Talk:Leviathan and the Air-Pump

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Literature 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:
/
	Philosophical literature

Multiple Issues April 2012[edit]

Article is currently a chapter-by-chapter summary of the entire book. Very (very!) nicely done, but I don't think it's right for Wikipedia. Needs less paraphrasing of the book and OR interpretation, and more third-party sources. Publicly Visible (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues December 2020[edit]

Hi all, I am going to start working on this article. It has about a million reviews, some of which I added to further reading. The article should rarely if ever cite the book itself, that is what all the reviews are for. The reviews are secondary sources independent of the book and its authors, therefore they are reliable, the book and other content written by the authors is not reliable as they are not independent of the topic. Reviews that were not published need to be removed and reviews from non-notable persons should be given less weight (space) than reviews from notable persons. A great deal of original research needs to be removed and replaced with statements supported by the book's many reviews. I will work on it as I have time. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To really emphasize this, there are two articles I found published in 2017 in Isis that this whole article should be built on: "The Reviews of Leviathan and the Air-Pump : A Survey" and "A Second Look: Leviathan and the Air-Pump : Editor's Introduction" everything else is supplementary information at this point. This is an ideal book article precisely because there is a tertiary source that has summarized the reception for us and extensive literature analyzing the book's style, themes, and content. There should be no primary sources used here at all. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]