Talk:Encyclopédistes

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Merge

This article is stubby and incomplete, and List of contributors to the Encyclopédie has less than a bare minimum of explanatory text at the top - how about moving the list material to this article? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the face of overwhelming public indifference, I have been bold and done it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on making it less stubby and incomplete but am new to translating wikipages. I hope I am following the guidelines appropriately. --Evey5393 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I suggest we move this to Philosophes. Thats what they called themselves. Tourskin (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source and reference

The article currently refers to claims made by some one named Frank Kafker who doesn't seem to have earned enough interest, notoriety, credibility or fame for an article of his own, thus I think it would be appropriate to refer to the source of this claim if it is to be left in the article. Bjorn.Persson (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kafker is well known for scholarship on encyclopedism. That an author is notable is not necessarily connected to whether that author is a reliable source. Regardless, it's unnecessary and maybe undue to include an attributed statement like that given such a tiny amount of text, I think. The current article is kind of embarrassing considering the influence these people have on Wikipedia. It's been on my to do list for a while now. Would you care to take a stab at another formulation of the lead? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still stubby

The article still has far from adequate coverage of this important intellectual undertaking, which massively influenced the course of thinking of the educated classes over the next century, and to which we owe many of our present attitudes, conventions, conveniences and institutions.

We need more factual content. For example:

How about a few more statistics, e.g. How many articles in all? How many by women authors? Proportion of women authors? Some demographics on the authors' origins and affiliations?
How about a few more quotations from historians of thought testifying to the influence of the whole enterprise? To the reactions against it, and by whom and what institutions?

yoyo (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Oxford Reference item might be useful:^[1]. yoyo (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Encyclopaedists". Oxford Reference. Retrieved 13 February 2020.

[1] "Encyclopaedists". Oxford Reference. Retrieved 13 February 2020.

[1]