Talk:The Perennial Philosophy

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

The Marketing Section is Bizarre[edit]

Is that entire section going by anything more than what's written on the dust jacket? The insinuation throughout that section is that the book was not just SOLD this way, but was written to be sold this way - a claim almost certainly false. Huxley wrote/compiled the book for his (sincere) reasons, and then the published bought it (or accepted it) and had to find a way to sell it. Of what possible relevance is this content? I've never seen it done for any other book, and millions of books have had writing on the dust jacket trying to sell them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Have shortened, simplified, and toned down the entire section - there was no need to mention the publisher, as the section is about context not marketing; the cover is of interest for what it reveals of the context, which is relevant to the book - the critics quoted in other sections make clear that the book is of its time and could not (for example) have been written in that way today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more reviews (why so much coverage to Colombo?)[edit]

Thanks for expanding the article. But it should be noted that the critical reception section needs more reviews. There is no need to give so much coverage to Robert Colombo, a somewhat notable reviewer writing on a not terrifically notable website, when the book was widely reviewed in more notable outlets such as the New York Times, The New Yorker, and others. Here is a list of reviews gathered from Book Review Digest Retro:

  • Book Week (Oct. 21 1945).
  • Booklist v. 42 (Nov. 15 1945).
  • The Christian Century v. 62 (Dec. 12 1945).
  • Bull VA Kirkus' Bookshop Serv v. 13 (Aug. 1 1945).
  • The Nation v. 161 (Oct. 27 1945).
  • The New Republic v. 113 (Nov. 5 1945).
  • [done] The New York Times (Early City Edition) (Sept. 30 1945).
  • The New Yorker v. 21 (Sept. 29 1945).
  • Saturday Review of Literature v. 28 (Nov. 3 1945).
  • Springfield Republican (Oct. 14 1945).
  • New York Herald Tribune (Oct. 7 1945).
  • Wilson Bulletin (White Plains, N.Y.) v. 41 (Dec. 1945).

Even a sprinkling of these would add richness to the article. Plus, there must be at least a few other notable reviews published between 1945 and now, not just Smith and Colombo. Right now the reception section feels too narrow. -- Presearch (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have added quotes from and citation to New York Times review, to get things started, but don't anticipate having time to look up more. -- Presearch (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the Reception section (and so the article as a whole) is already much improved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're still hoping others will add summaries of (old) reviews - not much sign of takers and I'm busy elsewhere. Colombo has one (unique, I think) merit: he was there as a young man and has now reviewed both the book and his own earlier review reaction, and found book-and-review both a bit overexcited, which seems to me to sum up PP perfectly - it seemed really good a while ago, now a bit more ho-hum. So just adding more detail on the 1945 reviews actually runs a risk... but it'd still be useful, and equally, it'd be nice to find some other backward glances. If only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo wrote a review in the 1950s? If so, it should be cited. The mere fact that decades later he recollected his earlier attitudes does not shed much extra light on the subject. There are other writes (Hustom Smith comes to mind) who will describe themselves as becoming more interested and engaged in something like the perrenial philosophy (though I don't know if he speaks of Huxley's book in particular). As to whether the perennial philosophy in general carries more or less influence now than it did then, I imagine one could make arguments on either side. So let's try to cover the reviews that were actually published in each time period, and not give it an overlay of what we think the deeper trends may be. I do think that Colombo is being given too much space on this page, though it's not a big issue, and correcting that imbalance is not able to be a priority at the moment. --Presearch (talk)

