Talk:Polymath: Difference between revisions

Education Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

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)[reply]

"In less formal terms, a polymath (or polymathic person) may simply refer to someone who is very knowledgeable." The first sentence doesn't seem formal at all. :/ 76.6.220.248 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem - the article states that all people in the list have 'several' sources describing them as a polymath; in fact, the majority have only one. I've called for citations and after a reasonable period of time (e.g. a month) will remove those which only have one reliable source. This should be at the very least an article in an online publication, not a blog unless the blog is by someone particularly respect for reasons other than being a blogger.NZUlysses (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the entire list should just be scrapped, or at least made into a separate page. One can keep including people in such a list until one's eyes bleed and the current one reflects the interest of those that have been active contributors more than it serves the purpose of giving examples - which is the only purpose of such a list. The description of someone as a polymath and similar designations is highly subjective anyway.

Hi - please sign your posts in future :-) . I'd support this, although I'd uphold strict standards for any other page as well. What do others think?NZUlysses (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would move the lists rather than scrap them. Put them in a subsidiary article, or put them at the end. In either case, put the lists side by side, rather than interpose text between them. Drz1627 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, the lists are bogus and confusing as is. A nod is given at the beginning of the article that the criteria for polymath-ism changes over time. This should become more explicit. The lists should be broken into eras, so that the degree of learning required in say, in the 1800s is easy to appreciate and compare with the degree of learning in the 1100s. Drz1627 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these people have RS calling them a polymath. Is the list to be unbounded? William Stanley Jevons (1835–1882); William Whewell, 1794-1866; Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869); Joseph Leidy (1823-91); Francis Galton 1822-1911 [see: Nature 415, 19-20 (3 January 2002)]; Joseph Lucas (1846–1926) [see: Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 2004; v. 225; p. 67-88]; Alfred Russel Wallace (1862-1880); Kenneth Essex Edgeworth (1880-1972) [see: Vistas in Astronomy, vol. 40, Issue 2, pp.343-354]; Blaise Pascal; Francis Bacon. I added Thomas Young to the list, along with a RS for him. Drz1627 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Benjamin Franklin is a glaring omission (if Thomas Jefferson is included). And, on a more specific line, how about Ronald Fisher - a fantastically insightful and productive geneticist who also happened to revolutionize statistics ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.11.163 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Benjamin Franklin, the term polymath is used as a description of him... Endogenous -i (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Liang Zhuge, may qualify: "Zhuge was not only an important military strategist and statesman; he was also an accomplished scholar and inventor."

Also, the Egyptian Imhotep, who held political posts, was an architect, a doctor, and a type of futurist. Letranova (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Theodore Roosevelt a Renaissance man. From his article: President of the United States, professional historian, naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier; small-town sheriff in the Dakota Territory; first American to be awarded the Nobel Prize. Roosevelt's definitive 1882 book The Naval War of 1812 was standard history for two generations. He was runner-up in the Harvard boxing championship. Jimpoz (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Not to mention the first non-Japanese judoka in the U.S. You've pointed out a basic problem with Wikipedia: common knowledge and anything a normal high school student learns is considered "original research". Reductio ad absurdum: You can't say "fire is hot" in a Wikipedia article without citing a so-called "reliable source". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.35.192 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very interesting, but it's WP:OR. If a WP:RS calls him a "polymath", he should be included. If not, not. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I humbly submit for consideration Frederick II, Holy Roman Emporer, b. 1194, died 1250. A linguist (spoke nine languages, literate in seven), effective warrior and sagacious negotiator, founder of the University of Naples, religious skeptic and defier of Popes, eternally curious human being who would not miss any chance at learning from the people he met, fought, or conquered, the last word in his time on falconry and generally a zoological scholar, lawgiver -- and untiring womanizer.

Known in his time as "stupor mundi," perhaps not a bad substitute for "polymath" in the 13th century. The object for several centures of the hopes of many as a prelude to the second coming of the messiah; see Norman Cohn, "The Pursuit of the Millennium," Pimlico paperback 2004, Chapter 6, pages 108-126. John Julius Norwich also devotes an entire chapter to him in his The Middle Sea, Vintage paperback 2006, Chapter IX, pages 153-175. There is a Wiki page about him, with many other references.

I agree with inclusion of Frederick II

PRC 07 (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

worth a look if you aren't familiar with him.

sorry -- forgot to sign this. Joel Bergsman, joel@bergsman.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergsyj (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been plenty of modern scholars who've written about Frederick II. If any considered him a polymath, they'd have used the term. We couldn't include him in the list without breaching NPOV. --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why Prince Charles is not listed as a Polymath (and/or Renaissance man). By what I know of him as well as what is documented on the wikipedia article about him he is a man of varied knowledge and talents, enjoying a range from architecture to organic medicine. Should he not be included amongst the modern polymaths?? Lachy123 14:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source describing him as such. But I'm not sure he's a polymath, rather a self-taught jack of all trades, master of none. They're interests and hobbies, not areas in which he is an acknowleged expert. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to chuckle at the suggestion of Prince Charles being a polymath. He is hardly another Da Vinci! Fine, he's painted a few pictures. Fact is, he's utterly ordinary, and there is little or no substance for claiming otherwise. RoverRexSpot (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? Guinness4life (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Ja'far al-Sadiq included in the list of polymath? Even according to his wikipedia bio stated as a polymath. It states that 'He was a polymath: an astronomer, alchemist, Imam, Islamic scholar, Islamic theologian, writer, philosopher, physician, physicist and scientist. He was also the teacher of the famous chemist, Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber), and of Abu Hanifa,[5] founder of a Sunni Madh'hab.' If he taught Gerber(another polymath) how can he the teacher be excluded? I recently tried to include him and he was deleted! I expect to see him reinstated.--Eesa111 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Why isn't he included. All Muslims know that he was a leading light in numerous fields.--IsaKazimi (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source has called him a "polymath", we'll happily include him. --Dweller (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Jefferts Schori is the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, making her the first female Primate in the Anglican Communion. She also has a BSc., and MSc. and a PhD. in oceanography and she is a qualified pilot. I doubt her work in oceanography would merit her a Wikipedia article, but it is discussed in the existing biographical article. Google scholar turns out several articles written or co-written by her on squid-realted subjects: [1]

Rowan Williams is a senior cleric, former professor of systematic Theology, a published poet, cultural critic and advocate of the Welsh language. Do either of them merit inclusion? I can found one source describing Williams as polymath after only a second's search, but a casual search doesn't reveal any source for Jefferts Schori. Pelegius (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added Rowan Williams, this time with The Independent as a source, in adition to the previously cited source. I can doubtless find others, but that would be too much clutter. As The Independent is an enormously well-respected paper, noted for its objectivity, can we all agree that it is a dependeble source? Pelegius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Rowan Williams back in, finding him removed. His inclusion is challengable. He's been called a polymath only as an adjective, not as a noun ("the polymath primate") but IMO he's worthy of inclusion for now. If anyone has any ojections to his inclusion, please give your reasoning before moving him to the 'removed' list below.NZUlysses (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's not an adjective, that's a noun in apposition. Your calling it an adjective is in fact original research and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia.

As per here we need a reliable source that calls Muhammad a polymath or it will have to be deleted from this article. You cant collect a few praises and deduce that he's a polymath. Remember, among other things that Muhammad has been called, he's also been called very negative labels (as seen here, some of the labels are pedophile, pervert, tyrant, devil born satan, etc). Someone whose integrity and character is so widely disputed like this cannot make it to the list unless there is atleast one reliable source that calls him a polymath. Is there one? Please bring it here, otherwise leave his name out of the article. To deduce that he is a polymath because he was called all those nice things, is original research. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources in the article which refer to him as a "Universal Man", which according to the Polymath#Related terms section, essentially means the same thing as "Homo Universalis", "Polymath" and "Renaissance Man". His integrity or character has nothing to do with it. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about his character. I'd want some kind of clarity that the sources mean to refer to Homo Universalis, rather than referring to his relationship with the universe in a spiritual manner. --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'some of the labels are pedophile, pervert, tyrant, devil born satan, etc'- His character has nothing to do with whether he is a polymath or not. A polymath is defined by their knowledge not their character. So to bring that up is just petty.--Eesa111 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, it was brought up 13 months ago! Shall we move on? --Dweller (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm muslim but wouldn't say that Muhammed(s) was a polymath in the academic sense.IsaKazimi (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poincaré seems to be missing. He is a polymath - you can just go to his bio here in Wikipedia to find out. Shouldn't we include him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freiddie (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source that describes him as a "polymath"? --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes poincare is missing. that he is the last polymath seems to be common knowledge. i remember long time ago i read such a thing. i will look for a reference. i guess even hilbert is missing.--Xashaiar (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i found one mention of hilbert as a polymath in the reference Nihon Kagakushi Gakkai "Historia Scientiarum: International Journal of the History of Science Society of Japan",Publisher: The Society, 1983 (Item notes: no.24-29), where it is stated that in page 129: We can ask ourselves, as the great polymath, David Hilbert once asked, ,,ob der Mathematik einst bevorsteht, was anderen Wissenschaften langst widerfahren... but i recognise that this might not be enough to put his name there.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Noam Chomsky? The guy has been cited more than anyone else in hitory and has contributed to linguistics, psychology, and political thought; as yet I can find no reliable source describing him as a polymath though.NZUlysses (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC) So far I have found one source: http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1825/18250040.htm. As per my discussion above I'll refrain from adding him until I can find a second source.NZUlysses (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will second this notion. I think he is also widely respected as a philosopher and held debates with folks like Michel Foucault among other philosophers. Letranova (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Octavio Paz was a poet, writer, political figure (diplomat), anthropologist, philosopher and Nobel Prize Winner in literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letranova (talk • contribs) 23:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous. Provide a RS that calls him "polymath" and in he goes. --Dweller (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See page 227 here: The Essential Ilan Stavans By Ilan Stavans Edition: illustrated Published by Routledge, 2000 ISBN 0415927544, 9780415927543.Letranova (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Almost there. What's the direct quote? --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another American polymath. Here's the RS:

Humans in Universe: Miscellanea Mediaevalia. By Richard Buckminster Fuller, Anwar S. Dil Edition: illustrated Published by Walter de Gruyter, 1983 ISBN 0899250017, 9780899250014.(see page 13)

Also: From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism By Fred Turner Edition: illustrated Published by University of Chicago Press, 2006 ISBN 0226817415, 9780226817415 (see page 55)Letranova (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the verbatim quote, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a budding polymath (computing, games, music, writing, art and design) I can't find somewhere to talk to similar people. Where would such a place be? Jackpot Den (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can chat to me. I am an aspiring polymath, although there doesn't seem enough time to pursue all my desires day-to-day. Look up on Google there are polymath and 'renaissance man' websites, societies and forums. Lachy123 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I must say that describing oneself as a polymath is a bit narcissistic, I hope that I can help. I would try any MENSA group first and foremost, though they tend to be a bit old and European Values based. Second, try the mathematics, physics, chemistry, or any other interesting division's colloquiums at one of the local universities. Third, try a local Scout Meeting. I know, I know, Scouts? But really, they tend to be a bit more physically polymathic, fishing, rowing, knots, fire, skills, etc. If any of these don't fetch your interest, then try the internet. But be warned, don't feed the trolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.237.253 (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great comment. You can always drop me a line. While I don't consider myself a polymath I'd say that I'm interested in transdisciplinary topics. I think that folks we currently consider polymaths today, in the future they will be just another person in the crowd. I think resources like the Web and Wikipedia will lead to this type of change in our cultures. Also, I'd recommend the following topics to these folks: interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, portal:philosophy and the portal:thinking as great places to feed your thirst for knowledge. Letranova (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a polymath is properly a person who has demonstrated excellence or above average ability in several unrelated fields. Different fields of science don't really count as the core educational requirements are essentially the same. A scientist who also happens to write novels in his spare time and can play the piano is not a polymath unless his novels are independently and subjectively acclaimed (by people other than his friends) or he is recognized as a very exceptional piano player, not just someone who just happens to know how to play the piano a bit. This list of famous polymaths could probably be shorter as a lot of these polymaths were mere hobbyists in various sub fields, not experts who could take the place of a person who has devoted his life to a single one of any of them. Mr. ATOZ (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. However, if they've been described as polymaths by RS, your opinion is POV. --Dweller (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why is Jefferson in both lists? 2. Why is Aristotle not in the first list? 3. Why is Thomas Jefferson on the first list and Benjamin Franklin isn't? I am not an expert on the subject in any means, but this either needs explanation or correction. Thank you. 74.61.61.225 (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that there are two lists on this page? The second one seems much better in my opinion. Zazaban (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're different. The text explains. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between the primary definition and the secondary definition needs more clarification. Dagordon01 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are different, why is some of the same text in both? Kennedy's quote about Jefferson appears in both lists and as a result on my original reading I assumed that the second list was a mistaken redundancy. Astonzia (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Anyone listed should have RS to say they were a polymath. Massive quantities of Arabic names perhaps reflects the astonishing contribution Arabs have made to world culture, especially in the medieval period. Your perception of their accomplishments as "trivial" is your POV and has an uncomfortable undertone to it, undermining your comments. Finally, if you have RS to show Francis Galton is a "polymath", please do use it! --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an arabic name does not make a person Arab. they are mostly persian.--Xashaiar (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! such ignorance bordering on racism.IsaKazimi (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These names have been added to the article over time, but have no RS stating they are/were "polymath". By longstanding consensus, we only add those to the list who are called "polymath"s in RS, otherwise it is OR and/or POV:

