Talk:Thomas Willis

Complete works online

Please see fr-wikipedia or de-wikipedia for links to the complete works online. JmCor (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Filial piety

(discussion begun on Kerowyn's talk page, alternated between talk pages so copied here for readers to follow)
Hi Kerowyn, What's not to like about this heading? Eddaido (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The phrase filial piety isn't very encyclopedic, plus it suggests a peculiarly Chinese idea. --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Then it would seem your education is lacking (if you think it is a Chinese idea) I'll fix it, don't you worry. Eddaido (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at this— pietas. Eddaido (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It still isn't encyclopedic. The word "monument" or "memorial" conveys the same idea and is more in line with an encyclopedia style. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 04:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

and this " Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." from Ten Commandments Eddaido (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about the existence of the concept. I'm saying that the use of it in this context is not encyclopedic. Incidentally, if you happen to have a citation for the fact that Browne built the church as a memorial to Thomas Willis, that would be great. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 16:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, it would probably be easier to move this discussion to the talk page. I've asked for some other opinions there. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 16:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Eddaido, I just wanted to let you know that I've provided a third opinion on this issue at the article's talk page; if you could participate in the discussion there, that'd be great! Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again - please note I have never expressed a wish to discuss this matter on my talk page. Eddaido (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Asking for a third opinion on section title regarding the church build by Willis' grandson. It was entitled "Filial piety". I changed it to "Memorial", and editor Eddaido changed it back. We've been discussing this, but the discussion doesn't seem very productive. See my talk page and his talk page here. Opinions on this would be welcome.--Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 16:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I'm tending to agree with Kerowyn on this one; "Filial piety" isn't a particularly descriptive subsection name, when we're really just talking about the memorial church. "Memorial" definitely sounds better to me. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Writkeeper guy, it might help if you could recap the points already made on his talk page and apparently ignored by Kerowyn. In fact why not knit them together and put them here to save further mucking about. Eddaido (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to use the phrase 'filial piety.' On Wikipedia, buildings, plaques, etc. dedicated to the memory of a deceased person are nearly always referred to as a 'memorial' or a 'monument.' It would make more sense on Browne Willis' page, as an example of his filial piety, but on this page it doesn't fit. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note}

04:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Eddaido, I'm not really sure what you're asking me to do. I read the conversation on each of your talk pages. I understand that filial piety as a concept exists in Western culture; that's not in dispute.

Sokay, I've done it for you and put it below. Eddaido (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that "Filial piety," as a section header, is not terribly descriptive of what the section is about in this instance;

? it is very precisely accurate. Eddaido (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

something to the effect of "Monument" or "Memorial" or whatever would be much more effective, as the section is about his son's building of a memorial church. I'm open to suggestions on the subheader's actual wording, but ti should be descriptive in the vein of "monument." Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue is notability - it was an extraordinary thing to do - and the cannon are, I believe, still fired at anniversaries of his death. "Memorial" is so bland it disappears into the mush. Filial piety is very precisely accurate and draws attention. May I change it back now? Eddaido (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you may not (it's "filial piety" at the moment anyway, so there's nothing to change, even if the discussion was over). The issue is not notability: notability has nothing whatsoever to do with this; I think you mean "significance". The fact that this has a subsection at all is emphasis enough; we don't need to include flowery, imprecise language in the subsection to emphasize it further. "Filial piety" is imprecise because it says nothing about what he did, or about what makes it an exceptional display of such; plenty of people have filial piety. If Thomas Willis had other children, one could reasonably expect a listing of all their children there and how they respected their father. The significant thing that the subsection discusses, the thing that makes it worth a subsection, is that his son built a memorial church, *not* that his son had filial piety, and the title needs to reflect that. Also, as an aside, please don't edit my posts inline like that; it makes the conversation much harder to follow. Thanks.Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kerowyn, I'd really appreciate it if you would also refrain from changing the subheader until our discussion is complete here. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, Writ Keeper. Eddadio, building a church, statue, etc in the memory of a deceased loved one is not extraordinary. It's a very common thing that doesn't require elevated language to make it more obvious. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 02:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case what the man did is very far from common, downright odd, eccentric. Eddaido (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, there is such a gap in communication between the three of us. Same words but such quite different meanings drawn from them. Eddaido (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna give this another shot. Kerowyn: building a church in the memory of a loved one is quite extraordinary; how many people do you know have the resources to build a church? That is why the information is significant enough to keep in the article; it's not every day that someone builds a new church in memory of his father. But Eddaido: the point is that it takes the building of a church for his son's filial piety to become remarkable and worthy of inclusion. There are many ways of demonstrating filial piety; the interesting thing in the subsection in question is *not* that his son merely demonstrated filial piety, but that he *built a church* in memorial to his father. That is the important fact to take away from the subsection, and so that's why the title of the subsection should refer to the church, not filial piety. Do y'all get what I'm saying? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about the inclusion of the material. The fact that the church was built in the memory of Thomas Willis is certainly notable and worth including. It's the title of the subsection that I think should be changed. Also, I believe it was the grandson that built the church, not the son (which is neither here nor there, but just FYI). Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 04:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Solution

A particular editor has written most of this article. I will be happy to abide by his judgement as to what if any of my insertion should remain to keep the article balanced and integrated. I'll let Charles Matthews know. Eddaido (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made a section for "Family" right at the end, as is conventional, and placed the material on Fenny Stratford church as a subsection in it. I see that the ODNB has details of the architects used (Edward Wing then John Simmonds) and the Gothic style used, but that's for the other article. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for your help! Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 23:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the advocacy of beating patients with sticks last sentence of the third paragraph in the Research Activities section - Unfortunately, his enlightenment did not improve his treatment of patients, advocating in some cases to hit the patient over the head with sticks.

I've searched the entire reference source and can't find anything. Consider rewording to align with the source or remove the sentence.

Essent (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)