take over and enlighten the rest of us. But in a neutral way, please. I'm kind of a purist when it comes to that.

--Tshloab (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purism bastardized?

For me purism is linguistic purism or architectural purism. I don't see the point of all these Star Trek examples. It rambles on and on of whole cloth. Worse than car analogies, the article is one big tomato patch. 84.227.247.173 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be suffering from purism yourself. See User:Andrewa/purist#Some examples of purism. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki vs legitimate Encyclopedias

The term/concept purist ought to be put in a respectable antagonism to the term 'believer':

A false prophet misleads lesser purists'/believers ( i outh to put thin in a language comprehensible to the majority of the world´s population: a lingua franca, alas, things might have turned awfully wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.210.201 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]