Ooops, didn't say what I meant. But agree more will be better. Actually there's very little of C's actual opinion of the book - I am now minded to add to it! - as many of his currently-quoted words are simply neutral description of the book's structure. When feeling strong, I (or anyone who feels like it) should replace the C descriptions with WP paraphrase or just uncited "Plot summary" description, and cite C on his interesting bits. But not now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 September 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. See closing comments below. Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Perennial Philosophy (book) → The Perennial Philosophy – Unnecessary disambiguator (non-disambiguated title redirects here) Pppery 20:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial philosophy and The Perennial Philosophy is too close. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Too close" by what metric? WP:DIFFCAPS provides that, "When such navigation aids [e.g., hatnotes] are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane vs. Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours." I'm unclear as to what basis there would be for deeming this an exceptional circumstance. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same page says "when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered". The small details are here not with "PP" versus "Pp," but with the use of the word "the" in conjunction with PP/Pp. PP/Pp in this regard is synonymous when searching for an article, so the addition (book) is helpfull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the policy also says, "when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered", but how does your proposal meet the naturalness and conciseness criteria? I can't even conceive of an argument for it meeting the former.
I'm not clear on what you're saying in the latter part of your comment (The small details are here not with "PP" versus "Pp," but with the use of the word "the" in conjunction with PP/Pp. PP/Pp in this regard is synonymous when searching for an article, so the addition (book) is helpfull.). The policy directly addresses the capitalization ("'PP' versus 'Pp'"), so on what basis can you argue the two usages to be "synonymous" when a central consensus expressly says otherwise? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's your problem here? "Perennial philosophy" and "The Perennial Philosophy" is confusing. Can you tell by the term "the," or by a capital "P," if "The Perennial Philosophy" redirects to an article on a religious-philosophical point of view, or to a book on this same religious-philosophical point of view? I can't, so I find the addition of (book) helpfull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the questions. My problem is that your arguments are not based in our policies and guidelines and seem to disregard the central consensus. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've referred to policy above. Regarding "disregard the central consensus," read WP:CONSENSUS: we reach consensus by discussing various points of view, not by pushing one particular point of view and disregarding other points of view. My point is that "Perennial philosophy" and "The Perennial Philosophy" is confusing; it may be clear to you what the difference is, but I think that it's not clear to uninvolved readers who triy to find a specific page. You tell me, from the outside, disregarding the subtle nuance of using the word "the," which page is about the philosophy in general, and which is about a book. You can't. That's why the addition "(book)" is helpfull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've referred to policy above. And yet you won't answer any questions regarding your interpretation of it. I'll ask for the third time:

You're right that the policy also says, "when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered", but how does your proposal meet the naturalness and conciseness criteria? I can't even conceive of an argument for it meeting the former.

I'm not clear on what you're saying in the latter part of your comment (The small details are here not with "PP" versus "Pp," but with the use of the word "the" in conjunction with PP/Pp. PP/Pp in this regard is synonymous when searching for an article, so the addition (book) is helpfull.). The policy directly addresses the capitalization ("'PP' versus 'Pp'"), so on what basis can you argue the two usages to be "synonymous" when a central consensus expressly says otherwise?

Regarding "disregard the central consensus," read WP:CONSENSUS: we reach consensus by discussing various points of view, not by pushing one particular point of view and disregarding other points of view. If you keep scrolling down in WP:CONSENSUS, you will find WP:CONLEVEL. I would only disregard points of view that (a) directly contradict existing guidelines, (b) are not being expressed for the purpose of changing guidelines, and (c) make no attempt at arguing that this is an exceptional circumstance to which the guideline oughtn't apply. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, man. It's just a title. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the fourth time, that doesn't answer the question. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:TITLE:
  • Top (emphasis mine): "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." - I'm talking here about recognizability; the addition "(book)" gives a better recognizability than the prefix "The".
  • Naturalness: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." - In case of a book, that's not an article on the Perennial philosophy in general; adding "(book)" helps better in identyfying the topic readers are looking for than the prefix "The".
  • "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." - In this case, "(book)" is not longer than necessary.
  • Disambiguation:
  • From the lead: "Because no two articles can have the same title, it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name."
  • Section on Disambiguation (emphasis mine): "3. Parenthetical disambiguation, i.e. adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title." - So, adding "(book)" is in line with Wiki-policies , and helps better in finding the right topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to policies and hatnotes won't help if those hatnotes are not being used. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise... 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, a hatnote wasn't necessary on perennial philosophy because The Perennial Philosophy was already mentioned in the lead. I have no objection to adding it, though. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment: I am discarding the extensive oppose arguments in terms of WP:closing instructions because they flatly contradict established policy in too many ways to list. Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Perennial_Philosophy&oldid=1208992985"