Talk:Noble savage

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noble savage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Philosophy: Social and political 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

Low

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Anthropology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Erroneous Identification of Rousseau with the Noble Savage

On April 15, 2012., Dwyermz changed the section about the Erroneous Indentification of Rousseau with the Noble Savage on the grounds that he personally finds Lovejoy's 1923 conclusions "controversial". This is Original Research. Dwyermz needs to find a secondary source (a reputable scholar, not a textbook that just mindlessly repeats errors), that challenges Lovejoy on the grounds that he is "controversial" - or for any other reason. and then give source and page number. Good luck with that. Virtually all scholars that I have come across accept Lovejoy's conclusions. Not only that, but Lovejoy, who was and still is the world's foremost authority on Primitivism and Related ideas, conclusively demolished the reputation of Irving Babbitt against whose attacks on Rousseau he was arguing. As far as I know, Babbitt never was able to answer Lovejoy, and he and his views have fallen into oblivion, while Lovejoy continues to be a respected figure. have restored the gist of Lovejoy's argument -- hopefully not in too much detail. Mballen (talk)

Earlier Use

See Marc Lescarbot (1609) for earlier reference. 2600:6C5A:87F:9698:8B37:974C:61EA:CF60 (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]