|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
|The content of Symbolism (disambiguation) was merged into Symbolism. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
The articles Symbolism and Symbolist should be merged (-ist redirecting to -ism), and a disambiguation page should be set up at either Symbolism or Symbolism (disambiguation). The "See also" entries from Symbolism ought to be merged into the dab page, wherever it ends up.
Also, I find it odd that the Symbolist dab page uses symbolism to refer to the Protestant Christian doctrine that rejects transubstantiation, but the article Christian symbolism doesn't really mention this use of the word. How to fix this? --Quuxplusone 06:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm tossing in a red herring, however, I wonder whether or not the novel and the film The Da Vinci Code could be discussed in terms of Symbolism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DakotaGypsy (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 May 2006
- Sounds dangerously close to original research, if not carefully done. -Talk 22:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Need a definition for a symbol
The first sentence...
- The full intro has been restored. It was partially blanked by vandalism. — ERcheck (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph on Language does not make sense. Vandalism?
Symbolism only with symbols?
Does the word symbolism only refer to representation of something using symbols? Can it be words representing something (like in literature), or is this a different concept (representative realism)? To me, representative realism and symbolism mean the same...?? Swannie 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- As I just stated below, this seems to be a subset of symbolism - the use of symbols that happen to strongly resemble the actual things they refer to. I would have grave misgivings about calling symbolism a separate thing. -Talk 19:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Work to be done
Added this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests, as it is in desperate need of cleaning up.
I would also like to see a section on symbolic confusion included here. I might add it myself, but I have no academic sources handy for references. -Talk 01:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Symbolism can bea symbol that uses words or figures/pictures. For example throwing away an old jacket that was used many times might mean that said person is starting from a clean slate(using symbols with words). Another example is that a cross might mean God or Allah, Jesus or Muhammad(using symbols with figures/pictures).
Removed reference to "KevinHa"
Appears to be a vanity edit. Looking through the logs it has gone unnoticed for quite some time. Searches reveal no particular academic merit or significance to the phrase "KevinHa" and its only mention on Wikipedia is here. -Talk 01:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
____________________________ missapril says:
I'm not really into wiki editing. I'm more of a user, but this article has the word penis in a random spot. Could someone remove it please? Sorry for whatever etiquette rules I broke, I just wanted to let someone know. Thanks!
- Thanks for letting us know.-Talk 19:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Restored the old See Also, Further Reading sections. I know wikia links are hardly the best but we can replace those later; the primary issue here is that the entire link section was deleted and needs to be restored. -Talk 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose this section is parked here in the discussion section or otherwise deleted from the article. It looks like the confused fragment of someone's essay and is not particularly about symbolism. This is also so of the last two sentences in the first paragraph in the lead that are also not understandable. "It contrasts with representationalism. Language is highly symbolic, but symbolism refers specifically to totemic symbols that stand on their own. " How contrasts with representationalism? In what way does symbolism refer specifically to totemic symbols that stand on their own? --LittleHow (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that's because it was culled from the confused essay that the article originally was. I thought it was salvageable, and what it deals with is relevant: symbolism really can be dependent on context. We may wish to change the title to something like "Context and Symbolism" to make that clearer.
- As for those sentences, I don't really know. I didn't have anything to do with them. I don't see why symbolism should be limited to non-totemic symbols. -Talk 19:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Bad opening sentence
"It contrasts with representationalism. Language is highly symbolic, but symbolism refers specifically to totemic symbols that stand on their own. "
Another editor singled this out above. Upon further examination, representationalism is a subset of symbolism - the use of symbols that happen to strongly resemble the actual things they refer to. I would have grave misgivings about calling symbolism a separate thing. -Talk 19:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that if the only source we can find for symbolism is a dictionary then this article is dangerously close to being non-notable and ripe for deletion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cottonshirtτ 18:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)