![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I agree that this article is currently sucky. Hippie bias in the article. Needs to be connected more with the other Materialism article. That "personal relationships" should be put above wealth/objects is an assertion Wikipedia is not entitled to make. But since when do anti-Materialists bother with any restriction on what they can say and pretend to be neutral. Colour me successfully offended. If this kind of thing isn't brought into check across the whole encyclopedia, someone else, not me, will create a right-wing fork of the whole damn thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.252.224.17 ( talk • contribs) .
What 'owning something in spirit' means should be clarified in the article, or the sentence using the phrase should be re-worked. Threepenpals ( talk) 07:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This diff url [1] shows that the following gibberish was added by the anonymous user 64.78.86.108. In case this gibberish does make sense, then you can add it back but rewrite in a comprehensible format.
Here is the gibberish:
After rereading this material 5 times, the words seem to make a kind of sense. However, given the anonymous edit, I am still suspicious of this content
WpZurp 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Have just been reading the "philosophical" materialism page. If I understand the above gibberish, it is talking about a "philosophy", maybe Dialectical materialism or Historical materialism. But I've wasted enough time justifying myself already.
WpZurp 00:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Translating from Jargon to English as an intellectual exercise:
And it stops there. Disappointing. I was hoping to learn something about what can be gained by looking at Materialism from those three POV. Oh well.
I still think the best definition of materialism is
Regards, Ben Aveling 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Does this page add value? Should it be tagged for cleanup? Or for AfD? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Could not this page on "Materialism" be subsumed under "Greed" or "Avarice"? Materialism is a philosophical view-point, not a human failing of some kind. I don't think many people used "material" in this mistaken sense before the release of Madonna's "Material Girl."
Agreed. This page is pure mashed potatoes. No one with any modicum of philosophical training recognizes the word "materialism" as used on this page as having any meaning. As the previous commentator suggests, "materialism" is the same thing as "greed," "avarice," "cupidity," etc., How does one recommend a page for deletion? Stealstrash ( talk) 20:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
All right, folks. Had decided, given what seems to be the Talk Page's consensus, to redirect this page to Greed. Apparently this was not "constructive." What I would like to read is a convincing case for keeping this page, which strikes me as as more of an echo-chamber for certain clichés than a sober, disinterested encyclopaedia entry. Stealstrash ( talk) 20:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this page deserves deletion, and I suggest that it be redirected to consumerism, which is the correct term, even according to the wikipedia page on consumerism. In case someone thinks there is anything worth saving here, it can be added to the consumerism page. Khaydock ( talk) 17:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
"raison d'être for human existence" actually means "reason for existence for human existence", maybe drop one "existence" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.22.137 ( talk) 22:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)