Talk:Encyclopédistes

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)

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

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)

Move

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

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)

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)

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)

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