Talk:Pseudointellectual

message: Comment Originally added by Melaen - obviously not to the article wiktionary but to the project --Lox (t,c) 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed "move" template. Ashibaka tock 01:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to wiktionary

message: There are just too many random specifics for a word that can cover many types of people not just those that read the economist.
Not all psudos are young...
etc.
Benjamin Jordan Yingling -- no Google hits except for this article. Seems personal. 198.166.241.183 05:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems like a personal attack on someone the writer knows... 

message: Ok, I agreed with all of the above comments, I thought the article was actually incorrect, and I rewrote it. It seemed to imply that abuse of vocabulary is pseudo-intellectualism, which I think is similar but probably something else. (Ironic -- I'm not sure there's word for abuse of vocabulary) I would say that the most accurate one-sentence definition is this: a pseudo-intellectual is a term used to accuse someone of being intellectually dishonest.
If there were a wikipedia article for intellectual dishonesty, I think that would be a better place for this information and this article would become a wiktionary one. Ken 06:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I took out the following statement regarding medical lexicon because I think it's POV:
:and so those suspicious of technical vocabulary may simply lack the training to understand it.
Ken 07:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical lexicon 

message: The entire article should be removed and relocated to wiktionary with the simple literal definition of the term. The author's attempts to characterise pseudointellectual traits is in itself ironically psuedointellectual. If its intended as a sociological study of the paradigm then it should be rewritten in accordance with scholastic integrity, ie. by referencing some sort of reputable scholarly work. With regards to the reference to deliberately confusing lexicon, perhaps referencing Foucalt's work on the "medical gaze" would be beneficial. However I still maintain that the entire is still utter rubbish and should be removed. Psuedo-intellectualism is not a personality disorder, it is an entirely subjective judgement. 
Sam Bedggood 07:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And here, we have more of it. 72.144.68.156 12:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly devoid of value. Should be removed. 

message: All the s are a bit pointless. Most of this article is unsourcable by its nature. While some of the characterizations may be correct, I suggest the article be trimmed down to a short paragraph or two briefly defining what the term means, and anything else that can be sourced. More than that just encourages NPOV (especially in the form of snobbery). -kotra 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that it be removed. 69.149.104.152 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "it" do you mean the entire article, the unsourced material (i.e. most of the article), or the s? -kotra 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact-tags are supposed to be funny, considering the article's title. -- Kendrick7talk 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact tags are ridiculous.  I'm deleting them, though I don't mean to imply that the article doesn't need to be sourced. johnpseudo 03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Talkfact}} exploded all over this article 

message: Judging from my own original research, it seems that the word "Pseudointellectual" is usually used on someone with whose views the person using it doesn't agree, even if the "pseudointellectual" in question is actually a respected academic.  The definition, then, changes to "intellectual who doesn't agree with my own uninformed view".  But again, that's just OR ;)
What I really came here to say is that the article is actually fairly readable now, so kudos to all of you who improved it.  It still is inadequate, but at least it is no longer horribly inadequate. Esn 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of word

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because... There's no justifiable cause to delete this, there's many, many cases of pseudo-intellectualism -- especially in our modern culture that make amazing examples of logical fallacies and unsound arguments.  People should be able to see these examples or gain a deeper understanding of pseudo-intellect. --67.169.223.94 (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion