Talk:Age of Enlightenment/Archive 1

message: Both of these sentences are unclear and need to be translated and clarified:
:John Locke wrote his Two Treatises on Government to argue that property was not a family right by tenure. But an individual right brought on by mixing labour with the object in question, and securing it from other use.
:This focus on process and procedure would be honoured, at times, in the breach, as England's own "Star Chamber" court would attest to.
.....
The sentence 
"Some of its proponents attempted to demonstrate rationally the existence of a supreme being, such as George Berkeley."
Was edited for clarity. This phrasing could be interpeted to mean George Berkeley was the 'supreme being' who's existence was being demonstrated rationally.
The new phrasing is 
"Some of its proponents, such as George Berkeley, attempted to demonstrate rationally the existence of a supreme being."
:Better clarity. Rintrah 12:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Sentences 

message: The title should be "The age of Enlightenment" as it is a period when a certain set of philosophies came to the fore.  To call it "The Enlightenment" supposes that it actually enlightened people, which some would take issue with.  Fundie Chrisitans, for instance, would suggest that it led to a new kind of darkness. Mr. Jones 14:45, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV title 

message: Not sure what to do with the following language, which is quite POV:
:Gradually many areas of knowledge and belief became revolutionised by the removal of what had been presumed to be universal truth, but which had only been based on historical precedent, and unexamined assumptions. There was a resurgence in the methods developed by Aristotle to apply logic and scientific method in all our thinking about the world and our place in it. Aristotle himself had famously proclaimed that 'the unexamined life is not worth living'.
--COGDEN 21:26, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Some POV language

message: Stirling Newberry keeps removing the entire section on Enlightenment values without any discussion. Recently he said this in an edit line: "this is a POV libertarian manifesto, not a good summary of the period."  Well, of course not; this list, by itself, is not supposed to be a summary of the period; that purpose is served by the entire article.  Rather, this list summarizes the views that many enlightenment thinkers had in common.  In no way is its existence an NPOV violation. The article does not say that these values are absolutely true, or that people must accept them. Rather, it merely points out what many enlightenment thinkers believed. In accord with NPOV policy, it states that Group A held beliefs X, Y and Z, without any value judgements.  You may find their views incorrect, but that is no reason not to report them.  By the way, I am not claiming that the section is perfect, complete or without possibility of change. RK 14:25, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
On a parallel point, I do not see these enlightenment values as libertarian.  Many people I know hold most of these values, and AFAIK none of them are libertarian. RK 14:25, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
I note that this entire section was removed again, without any discussion. I have thus restored it. RK 23:24, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
The section is worthless undocumented POV.Stirling Newberry 00:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stirling, this is not how we operate around here. Unless you're prepared to engage in actual discussion instead of simply providing soundbites, you're going to find it difficult to get anywhere. -- nknight 04:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How you operate is a gang revert war and inserting uncited POV. Stirling Newberry 08:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The correct thing would be to ask for citations or references. Since we report here what experts say, and  not our own interpretations. If references can not be produced, the text can be justifiably removed, or placed in the context of "So and so says.." --Stbalbach 06:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the text ages ago since 1. There were no sources. 2. It is extremely bad summary of the Enlightenment either as period or as a movement in general. Stirling Newberry 08:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Complete bad faith fabrication. Stirling Newberry 19:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on Enlightenment values 

message: Mr. Newberry and others, please settle this without accusations of bad faith or vandalism. 172 19:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Below is the disputed text interspersed with cited commentary. As can be seen the assertion of "massive" deletion is unfounded, the assertion that the text removed is primary sourced is unfounded, the assertion that the disputed text conforms to NPOV is unfounded. 
=== Text ===
Many values were common to enlightenment thinkers, including:
*The belief that the nation exists to protect the rights of the individual, instead of the other way around.
:Montesquieu believed the reverse, that democracy was love of a country and its laws. . More over, not all of those who believed in the rights of individuals were republicans, consider  Catherine the Great's Proposal for a new law code:  which, while it affirms the position of personal liberty, also affirms absolute monarchy. Joseph II, another "Enlightened Despot" stated "everything for the people, nothing by the people". The conflict between liberty and securty, between the importance of personal liberty and personal security was not a cut and dried point during the Enlightenment. There are, more over, conflicts between political and economic freedom. Smith, to take one example, advocates laissez-faire which presupposes limits on political freedom to pass laws that intervene in the economy. 
:The Body metaphor of the state, from Hobbe's Leviathan is also used: for example by Fredrick II of Prussia who stated  "He and his people form a single body. Ruler and ruled can be happy only if they are firmly united. The sovereign stands to his people in the same relation in which the head stands to the body. He must use his eyes and his brain for the whole community, and act on its behalf to the common advantage. If we wish to elevate monarchical above republican government, the duty of sovereigns is clear. They must be active, hard-working, upright and honest, and concentrate all their strength upon filling their office worthily. That is my idea of the duties of sovereigns." 
*The belief that each individual should be afforded dignity, and should be allowed to live one's life with the maximum amount of personal freedom.
:Again Montesquieu believed otherwise, he believed that frugality should be instituted by law and that there should be censors to prevent individuals from violating this.
*The belief that democracy is the best form of government.
:Hume, Burke and Voltaire, among others, clearly did not believe this. citations above.
*The belief in the equality of all humanity, all races, ethnicities, nationalities and religions.
:If this were the case then Jefferson would not have withdrawn the section outlawing slavery from the Declaration of Independence. Racial and religious equality were still very controversial ideas, even among Enlightenment philosophers. Voltaire was an internationalist, but many others believed that the state of affairs of the world justified the inequalities found. Hence Humes imfamous statement in On National Characters:
::I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMANS, the present TARTARS, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over EUROPE, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho’ low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In JAMAICA indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ‘tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.
*The belief that, in regards to the physical world in which we live. the scientific method is our only ally in helping us discern fact from fiction; further, the belief that science, properly used, is a positive force for the good of all humanity.
: The scientific method did not exist yet, and materialism as a doctrine was not adhered to by major figures including Newton, who believed in an "intelligent agent" being necessary to create the solar system. 
*The belief that all people have a right to free speech and expression, the right to free association, the right to hold to any - or no - religion; the right to elect their own leaders.
:This again is not universally the case: Voltaire believed in Free Speech, but not elections. Montesquieu believed in elections, but not free speech.
* The belief that religious dogma and mystical experiences are inferior to logic and philosophy, and that much classical religious dogma has been harmful to much of humanity.
:Inferior here is a distinct problem. Many enlightenment figures adhered to the teleological argument, that is that since the world could not have been produced by material causes as they understood them, there was, therefore a designer. Newton and Derham are two influential examples of this. Rousseau argued that sentiment, not reason, is the source of human virtue.
:In summary, a set of sweeping generalizations to the point of misinformative oversimplification which is not born out by an examination even of the major figures of the period, let alone a host of minor ones which we spend less time. The whole is based on historical fallacy: exagerating those features of the 18th century which we, ourselves, place the greatest value in. 
:There is a section on the use of the Enlightenment in the present, let Gay, Rothbard and whoever else have their say on what the Enlightenment means in an NPOV manner, that is describing the the available points of view - but not stinting on the critics of the Enlightenment and the full range of expressed philosophy, pragmatic and theoretical, from the period.
Stirling Newberry 22:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Text 

message: Many values were common to enlightenment thinkers, including:
*The belief that the nation exists to protect the rights of the individual, instead of the other way around.
:Montesquieu believed the reverse, that democracy was love of a country and its laws. . More over, not all of those who believed in the rights of individuals were republicans, consider  Catherine the Great's Proposal for a new law code:  which, while it affirms the position of personal liberty, also affirms absolute monarchy. Joseph II, another "Enlightened Despot" stated "everything for the people, nothing by the people". The conflict between liberty and securty, between the importance of personal liberty and personal security was not a cut and dried point during the Enlightenment. There are, more over, conflicts between political and economic freedom. Smith, to take one example, advocates laissez-faire which presupposes limits on political freedom to pass laws that intervene in the economy. 
:The Body metaphor of the state, from Hobbe's Leviathan is also used: for example by Fredrick II of Prussia who stated  "He and his people form a single body. Ruler and ruled can be happy only if they are firmly united. The sovereign stands to his people in the same relation in which the head stands to the body. He must use his eyes and his brain for the whole community, and act on its behalf to the common advantage. If we wish to elevate monarchical above republican government, the duty of sovereigns is clear. They must be active, hard-working, upright and honest, and concentrate all their strength upon filling their office worthily. That is my idea of the duties of sovereigns." 
*The belief that each individual should be afforded dignity, and should be allowed to live one's life with the maximum amount of personal freedom.
:Again Montesquieu believed otherwise, he believed that frugality should be instituted by law and that there should be censors to prevent individuals from violating this.
*The belief that democracy is the best form of government.
:Hume, Burke and Voltaire, among others, clearly did not believe this. citations above.
*The belief in the equality of all humanity, all races, ethnicities, nationalities and religions.
:If this were the case then Jefferson would not have withdrawn the section outlawing slavery from the Declaration of Independence. Racial and religious equality were still very controversial ideas, even among Enlightenment philosophers. Voltaire was an internationalist, but many others believed that the state of affairs of the world justified the inequalities found. Hence Humes imfamous statement in On National Characters:
::I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMANS, the present TARTARS, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over EUROPE, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho’ low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In JAMAICA indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ‘tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.
*The belief that, in regards to the physical world in which we live. the scientific method is our only ally in helping us discern fact from fiction; further, the belief that science, properly used, is a positive force for the good of all humanity.
: The scientific method did not exist yet, and materialism as a doctrine was not adhered to by major figures including Newton, who believed in an "intelligent agent" being necessary to create the solar system. 
*The belief that all people have a right to free speech and expression, the right to free association, the right to hold to any - or no - religion; the right to elect their own leaders.
:This again is not universally the case: Voltaire believed in Free Speech, but not elections. Montesquieu believed in elections, but not free speech.
* The belief that religious dogma and mystical experiences are inferior to logic and philosophy, and that much classical religious dogma has been harmful to much of humanity.
:Inferior here is a distinct problem. Many enlightenment figures adhered to the teleological argument, that is that since the world could not have been produced by material causes as they understood them, there was, therefore a designer. Newton and Derham are two influential examples of this. Rousseau argued that sentiment, not reason, is the source of human virtue.
:In summary, a set of sweeping generalizations to the point of misinformative oversimplification which is not born out by an examination even of the major figures of the period, let alone a host of minor ones which we spend less time. The whole is based on historical fallacy: exagerating those features of the 18th century which we, ourselves, place the greatest value in. 
:There is a section on the use of the Enlightenment in the present, let Gay, Rothbard and whoever else have their say on what the Enlightenment means in an NPOV manner, that is describing the the available points of view - but not stinting on the critics of the Enlightenment and the full range of expressed philosophy, pragmatic and theoretical, from the period.
Stirling Newberry 22:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text 

message: The article needs to be broken up further into sub-sections. Any volunteers? Rintrah 05:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of the Article 

message: The Age of Enlightenment → Age of Enlightenment, to be consistent the policy of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) and such articles as Age of Exploration. —Lowellian (talk) 03:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
===Move===
# Move for reasons given above. —Lowellian (talk) 03:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
# Move. To be consistent with the "Wikipedia naming conventions" policy. – AxSkov (T) 13:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: # Move for reasons given above. —Lowellian (talk) 03:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
# Move. To be consistent with the "Wikipedia naming conventions" policy. – AxSkov (T) 13:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: #Do not move.Dejvid 20:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not move

message: *The correct name is "The Enlightenment" Jooler 08:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I am unfamiliar with the peer-review process, so I do not know how to instigate it. Can someone recommend this article to the peer-review process? Rintrah 01:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: A discussion further up the page has brought this issue to the fore again. The title should be "The Englightenment" - if the naming comvention rules this out - then the naming convention is wrong. Jooler 12:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title again

message: This article is a good canidate for the new Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. --Stbalbach 20:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A request has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ..  --Stbalbach 03:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection status was denied. Archive of the discussion: User:Stbalbach/Age of Enlightenment protection discussion. --Stbalbach 05:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy]] 

message: Has anyone considered putting some comments on the so called "Faulure of the Enlightenment Porject" as talked about by MacIntyre and many 20th century thinkers?
.....
No.
The comments are hardly objective; and they are peripheral to the subject matter. It would also be eerily alien to comment on a "Faul[ed]... Porject". Rintrah 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Failture of The Enlightenment Project 

message: According to the google cache of a page from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Unity of Science movement was part of Logical Positivism. However, this article says the movement includes logical positivism, which is the other way round. Should I just change this? I guess it is possible that EB might be wrong.
Eiler7 16:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error 

message: I believe that there are lots of connections between the "Illuminati" and "Freemasons" and this topic. At least whenever the Roman Catholic Church talks about the Illuminati it usually makes reference to the Age of Enlightenment. For example, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07661b.htm I think there should be some more details about 'the Illuminati in relation to the RCC' in this article. I was thinking of writing a short bit about it, much like what is found on newadvent and some other sources. (Simonapro 23:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Requested clarification on the FM issue, and it would be useful to identify where the conflation comes from.  I'm no disputing that the enlightenment was a significant influence in the emergence of Freemasonry, but it wasn't that simple.  The issue is both unclear and obfuscated by some very poor scholarship in the 18th and 19th Centuries.ALR 16:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately you fail to demonstrate your point.  FM and the Illuminati are not the same thing and the contribution does not meaningfully substantiate the assertion.  As such I will re-add the request.ALR 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Roman Catholic Church, Freemasons and the  Illuminati 

message: According to scholarly opinion
Why not just delete both these WEASEL words and the even more ridiculous  tag that follows them? The following sentence is verifiable without them. Not every factoid requires a citation, and WP:VERIFY doesn't anywhere say it does. Andrewa 04:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weaselwords

message: I have restored two sentences that became fragments during the drastic Revision as of 13:59, 4 April 2006. This Revision shortened the "History of Enlightenment Philosophy" section from 21 paragraphs to 4 paragraphs. The edit seems to be haphazardly done, and I fear that some good material was unjustifiably removed. 
All I have done is restore the complete sentences, so the article is at least readable. I hope somebody can study whether it is worth restoring more of the deleted text. 
Fbkintanar 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring text on History of Enlightenment Philosophy

message: I still don't like the introduction as it stands. The language could be more concise. Rintrah 21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: This paragraph needs expansion:
Another important movement in eighteenth century philosophy, closely related to it, focused on belief and piety. Some of its proponents attempted to rationally demonstrate the existence of a supreme being. Piety and belief in this period were integral to the exploration of natural philosophy and ethics, in addition to political theories of the age. However, prominent Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume questioned and attacked the existing institutions of both Church and State.
What is this other important movement? How is it related to the Enlightenment? Rintrah 15:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraphs 

message: This part should either be moved to the beginning of the section, or to its own separate section:
According to scholarly opinion , the Enlightenment (if thought of as a short period) was preceded by the Age of Reason or (if thought of as a long period) by the Renaissance and the Reformation. It was followed by Romanticism.
The boundaries of the Enlightenment cover much of the seventeenth century as well, though others term the previous era "The Age of Reason." For the present purposes, these two eras are split; however, it is equally acceptable to think of them conjoined as one long period.
Rintrah 15:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  why hasn't this been done? 212.219.238.192 (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeframe 

message: Although the title "Age of Enlightenment" would seem to refer to the whole social period involved, this article is exclusively concerned with Enlightenment thought, and I do not find articles elsewhere that treat the application of that thought in the world.  (Perhaps I am missing them?)  May I suggest that this article include a section on the concrete applications of Enlightenment philosophy?--Tbook 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Societal Effects of Enlightenment Thought 

