Talk:Sophistication

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics

It is requested that an image or photograph of Sophistication be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Sophistication, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I'm going to add a cleanup tag, since right now this article is pretty messy, disjointed, and confusing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   As the great Peter O'Toole's has-been British swashbuckling-actor character eloquently said of a smashed bottle of what may have been a sophistcated beverage, "that's a sad sight": such a comment applies to the accompanying article, sophistication, which pretends to identify the essence of the corresponding concept.
   Sad, bcz the least sophisticated seem the most prone to imagine they're onto what it takes to achieve the condition themselves. I recall a sweet young (-er, by close to a decade) lady, apparently impressed with the change in my manner of speaking, when i addressed, on the phone, a stranger, about directions or scheduling for some service. She picked up a pencil, then displayed for me the word "sosphisicated" [sic]; always a gentleman (tho a certified Quaker hippy draft-dodging peacenik, partial to jeans, and to a work shirt that I'd converted to read, roughly, "‽€₳₠ FORCE", i smiled at her. I suppose one corner of my brain silently chuckled something like "Yup, and your turn will come, 'like a thief in the night', probably without you noticing the change."
   Anyways, my real point is this: their lack of sophistication helps some of the less sophisticated fall into the trap of pretending to act hip, about many things they are anxious to start getting hip to. In this case, the as-I-write-current revision of the article page reeks of clueless admiration of what the un-sophisticated long to achieve, but can't clearly conceive nor therefore describe, until it creeps up while they aren't watching for it; but at some point you notice you've changed. I guess that's why WP provides the medium of the WP:ESSAY, a worthy role for that colleague's fling at the deprecation-worthy submission.
--JerzyA (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]