Misplaced Pages

Talk:Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:46, 10 October 2011 editJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 edits Concerns about proper attribution← Previous edit Revision as of 03:38, 22 April 2015 edit undoMdecoursey (talk | contribs)8 edits Leclerc: new sectionNext edit →
Line 17: Line 17:
:We have a standard template for this, called {{tl|1911}}; since that is the edition of EB actually referenced, it fits the case. (Much of the 11th edition as actually material written for the 9th or 10th.) Most articles on subjects which were adequately covered then could use one. ] <small>]</small> 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC) :We have a standard template for this, called {{tl|1911}}; since that is the edition of EB actually referenced, it fits the case. (Much of the 11th edition as actually material written for the 9th or 10th.) Most articles on subjects which were adequately covered then could use one. ] <small>]</small> 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
::Ok, I added that, although it looks a bit ugly where I put it.--] (]) 07:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC) ::Ok, I added that, although it looks a bit ugly where I put it.--] (]) 07:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

== Leclerc ==

The article said that Shaftesbury had an intellectual friendship with Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon. But this must be wrong, because that Leclerc was eight years old when Shaftesbury died. The reference must be to Jean Leclerc, the editor of a series of annual journals called ''Encyclopédies'', theologian, and editor of the works of Erasmus. Indeed Hans Bots, in the article I have referenced, sets out quite specific interactions between the two.

Revision as of 03:38, 22 April 2015

WikiProject iconBiography: Peerage and Baronetage B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Philosophers / Aesthetics / Modern C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Philosophers
Taskforce icon
Aesthetics
Taskforce icon
Modern philosophy

characteristicks

The original name of the book was characteristicks, with a "k".--Stanzilla (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about proper attribution

I just read this entry all the way through and found it to be delightfully quaint in style. But this raised for me the question of whether it was all actually written by a modern-day Wikipedian, or taken from some old source. I searched for the line "and hence the agreeable feeling with which, notwithstanding all their false taste and their tiresome digressions, they impress the modern reader" in Google books and as you can see, a substantial portion of this article is lifted directly from the 1894 Encyclopedia Britannica.

Now, as this work is clearly long since out of copyright, there is no legal problem here, but there is an ethical problem. While we do have a single footnote to Britannica, to my mind that is not enough. I am unclear at this moment as to what our standard "best practice" is regarding the use of material from old works, so I am not doing anything right away. But soon I think I will add a note saying that much of the article is modified from that work. Is that the right thing to do?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a standard template for this, called {{1911}}; since that is the edition of EB actually referenced, it fits the case. (Much of the 11th edition as actually material written for the 9th or 10th.) Most articles on subjects which were adequately covered then could use one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I added that, although it looks a bit ugly where I put it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Leclerc

The article said that Shaftesbury had an intellectual friendship with Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon. But this must be wrong, because that Leclerc was eight years old when Shaftesbury died. The reference must be to Jean Leclerc, the editor of a series of annual journals called Encyclopédies, theologian, and editor of the works of Erasmus. Indeed Hans Bots, in the article I have referenced, sets out quite specific interactions between the two.

Categories: