Finished. Finally. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
That having been said, I would submit Brian May, the guitarist from Queen who is also a PhD in astrophysics, Jeff "Skunk" Baxter, guitarist from the Doobie Brothers who has worked as a paid consultant in the aerospace industry, particular in the area of missile defense, and the girl who played Winnie on The Wonder Years, who went on to become a published (peer-reviewed journal) mathematician.
Physics and math are not essentially the same. You may as well say English and Latin are basically the same. Theology is not a branch of philosophy. To think so shows blatant ignorance. Also, Brian May only finished his PhD what - last year? He's made no significant contributions to the field. Additionally, while he's a good guitarist, I'd hardly call the man a genius even at that. Half of my friends would be on the list if you want studio musicians with advanced degrees.
I would not submit Tony Bennett or Jeff Goldlum (singer/painter and actor/jazz pianist respectively) because they are only know for their secondary endeavours because of the fame from their primary ones.
On the other hand, Johnny Carson was a talk show host, drummer, magician, and linguist (Russian and Swahili).
Chomski is no more a polymath than Thomas Sowell is. They're both specialists in one field (linguistics and economics, respectively) who are ensconced in cushy academic situations where they (using researchers) can publish on anything they want. Note that I picked one from the right to compare with Chomski. Fair and balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.35.192 ( talk) 20:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
If a reliable source has called someone a "polymath", we should include them. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This paragraph...
In other cases, polymath is used to describe a meaning in a continuum of concepts, ranging from the person who knows a lot about several fields of study or has a varied or encyclopaedic knowledge (which will be called the first meaning in this article) to the person who has proficiency and competence in multiple fields or even to the person who has excelled in multiple fields (which will be called the second meaning). However, this distinction between the first and second meanings of the word might be subjective and even artificial since the existence of the last sense is only justified by those people who use the word polymath, in a more selective way, to denote someone with a verifiable proficiency in multiple fields, or, in an even more selective way, to denote someone with verifiable excellence or accomplishments in multiple fields (see the Etymological differentiation between Polymath and Polyhistor for an example of this distinction).
...was removed 3 years ago but the article still refers to the first and second meaning of polymath as if the paragraph were still present.-- Lairor ( talk) 03:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The entire subsection on the Renaissance Ideal reads like an opinion piece lamenting about how today's men study a very specialized subfield, without sufficient citations. In reality, students attain a wide exposure to education, possibly more than the gentleman living in the Renaissance from high school where students are themselves encouraged to learn from as diverse a range of fields as possible. Hence the NPOV. Anivisual ( talk) 04:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia implying that only MEN can be polymaths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 ( talk) 16:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Shen Kua.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
I appreciate the difficulty of defining polymath and distinguishing among candidates. However, "Isaac Newton, ... are examples of people widely viewed as geniuses, but who are not generally considered to be polymaths." is almost too silly for words. I add this comment immediately after "Vast quantities of Arabs" to make the point even more clear. For my Edits and further comments see List of polymaths. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 11:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
MatthewCummins ( talk) 13:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
What happened to the page with a list of people who are held to be polymaths? It's gone entirely. -- 96.238.20.201 ( talk) 18:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 17:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I have made a few small edits to the second paragraph of the lead/lede to improve clarity and conciseness. However, I feel there is something that still needs improvement in that paragraph. It seems a bit wordy. Also, there is quite a variety of terms. I see "notion", then "tenet", then "concept", and finally "notion" again. I don't know what to do, if anything. Perhaps someone who really knows the subject could ponder this and perhaps improve the paragraph further. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it still appropriate to reference Rolf Harris in the 'Other uses' section of this page given his recent high profile conviction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.160.139 ( talk) 15:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe he's published books that are all over the Dewey Decimal System. See Isaac Asimov.-- 153.18.17.22 ( talk) 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I know this is old but just had to comment. 'If a reliable source has called him a "Polymath",'. By reliable source I assume you mean an 'expert' on polymaths, and I would assume other forms of genius. Got news for you no such thing really exists. 'Polymath' and genius in general are poorly understood by academics, and (I'm pretty sure) little or no real substantial or quantitative research on this has been done. Even just reading this talk page is enough to show that even at the basic classification level things are pretty ropy.
BTW, By my definition a polymath is a person who can turn their abilities to many different disparate talents and can attain some reasonable level of ability in at least several. A genius level polymath can do the above and also achieve very high levels of talent in (at least) one field and can use knowledge gained from one area to use in and improve another. - A primary distinguishing feature most or all polymaths is a very good or near eidetic memory.
My list of genius level polymaths if I made one might start - Leonardo Da Vinci, then Nickola Tesla, then Albert Einstein, another might be Winston Churchill.
I doubt that any kind of really reliable list or criteria can be made, which basically leaves Wikipedia looking a bit foolish..