message: I greatly prefer the language of this section as compared with how it was a few weeks ago. But I still believe the opening paragraph can be improved if the concurrent movement is named and the link between it and The Enlightenment is made clearer. Rintrah 13:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: The history section focuses on rationalist ideas, but philosophers like Hume and Berkeley, who are mentioned as Enlightenment thinkers were empiricists. This is not mentioned, though. Overall I think the article doesn't discuss empiricist ideas enough. Perhaps one could say that both empiricism and rationalism are Enlightenment ideas, though they oppose each other.
Settembrini 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empiricism vs rationalism 

message: Can some more people contribute to the template at the bottom of the page? Much appreciated...--Jazzwick 11:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding to Template

message: Also, could we have more citations/external links/references and such?--Jazzwick 11:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More External Links

message: Would it be worth it to start up a list of all the major works of the Enlightenment? Yes or no? Whatever the answer, can you state a reason?
Loves... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jazzwick (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd definitely say yes — after all, many of the ideas were spread by literary works, and in any case such works "exemplified the spirit", so to speak, of the Enlightenment. Please specify, however: do you mean works of or on? --AVIosad 22:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, I'm probably going to start tonight. I have quite a few works to list, but how am I going to ddo this? What type of list is it? etc...--Jazzwick 17:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says that Leibniz's 'On Wisdom' was a Major Work - are there any web versions and links to such? Sholto Maud 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember to include the works of David Hume, Adam Smith, and other members of The Select Society; The Select Society began the Enlightenment. Hume's "Treatise" and Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" are perhaps the most prolific texts of The Select Society. Also, you should include the works of Voltaire; Voltaire was a good friend of The Select Society, as well as one of the pioneers of deism. And perhaps you should include the American constitution; it was inspired by the Enlightenment. - R160K 13:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps include the works of Newton, Darwin and Galileo - these works helped inspire the Enlightenment - R160K 13:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Major Works of the Enlightenment

message: There is no table of contents and the time period of the enlightenment should be more explicitly stated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.169.36 (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one but it was hidden on the right below the infobox - I have corrected this. Abtract 12:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents and unclear time period 

message: For such a learned seeming article there is an amazing absence of citations - there were some so called "references" but these were not linked to the text anywhere so I have moved them to "further reading".Abtract 12:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No citations

message: There are two Polish entries that are disproportionately long. Since they are from the same country, I have a feeling a patriotic Polish editor might be behind them. Someone who frequents the article might like to trim it to something reasonable. Richard001 04:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Important contributors

message: What the hell means "shifting world view from the arcane square to a diamond shape", on the 3rd paragraph? If it does have a meaning can someone please rewrite it to something more intelligible? 89.181.66.84 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Does Chomsky really have anything important to say about the Enlightenment?  He is neither a historian nor a philosopher.68.35.195.194 (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, Noam Chomsky was not employed in the capacity of philosopher or historian at a university, but to suggest that this respected intellectual is not capable of commenting on history or philosophy is to engage in a demand for unreasonably narrow specialization from cited sources.  By this reasoning, should Juan Cole then be discredited as a source on contemporary Middle Eastern politics because his training is in history, or should Winston Churchill be ignored as a source on history because his primary careers were as a soldier and a politician?  Historymike (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chomsky?

message: After reviewing the page, and seeing that most of the major problems have been addressed, I took the liberty of removing the citation and cleanup tags.  I created the References section and added ten citations to get the page started, and the article appears to be much improved from its earlier incarnations.  I will continue to monitor and improve this page in the coming weeks. Historymike (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Citation and Cleanup Tags

message: The age of enlightenment was a far reaching movement. Social democracy is relatively insignificaNT To the article. At present it appears the the age of engligtenment was just some precursor to sd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.79.206 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that (81.104.245.2 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove social democracy box 

message: I have added the Dutch name, since there are many Dutch important persons and some books in the Enlightment could only be sold in hte NL Mallerd (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{lang-nl|de Verlichting}} 

message: If someone wants to know what The Enlightenment was called in another language, they can see that on the article about this topic on one the Wikipedia in the relevent language.  No translations are needed for the read to understand this article or to recognise what is being talked about.  I suggest they all be removed. --Gronky (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be no translations in the intro