Talk:The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Continental / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Need for multiple references

As it stands, this article is single sourced (Oxford Companion). Personally, I think Merleau-Ponty's lectures on the range of Husserl's work up to and including this work can provide an additional ref, but I'm not precious about it. However, the article does need some form of additional refs. (Another possibility, from memory, might be Paul Piccone's discssion of influences on the Telos journal at its origins.) AllyD (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the article needs improvement. However, my view is that replacing the existing reference with a different reference doesn't by itself do anything to improve the article. If you had added new content from Merleau-Ponty, that would have been good, but taking a statement originally based on one source and citing it to a different source altogether is a bad idea. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the M-P article is probably the one which the Oxford Companion piece is conveying at 2nd hand. But anyway, we agree on the desirability of improved article and sourcing. AllyD (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]