Lucien86 (
talk)
16:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Neil deGrasse Tyson called Asimov a polymath at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwmIG8lRfQ 0:50 Just sayin'. 178.183.219.48 ( talk) 20:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This article has a large amount of original research. In particular, I see that an IP editor has introduced a long list of arbitrary "renaissance men" essentially reinstating the list that was correctly removed by User:Dweller a few days ago. Arbitrary lists of persons, selected by Wikipedia editors, are not permitted by the policy on original research, and is of dubious factual accuracy. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Including a partial list is WP:POV. A full list has been deemed by the community at several AfD debates to be impossible. I'd go for no names at all. -- Dweller ( talk) 20:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Brazilian jurist, writer, polyglot, politician, diplomat and philosopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.205.20.74 ( talk) 01:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
someone tried to add rabinath togare, and i don't think he is one.
why do i have to be nice to hindus? they've constantly overemphasised their role in mathematics, even when boyer has given them more than they deserve.
now they're trying to add some loser "postmodern blablabla" as a polymath. like this hindu was ever da vinci. give me a break man.
174.3.155.181 ( talk) 04:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Have been scouring the web for a reliable list of polymaths. None exists. It's a shame that the list was scrubbed from the main wikiedia article, as this was one of the few good resources on the topic. For my own research, I was able to cull from the talk and history pages, but not all users will access this.
Any interest in reviving this section, controversy be damned? This is the sort of thing that wikipedia should be doing. -- Iasonaki ( talk) 13:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I came here expecting to see genuine Polymaths such as Francis Galton (not present). Instead I see massive quantities of Arabic names, leading to people whose accomplishments are mostly trivial. The whole list seems somewhat ridiculous, and a massive re-write is perhaps in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.185.81 ( talk) 04:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Mathematician, physicist, philosopher
Mathematician, physicist, philosopher
Ethical philosopher, Aesthetic philosopher, mathematician, political theorist, literary contributor, teacher, Metaphysician, psychology, epistemology, wrestler in his early years
Natural philosopher, Metaphysician, mathematician, spiritual leader, astronomer, layed foundations for western music theory
Biochemist, philosopher, writer
Philosopher, Mathematician, psychology.
Jurist, politician, diplomat, writer, philosopher, polyglot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.205.20.74 ( talk) 01:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Biologist, physicist, metaphysician, ethical philosopher, political philosopher, teacher, Zoologist, founder of Logic, Music, Poetry, Theatre, Rhetoric
Metaphysician, philosopher, composer, poet, novelist, artist
Artist, musician, inventor, anatomical anthropologist, pioneer
Minor philosopher, economist, astronomer, physicist, mathematician
Physicist, historian, egyptologist, polyglot, medical doctor
Architect, biologist, physicist
Artist, writer, pharmacist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.190.29 ( talk) 11:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Historian, archeologist, biologist, chemist, medical doctor
Actress, model, writer, musician, and former pornographic actress
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AL12345 ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Some People unaware Of that but I would like to add a Article on this page 21aryan ( talk) 02:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
There is nowhere in the article which clearly describes the distinction between the primary and secondary definitions of "polymath". Can someone who knows add this in please??? NZUlysses ( talk) 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Although to be honest I suspect this distinction is arbitrarily made for the purposes of this article. NZUlysses ( talk) 00:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
A Polymath is probably just a Savant with more than one talent; a rare individual indeed. --lbeben 01:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Um, related to the definition of polymath itself, citation [2] refers to the term "polyhistor" and links back to this article for clarification -- but the linked section is missing. This either needs removed or repaired. KhyranLeander 16:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khyranleander ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
At The Polymath#Summary, I've summarised a 2018 book which is apparently the first English-language book on the topic. Almost all of the summary could be posted in this article. I propose that we introduce it with "In his 2018 book The Polymath, British author Waqas Ahmed defines polymaths as those who..." and then the rest of the second paragraph and the rest of the Summary section, excluding the little paragraph at the end ("Throughout the book..."). Ahmed has posts at the Open University and the London Interdisciplinary School so counts as an academic, so this could be a subsection of the "In academia" section of the article, but where it goes is not so important. Because I wrote the article about the book on paid time, I have a COI so I would be grateful if someone would implement this change or give me permission to do so. MartinPoulter ( talk) 15:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The whole section "In Academia" reads like shameless self-promotion and copy-pasting (not even in Wiki format - references left in text as e.g. "(R. Root-Bernstein, 2009, p. 857)" straight out of someone's thesis). Who is supposed to understand this babble - "He utilized a hermeneutic-phenomenological approach...." - this is irrelevant & spams up the page. Suggest delete the whole thing. -- anonymous ( talk) 23:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:247A:6B01:5158:15AA:67E7:8BCA ( talk)
I agree, I came here to comment the exact same thing. 24.36.195.185 ( talk) 04:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)