Talk:Polish Positivism

Philosophy: Analytic / Modern Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Analytic philosophy
	Modern philosophy

Literature

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Poland High‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge from History of philosophy in Poland#Positivism[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To distinguish contents rather than merge, on the grounds that the topics are distinct and best discussed separately. Klbrain (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a huge diverging content fork between the two text on the same subject. These must be rearranged according to WP:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose, as you propose, of cutting out the "Positivism" section of the "History of philosophy in Poland" article, to "merge" it into the "Positivism in Poland" article?

If you need some additional information for the "Positivism in Poland" article, then by all means help yourself – but don't mutilate a useful article by "merging" the "History of philosophy in Poland" article's "Positivism" section, cutting out one of that article's most important sections.

Positivism in Poland was not only a philosophical movement (which is treated in "History of philosophy in Poland") but a sociopolitical and artistic movement, which is not the subject of the "Positivism" section of "History of philosophy in Poland".

Nihil novi (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking nonsense. Yes, Positivism in Poland was a broad movement, not only philosophy, and the current article Positivism in Poland sucks miserably, hence my suggestion. I also strongly recommend you to read the policy I cited: WP:Summary style: I am not suggesting "cutting" I am suggesting "rearranging". ... which is not the subject of the "Positivism" section - I am not suggestng merging to section. Staszek Lem (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this mess propagates across various wikipedias. For example, this article, Positivism in Poland, interwikilinks to Polish pl:Literatura polska – pozytywizm, while the latter one interwikis to fr:Positivisme varsovien, while the Polish original pl:Pozytywizm warszawski of the French term interwiks to Positivism in Poland! How this can happen in wikidata, beats me. Whatever it is, Polsih wikipedia covers the subject in 2 pages as ell, but split differently: the general one and specifically for its flow in literature. And the two articles chaotically mix and match, just like in enwiki, but in a different way:-) Staszek Lem (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what is it you are proposing, so far as "History of philosophy in Poland" is concerned?

As I wrote above, you are welcome to improve "Positivism in Poland", but please do not butcher "History of philosophy in Poland". It is a separate topic and article.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to butcher anything. If it is a separate topic, it should be a separate article. So far "Positivism in Poland" is 90% about philosophy. P.S. from your comments it appears you are continuing to ignore my advise to read WP:Summary style or you failed to understand it, otherwise you would not be doing insulting remarks about "butchering". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 "Polish Positivisms". One is Positivism, the philosophy named by Auguste Comte, as it was cultivated in Poland. The other is the social and artistic movement that began after the Polish 1863 Uprising and lasted until the turn of the 20th century. The first of these is an integral part of the history of philosophy in Poland. The second is a separate socio-politico-economico-cultural-artistic movement which has its own article, "Positivism in Poland".

You certainly may improve the "Positivism in Poland" article by adding useful documented information about that cultural movement, including its philosophical aspects, but there is no justification for spinning off the "Positivism" section of the "History of philosophy in Poland" article as a separate article or for merging it into the current "Positivism in Poland" article. That would be doing violence to the integral narrative of the history of philosophy in Poland.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be so, but this is not what our articles are saying. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is probably a bit of overlap, but positivism in literature =/= positivism in philosophy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody argues against this. In fact, I mentioned already that in plwiki this disticnction was was clearly made into two articles. Here, in enwiki, it is a mess. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: That's all the more reason not to merge anything. If there is incorrect overlap, just move whatever part(s) should be to where it needs to be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge; the History of philosophy in Poland#Positivism contains lots of great material that would be better placed at Positivism in Poland to improve that article, leaving a brief summary and the main template behind; this is precisely what WP:Summary style requires. Klbrain (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: As noted earlier, the "Positivism in Poland" article is concerned primarily not with Poland's late-19th-century Positivist philosophical movement, but with the broader Polish-Positivist socio-political movement.

The natural home for the "Positivism" section of the article on the "History of philosophy in Poland" is therefore its present location in the "History of philosophy in Poland" article.

The idea of vivisecting the "History of philosophy in Poland" article makes not the slightest sense and is comparable, in the history of Poland itself, to the 18th-century partitions of Poland, by three neighboring empires, which lasted to the end of World War I.

A brief summary of the "Positivism" section of the "History of philosophy in Poland" can certainly be added to the "Positivism in Poland" article, but importing the "Positivism" section wholesale into "Positivism in Poland" would be like trying to make a mouse swallow an elephant.

Best, Nihil novi (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing support for merge, given the arguments about distinct philosophy/literature. Klbrain (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.