Talk:Axial age
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] What does the phrase Axial Age mean
Could someone please explain why that historical period around 600 B. C. is called "Axial". I understand that some momentous changes occured then, but why "Axial"? Is it in the sense of pivotal? a turning point?
Axial in the phrase Axial Age should indeed be interpreted to mean pivotal. The name is derived from the German word Achse. Achse means both axis and pivot. A German will understand this to mean pivot. This word Achse has unfortunately been translated into the word axis and is used by English speaking scientists since. Signed: Poldertijger.
If NicM feels the need to squeeze again or to suggest that my article is in need of expert opinion, I'd feel much obliged if he would e-mail me first. To delete half my article and then remark that my article is unintelligable is a bit deceitful, isn't it. Signed poldertijger.
- First of all, please read WP:NPA and WP:OWN. Secondly, whether you like it or not, the article is confusing and unclear to the non-expert, perhaps you might care to work on making it clearer rather than complaining and removing the tags. NicM 14:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
- The reason I tagged it with expert is not because I don't believe it was written by one, but that it needs an expert who understands the subject to explain it more clearly than I can as a non-expert. NicM 14:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Open letter to the self proclaimed editor NicM
My dear editor NicM,
I’m not opposed to the principle of editing. I understand that many of the entries in your Wikipedia have caused you a lot of grief. Far be it from me to be in the way of you doing your job in order to improve the Wikipedia; in the end I, an avid user of the encyclopedia, will benefit from your work. But I have a problem with the way you seem to see fit to do your job. In the particular case of the entry “Axial Age” you have put three tags that will effectively shy away people from reading the article. I don’t think this to be in the interest of Wikipedia. I will give an exposition of my arguments after explaining why I thought it necessary to write the entry “Axial Age”. In the books of Karin Armstrong this idea is mentioned a few times without an explanation being given. I tried to find the explanation on the internet, but there isn’t one. It is however remarkable that quite a few English speaking theologicians use the phrase “Axial Age”, so clearly there is a need for an entry in the Wikipedia. But when I tried to look it up I found a stub. Soon hereafter I came to find Jaspers’ vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte in a second-hand bookshop. Now I got the information straight from the horse’s mouth. I found that Jaspers had been making a legitimate point and that’s why I set myself about to write the entry.
You have put three tags in the entry. My main complaint is that by doing so you are not solving any problem, if indeed there are some. I fear that by your attitude people will be dissuaded from committing themselves to the laborious job of improving the entry. The tags will be shown forever and people will just give up using the entry as a source of information. I ask you how we can get those tags removed. What do you mean that the article is in need of an expert? Jaspers certainly wasn’t an expert in the field of history but that didn’t refrain him from writing his book and coining the phrase “Axial Age”. This has proved to be to the advantage of theologicians, who can make use of the idea. Do you think I didn’t get the meaning of the idea “Axial Age” straight? Well, you didn’t exactly show yourself to be an expert when you edited the article and took away the item significance of the Axial Age. It may seem odd to you, but it was essential to Jaspers’ mind and should be part of any article concerning the phrase “Axial Age”. For all means and purposes I’m your expert on the item “Axial Age”; you have seen to that by putting the tags in the article and by doing so discouraging anybody to make a contribution. Don’t think that you will get help from the people that are using the phrase "Axial Age"; I’ve found that these people just don’t know the origin of the phrase “Axial Age”. To wit, the fact that they translated the phrase into “Axial Age” instead of “Pivotal Age”, wich they should have done. Or did someone made you believe that my article is flawed? Well, let him write a better entry, have him improve my entry, or, better yet, let me in on the secret. And let me make one more observation; the first person to write that the phrase “Axial Age” has been an inaccurate translation of the German word “Achsenzeit” can’t be totally out of his wits. I am, of course, referring to myself. Do you have a problem with the way I have put the article into words? Well, why did you make use of my phrases? Surely you can’t expect to improve the article that way. Then you have only yourselve to blame to have done a bad editing-job. Do you not understand some or most of the phrases that are used in the article? There may be a problem. Jaspers is using literary terms that shouldn’t be taken literally. Theologicians are used to this kind of language, but I can understand why this would pose a problem to others. If this is the sticking-point then this problem has to be remedied by explaining the phrases. Let me know and I wil set myself to improving the article. I can’t help pointing out that some readers have contributed to my article; they must have understood and thought it worthwhile their effort. The readers seem not to share your point of view.
You have altered my article to make it fit the standards of Wikipedia; I can live with that. You have callously removed an essential part of the information; I cannot let that stand. I don’t understand your problem with the significance of the Axial Age. It’s not a flame or a troll, so why remove what is an essential piece of information? Do not refer to the manuals again; they cover too wide a field to be of any use regarding the nature of your problem. Be specific: I’m not averse of improving myself but I don’t like to stumble in the dark. I’ve seen your personal page so I know that you are capable of giving this kind of information. You have set yourself to be an editor of Wikipedia; then act like one. There is more to the job of editor than just butchering a badly written article.
Frankly I don’t like the way you have treated me thus far. For the moment I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I suggest that we get over the bad start of our relationship. I’m willing to make the effort. I hope you can do the same.
Poldertijger 10:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyedit
I've made a major revision to the article, in attempt at clarity. It still needs a lot of work. I could not figure out what to do with the following:
Characteristically, the literature from the Axial Age shifts its focus of attention from the herditary nobility to the intellectual élite. Jaspers believes that the Axial Age has significance for the period after 200 BCE, because this age became the common denominator of mankind, the philosophy of this period is a call for limitless communication and the thinking of this period is the measure of the quality of thinking to all future generations. For this reason, Greece of 500 - 400 BCE, which benefited from the fruits of the Axial Age, ranks as "classical" in Western Culture.
and...
Significance of the Axial Age.
- This age is the common denominator of mankind.
- It is a call for limitless communication.
- It is the measure of the quality of thinking to all future generations.
I am cutting it here in case another editor wants to use it as a basis for expansion. Jkelly 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the way how this item has been written --poldertijger 18 september 2006
