Talk:Polymath

Definition

There is nowhere in the article which clearly describes the distinction between the primary and secondary definitions of "polymath". Can someone who knows add this in please??? NZUlysses (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Although to be honest I suspect this distinction is arbitrarily made for the purposes of this article.NZUlysses (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"In less formal terms, a polymath (or polymathic person) may simply refer to someone who is very knowledgeable." The first sentence doesn't seem formal at all. :/ 76.6.220.248 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A Polymath is probably just a Savant with more than one talent; a rare individual indeed. --lbeben 01:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, a polymath's expertise covers many wide areas and is not restricted in the way that a multi-talented savant is. Dbfirs 10:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Im missing the word "Multi-Disciplinarian" in the article. A polymath's expertise covers many disciplines but may not be as "deep" as a savants expertise in one or a few different areas.Legikajlerni (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Um, related to the definition of polymath itself, citation [2] refers to the term "polyhistor" and links back to this article for clarification -- but the linked section is missing. This either needs removed or repaired. KhyranLeander 16:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khyranleander (talk • contribs)

L Ron Hubbard

Various sources list this man as a visionary in music, medicine, psychology, art, nuclear physics, and philosophy. He was also a child prodigy according to various sources. You may want to add him in both articles. (unsigned comment by User:Deibwan, 12:42, 9 May 92014)

Self-Promotion in Academia

The whole section "In Academia" reads like shameless self-promotion and copy-pasting (not even in Wiki format - references left in text as e.g. "(R. Root-Bernstein, 2009, p. 857)" straight out of someone's thesis). Who is supposed to understand this babble - "He utilized a hermeneutic-phenomenological approach...." - this is irrelevant & spams up the page. Suggest delete the whole thing. --anonymous (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:247A:6B01:5158:15AA:67E7:8BCA (talk)

This whole article is strange. The lead is good to great, the Renaissance man section is good, and then academic section is just summaries of what five different academics think about polymaths, why they are good or bad and why we should encourage them, it's incredibly academic, and doesn't seem to be very encyclopedic at all.

There's also no section that restates what a polymath is, what are agreed upon qualities of a polymath, no restatement of most of the lead. It's really quite bizarre, I don't think I've ever seen an article like this before. 71.11.5.2 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I came here to comment the exact same thing. 24.36.195.185 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Block of text to add

At The Polymath#Summary, I've summarised a 2018 book which is apparently the first English-language book on the topic. Almost all of the summary could be posted in this article. I propose that we introduce it with "In his 2018 book The Polymath, British author Waqas Ahmed defines polymaths as those who..." and then the rest of the second paragraph and the rest of the Summary section, excluding the little paragraph at the end ("Throughout the book..."). Ahmed has posts at the Open University and the London Interdisciplinary School so counts as an academic, so this could be a subsection of the "In academia" section of the article, but where it goes is not so important. Because I wrote the article about the book on paid time, I have a COI so I would be grateful if someone would implement this change or give me permission to do so. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. PK650 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@PK650: Apologies. In the "In academia" section of this article, introduce a subsection heading "Waqas Ahmed". As the text for that subsection, take the "Summary" section of the article The Polymath, exclude the first and last paragraphs, and add the clause "In his 2018 book The Polymath, British author Waqas Ahmed defines polymaths as those who..." right at the start to introduce the section. Is this clear enough? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Done PK650 (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

White male used as the picture? Really?

I suggest we change the main picture to that of an African American or Israeli, or anything other than a white male. It just sets a bad tone 218.215.116.200 (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we stop worrying about any race but the Human Race... Polymaths come in all sizes, shapes, colors and creeds. So one picture is as good as another. Raclapp (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not just make a collage of polymaths with people from every race?

Case solved. 152.231.128.241 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll suggest that the best person to illustrate what a polymath is would be someone widely known both by name and by his wide-ranging accomplishments. Few, no matter the race, would better depict a polymath than Ben Franklin. 159.250.54.66 (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Race and religion should not be selection categories in any way. Raclapp (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

possible new paragraph heading and section

Backstory: I've been a Polymath my entire 48+ years since middle school. It is rare that the negative aspects of being a Polymath are mentioned. I would like to create a subsection in this article to address known issues experienced as a group by many historical and modern Polymath. Many issues are similar to those experienced by those with high IQs (over 140) but not all. Thoughts? Richard Clapp Jr Central Ohio Raclapp (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hypatia

I recall finding Hypatia through this article, but mention of her - or of any woman - seems to have been removed. Ressomatic (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Flicking through The Polymath, I find Maya Angelou (page 1), Florence Nightingale, Maria Gaetana Agnesi, Émilie du Châtelet, Ban Zhao, Lubna of Córdoba and Anna Maria van Schurman (page 18), Mary Somerville (page 71), George Eliot and Stéphanie Félicité, comtesse de Genlis (page 291). Hypatia's on page 57. Why on Earth is this article including male-only lists? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)