Talk:Polymath

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polymath article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3: 700 days

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 700 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

L Ron Hubbard[edit]

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[edit]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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

Block of text to add[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

White male used as the picture? Really?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

possible new paragraph heading and section[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree that this information should be somewhere, though this might not be the best home. Could you write a bit so it can be sourced and put in a good spot?

I can do stuff! (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypatia[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Need a trained eye to take a look.[edit]

Could someone please add to this section the names of any of the women that fit the description of polymath? It seems a previous reply to this thread offered up quite a few candidates. I’m also interested in the official criteria that’s required for a person’s name to officially qualify for such a title as polymath. Could anyone enlighten me? 2600:6C55:4600:1D39:4830:1A64:3D58:4DDC (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]