User talk:LilianClaverie

Welcome!
Hello, LilianClaverie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Introduction to referencing
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The verifiability could be better. LilianClaverie (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Modernity
Concerning your revert of my revert, your edit summary asks me to say if I "need more". Yes, the first revert I made was indicating already that this should be worked out on the talk page first. For obvious reasons we don't normally leave our live articles with no opening line. Every edit should improve an article. Please don't delete opening lines without proposing new ones. Also please consider WP:BRD. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Andrew Lancaster Hey, thanks for explaining that to me. It's not the opening line though. I thought I said that in my edit summary. I don't really have anything more to add to what I said in my edit summary. Tbh, "let me know if you need more" was me being sarcastic. sorry. LilianClaverie (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops. You are right and I misunderstood that this was the opening line. It looks like one, and it contained a definition, which seemed to be sourced. Why did you remove it though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Lancaster Modernity is a historical period but it is also a political concept or ideology. As an ideology or value system it remains in conflict with "traditional" and religious movements into the post-englightenment era, at least in some parts of the world. I dont know what is meant by "post traditional" - we don't have an article to explain it and I've never heard of it before despite having done some background reading. As for citing "post medieval" to Heidegger, it pushes the periodization back into the Renaissance which is further than the article covers, and that is assuming editors interpreted Heidegger correctly. LilianClaverie (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we edit AFTER checking what the sources say? Remember that WP's mission is to summarize what is published and not give our own ideas. Heidegger is definitely an interesting person to cite so we normally wouldn't just delete a citation from him. It is typically better to add more citations if your concern is to give a more balanced view.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Lancaster That's an interest point . It may typically be better. In this instance the general definition proposed that we were in a post- traditional era is not summarizing what is published. I did not add the citation needed tag BTW it has been there since 2012. LilianClaverie (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)