• Richard Feynman (1918-1988), physicist, mathematician, author, artist and musician.

(You should be able to find references in his books themselves. This may in part prove his authorship. You can watch him sketch in a video currently posted on Google video).

• Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (Shrii Shrii Andandamurti) (1921 – 1990) was an Indian philosopher, social revolutionary, poet and linguist. One of the foremost spiritual teachers of Tantra and Yoga of the twentieth century and the founding figure behind Ananda Marga.^[1]

• Robert Nozick (1938-2002), American philosopher, political theorist, and economist. Famous for his "unusual method" of drawing upon disciplines outside of the social sciences (such as biology, mathematical statistics, and theology) for analysis within his writings and classes he taught at Harvard University.^[2]

• Brian Harold May, CBE (born July 19, 1947, in Hampton) is an English musician and astrophysicist, most widely known as the lead guitarist and backing, sometimes lead, vocalist of the rock band Queen. As a guitarist he uses his home built guitar,"Red Special", and has composed hits such as "Tie Your Mother Down", "Fat Bottomed Girls", "We Will Rock You", "Who Wants to Live Forever", and "I Want It All". He was ranked as the 39th greatest guitarist of all time by Rolling Stone Magazine.^[3] As of April 2008 he is the Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University.^[4][5]

• Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903-1994), Israeli philosopher and scientist known for his outspoken, often controversial opinions on Judaism, ethics, religion and politics. He taught at the Hebrew University for nearly six decades, lecturing in biochemistry, neurophysiology, philosophy and the history of science.

• Le Corbusier (1887–1965), a Swiss-born architect, designer, urbanist, writer, painter, poet, theorist, sculptor, who is famous for his contributions to what now is called Modern Architecture. In his 30s he became a French citizen. He was a pioneer in theoretical studies of modern design and was dedicated to providing better living conditions for the residents of crowded cities. His career spanned five decades, with his iconic buildings constructed throughout central Europe, India, Russia, and one structure each in North and South America. He was also an urban planner, painter, sculptor, writer, and modern furniture designer.

• Muhammad Iqbal (Urdu: محمد اقبال) born (November 9 1877 – April 21 1938) was a Muslim poet, philosopher, Islamic scholar, writer, lawyer, economist, revolutionist, political thinker, mystic and politician born in Sialkot, British India (now in Pakistan), whose poetry in Urdu and Persian is considered to be among the greatest of the modern era,^[6] and whose vision of an independent state for the Muslims of British India was to inspire the creation of Pakistan.

• Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965), an Alsatian-German theologian, musician, philosopher, humanitarian, and physician. He is perhaps most famous for founding and sustaining the Lambaréné Hospital in Gabon, west central Africa, where he spent most of his life. He received the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize for his philosophy of Reverence for Life ("Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben"), based on the conviction that the respect for life is the highest principle. His "The Problem of Peace" lecture is considered to be one of the best speeches ever given.

• Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965), "A noted statesman and orator, leading Britain to victory in World War 2, Churchill was also an officer in the British Army, a historian, a journalist, a Nobel Prize-winning writer, and an impressionist artist."

• Epifanio de los Santos (1871-1928), a Filipino historian, linguist, translator, biographer, poet, journalist, writer, editor, publisher, musician, expert pianist, master guitarist, violinist, artist, philologist, philosopher, bibliographer, literarian, jurist, government executive, lawyer, politician, outstanding civil servant, philantropist, antique/art/phonograph collector, bibliophile and great Filipino patriot. EDSA, a famous historical highway, was named in honor of him. Some of the highest titles given by his biographers, notable scholars and foreign critics would be "The First Filipino Academician", " Great among the Great Filipino scholars" and "Genius." His libraries and Filipiniana collections is one of the best in the world. Member of learned societies and man of so many talents and skills.

• José Rizal (1861-1896), a Filipino polyglot, linguist, novelist, poet, journalist, ophthalmologist, anthropologist, ethnologist, artist, sociologist and national hero. Rizal's 1896 military trial and execution made him a martyr of the Philippine Revolution. He is considered to be the "Pride of the Malay race".

• Henri Poincaré, physicist and mathematician who dabbled extensively in practically every field in mathematics.

• Rafael Francisco Osejo (1790–1848) "Born in Nicaragua and a prominent figure in the Independence of Central America, knowledgeable about mathematics, philosophy, politics, history and geography, was chamberlain of the Santo Tomas University in Costa Rica and occupied many positions in the government of several central American countries."

• William Whewell (1794-1866)

• Charles Peirce (1839–1914), was a mathematician, astronomer, chemist, geodesist, surveyor, cartographer, metrologist, spectroscopist, engineer, inventor; psychologist, philologist, lexicographer, historian, economist, lifelong student of medicine; book reviewer, dramatist, actor, short story writer; phenomenologist, semiotician, logician, rhetorician and metaphysician.

• Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi (Abulcasis) (936-1013), an Andalusian-Arab physician, surgeon, chemist, cosmetologist, and scientist.^[7]

• Al-Muqaddasi (born 945), an Arab geographer, social geographer, Earth scientist, Islamic scholar, and traveller.^[8]

• Taqi al-Din (1526-1585), an Ottoman scientist, astronomer and astrologer, engineer and inventor, clockmaker and watchmaker, mathematician, physicist, botanist, pharmacist and physician, teacher, Islamic judge and Mosque timekeeper, and Islamic philosopher and theologian; "a prolific writer on all aspects of science and natural philosophy";^[9] "excelled in several scientific fields such as mathematics, astronomy, engineering and mechanics, and optics";^[10] "described by his contemporaries as the greatest Scientist / Engineer on earth."^[11]

• Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak (1551-1602), an Indian "polymath", vizier, biographer, general, metaphysician, philosopher, poet, prose writer, statesman, and theologian.^[12]

• Su Song (1020–1101), a Song Dynasty Chinese statesman, astronomer, cartographer, horologist, pharmacologist, mineralogist, zoologist, botanist, mechanical engineer, architect, and ambassador to the Liao Dynasty; his most famous achievement was applying an escapement mechanism and the world's first known endless-power transmitting chain drive to operate the armillary sphere, opening doors, and mechanical-operated manikins (who announced the time on plaques and by sounding drums and bells) of his astronomical clock tower;^[13] the British historian, sinologist, and biochemist Joseph Needham stated that Su Song published "the greatest horological treatise of the Chinese middle ages."^[14]

• Katib Chelebi (1609-1657), also known as Hajji Khalifa, was an Ottoman scholar, bibliographer, geographer, and historian. His most famous work was the Bibliographical Encyclopaedia, written in Arabic. He also wrote many books in Turkish on historical and geographical subjects. ^[15][16]

• Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) was a French mathematician, philosopher and theologian.^[17]

• Ibrahim Muteferrika (1674-1745), an Ottoman publisher, printer, courtier, diplomat, man of letters, astronomer, historian, historiographer, Islamic scholar and theologian, sociologist,^[18] and the first Muslim to run a printing press with movable Arabic type.^[19]

• Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859), Humboldt's quantitative work on botanical geography was foundational to the field of biogeography. An inveterate explorer and a prolific author, von Humboldt was a complex figure: the archetypic modern, rational, and international scientist.^[20]

• Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), artist, author, counselor, linguist, naturalist, scientist, philosopher, physician, herbalist, poet, visionary and composer.

• Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) (1091-1161);^[21] an Andalusian Arab physician, pharmacist, surgeon, Islamic scholar, and teacher.^[21]

• Ibn Bajjah (Avempace) (died 1138);^[21] an Andalusian Arab astronomer, philosopher, physician, physicist, scientist, and poet.^[21]

• Muhammad al-Idrisi (Dreses) (1100-1166);^[21] a Moroccan Arab cartographer, court official, Earth scientist, geographer and traveller.^[21]

• Matteo Ricci^{[citation needed]} (1552-1610); an Italian Jesuit and a phenomenal figure in the East-West scientific exchange in China. "Matteo Ricci was the perfect man of culture, a polymath versed in all things, mathematics and literature, philosophy and poetry, mechanics and astronomy." ^[22] In collaboration with Xu Guangqi, he was also the first to translate classic Confucian texts into Latin and classic Western texts into Chinese (including portions of Euclid's Elements).

• Joseph Pomeroy Widney ^{[citation needed]} (1841-1938); "[i]n a similarly polymathic vein, Joseph Widney was an early president of the University of Southern California...."^[23]

• Jagadis Chandra Bose (1858-1937);^[24] Indian scientist, Bangla science fiction writer, and "a rare polymath who was equally at home in physics, biology, botany, archaeology and literature."^[24]

• Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941);^[25] an Indian Bengali polymath; "He was a polymath: a poet, fiction writer, dramatist, painter, educator, political thinker, philosopher of science."^[25]

• H. G. Wells ^{[citation needed]} (1866–1946); "Fifty years ago, the British polymath and amateur historian was able to compress the history of the world up to 1920 into one volume..."^[26]

• C. B. Fry ^{[citation needed]} (1872-1956); "Footballer, cricketer, politician and polymath"^[27]

Finished. Finally. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Dweller (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just restored some of those polymaths in the article along with reliable references, and removed them from this list accordingly. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super. That's the way to do it. --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- I would suggest that physics and math are essentially the same for determining a polymath, and the example of Blaise Pascal shows that only three areas of expertise are sufficient. Especially tricky when you consider that theology is simply a branch of philosophy. 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).

Learning the rudiments of a language does not make you a linguist. I know a few languages. I'm not a linguist.

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)[reply]

If a reliable source has called someone a "polymath", we should include them. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia implies nothing. Wikipedia is a mirror of what is said by reliable sources. If you have RS saying that any woman from history was a "polymath" please add her to the article. --Dweller (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Hildegard de Bingen, there really aren't very many. Blame the platykurtic Male IQ curve or the patriarchy, but you won't find many RS's that say otherwise.Guinness4life (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see Da Vinci wasn't on the list of recognized polymaths, given that his picture is used as an example.

Between the "Revision as of 23:38, 13 October 2008" and the "Revision as of 04:43, 14 October 2008" the List of Recognized Polymaths was changed, and I can't see all the changes in the diffs. What's going on there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alucinor (talk • contribs)

Good spot. I'll take a look. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should now be fixed. There was a partial reversion of blanking that didn't get it all. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I saw this:

"Many fields of interest take years of singleminded devotion to achieve expertise, often requiring starting at an early age. Also, many require cultural familiarity that may be inaccessible to someone not born and raised in that culture. In many such cases, it is realistically possible to achieve only knowledge of theory if not practical experience. For example, on a safari, a jungle native will be a more effective guide than an American scientist who may be educated in the theories of jungle survival but did not grow up acquiring his knowledge the hard way."

But how does getting it the "hard way" require a specific culture that can only be learned at a certain age frame and then that's it? mike4ty4 (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge list here, with not a single reference. I propose deletion.

In fact quite a few entries are clearly not polymath:

• Conan-Doyle records at Watson's very first meeting that Sherlock Holmes' learning is in fact eccentric and specialised - he knows nothing of astronomy or philosophy, only of things relevant to detective work.
• Gregory House obviously has a huge knowledge of medicine and very little of anything else.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very encyclopedic. The list could be removed, or hived off to a daughter article, List of fictional polymaths? --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. Mike R (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bgs893 (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC) It helps people relate polymaths to fictional people that they do know, like Artemis Fowl, so it helps them understand, really what Wikipedia is meant to do[reply]

Especially the first one. "A person whose knowledge is not restricted to one subject area." So I guess EVERYONE's a polymath then?--207.237.245.50 (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Young is the proverbial polymath and yet he is not included in the main article! For those of you who are Zionists, even Albert Einstein admired him and regarded him as a genius. What sort of list is this which chooses to exclude Young, one of the greatest polymaths of all time?

If a reliable source has called him a "polymath", we should include him. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If a reliable source has called him a "polymath", we should include him. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I will look for RS. He's published in every category except philosophy.