Jump to content

Talk:A. C. Grayling/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Early Reading in Philosophy

Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to report that "His first exposure to philosophical writing was at the age of twelve when he read an English translation of Plato's Charmides dialogue. At fourteen he read G. H. Lewes's Biographical History of Philosophy."

Surely it would suffice to say simply that he had an early childhood interest in philosophy. If these sources have particularly shaped his thought, then the article should explain how. Otherwise, these references sound like tedious "fanboy" trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.103 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Tedious" is a subjective adjective. I don't find the references tedious.Lestrade (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Philosophical work section

The philosophical work section needs to chopped up. Just looking at that massive wall of text is daunting. I think we should considering shortening the lead paragraph and possibly making subsections. If we can do that, I think this can be higher than a B grade article in Wikiproject:Philosophy. Hazillow (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was just reading through this article and thought I'd add a few links to things such as Royal Scoiety of Arts, etc.--Frank Carmody 16:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Photo

Don't we have a more up-to-date photo of the man? He's pretty young in the current one. Keithmahoney 00:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I was taught by Grayling last year and it is true the picture used is old. However, his book on Descartes published late last year includes this very photo on the dust jacket. Moriarty73 19:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Article ranking

This article is currently ranked of low importance. I propose this be raised to mid importance. Grayling is one of Britain's leading philosophers, and certainly the most well-known. 86.27.59.185 (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The description for "Low" is: The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of philosophy. Although his ideas may be important, he himself applies to the "Low" category. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Same applies to Socrates. His ideas are important, but the man himself - he was just a man, like Grayling. There seems to be something wrong with the ranking system. If Grayling's ideas are important, and there is no separate article about his ideas, then one must come here to find out about those ideas. Consequently the article is, or perhaps might be, required knowledge for a broad understanding of philosophy, especially contemporary philosophy. I'm not saying this article should be elevated to High, but Medium is surely more appropriate than Low. 86.27.59.185 (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, Socrates is much more well-known both as a historical person and as a notable figure of Western Philosophy, and is much more referenced across a wide range of documents from the different branches of philosophy. CarlosMarti123 (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Doctor or Doctorate

Is it more correct to write that he has a Doctorate in Philosophy than to write that he has a Doctor of Philosophy? Similarly that he has a Master of Arts degree as opposed to a Master of Arts? Totorotroll (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Resignation

According to [1], Grayling has resigned from his chair at Birckbeck. --Anthem 03:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

New College of the Humanities

According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13659394 and http://www.nchum.org/who-we-are/the-professoriate , Grayling will be the first master of the New College of the Humanities, a private university which he has helped to set up. Cointreau (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ideas

In the paragraph entitled "Ideas" the word "developing" might be a gerund or a present participle. The whole sentence is vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear to me whether Grayling's work has any application to science, such as the theory of relativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits

It is not helpful to call NCH "Socially Exclusive College for Humanities"; it is childish and, I think, violates Wikipedia policy.

Robert Slack (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal

Grayling's personal tragedies are personal and have no general importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed an External link to a review by Antonella Gambotto-Burke because her publicist has been spamming this article.[2] [3] [4]. If this is a worthwhile EL, a non-broken, non-self-published link can be found here:

  • Gambotto-Burke, Antonella (30 December 2006). "The Form of Things: Essays on Life, Ideas and Liberty in the Twe". The Australian. News Limited.

/ edg ☺ ☭ 16:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The review by Gambotto-Burke is a logorhettic spew. Worthless. Appalling to see a publicity hack use Wikipedia so. 271828182 (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of possibly problematic addition

I have removed this recent addition.

In reference to the area in which he lives, Grayling made a racist statement, suggesting that friends thought they had to wear "tropical kit with pith helmets and mosquito nets" - presumably in reference to the high African population of the area.(ref[5])

I think the wording content is a bit problematic. Perhaps a discussion first? Hope this is OK and no offecne meant.(Msrasnw (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC))

Early life and education

Second paragraph; is all that detail about Grayling's sister needed? I'm not sure what it adds to the article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't see that it's out of proportion - a normal sized paragraph about an obviously major event in his life - and I can't see that trimming out any particular little bit would improve the article. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A. C. Grayling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A._C._Grayling/Archive_1&oldid=1136483243"