Talk:Scholarly method

message: This section reads like pure original research: it's an entirely new synthetic argument about what scholars think and do.  This badly needs to be rewritten based on some actual cited sources (not just to have sources provided for its claims, I think, but a real re-working of what it says based on what has been published on this topic). -- Rbellin|Talk 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scholarly values" 

message: I am redirecting Scholar to Scholarly_method#Scholars because there are discussions that Scholar should redirect to Wiktionary. There is not enough information for a separate article for Scholar. I have added a template box for Wiktionary for Scholar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.118.208 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting '''Scholar''' to Scholarly_method#Scholars 

message: One of the best parts of wikipedia is on pages about animals or religion or royal families or many things like electronics (processors even) there are tables (this means the fact that much related information is available is displayed as important as the information itself) of links to other stuff like genus and category relatives. I have spent hours flicking these links. Around here it seems to say 'Category? Youre looking for words that sound alike arent you?!?' Or 'Let's direct it in such a way as not very much is left because this is not a wiktionary you know!?!' but the fact is there is big articles about knowledge and its history and its interesting as well as factual. Scholasticism is the daddy of scholarly method and Scholarly method#Scholarly procedure is a paradox Birthday paradox   :D! No its not !! What is this !?! A wiktionary?!?!
ThisMunkey (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholasticism 

message: What the ... is a scholar, are scholars? Where is it really explained? It's used so widely throughout the wikipedia - even in this article - but where is it really explained, what it is, what they mean by it, when they use this word? Professors, students, academics, maybe also non academics, researchers, etc.; all of the above and others, or non of the above? --Alien4 (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT IS IT??? 

message: See here. May be of use, someday. - theFace 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted content of this article 

message: Don't have resources to engage this with my named account but this is a big mistake as it is right now. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, Action required.  

message: The 1st link provided in the references, is from a nursing perspective, this isn't a broad description. Would it be possible to have a reference from a broader point of view?Aidar24 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference link change 

message: No suggestions yet, but I think this page should be greatly expanded. I'm shocked at how little there is here. I'm also not sure at all that this should redirect to "Scholarly method" rather than "Scholar."Kingshowman (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: =Expansion

message: First of all, the title of the page unambiguously should not be "scholarly method." It should either be "scholar" or "scholarship. And whoved equated "scholars" with "intellectuals" or "scientists" is demonstrably wrong: there are public intellectuals like political figures or journalists whom are quite obviously not scholars; and surely we can all agree that all scientists are scholars but not all scholars are scientists. So the title of the page and the re-directs are in desperate need of change since they are demonstrably wrong. Kingshowman (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oy vey- this page needs HELP 

message: How to apply Deborah funk (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarship