Talk:Suspension of judgment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Philosophy / Epistemology / Logic (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Additional information:
Taskforce icon
Taskforce icon
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


from VfD:

To me, this is not even a common phrase, let alone an accurate definition. Deb 11:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Signed dictdef. Geogre 14:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Folks, I know it's an important term, but only if there is a discussion of it. As nominated, it's a very poor dictdef. An article would be cool, but a definition that has no context or discussion is not. Geogre 05:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Geogre, "incompleteness" is not a valid grounds for deletion.
      • As nominated, it wasn't incomplete: it was a wholly inappropriate dictdef. I see that it has been rewritten entirely by VfD voters. It's courteous to tell people when one does that. Nevertheless, the rewrite is not just a dictdef. As I said, "as nominated," it's a poor dictdef. I'm not changing my vote because I don't yet think the article is a discussion, though it's not explicitly a dictionary definition. Geogre 16:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Neither is "not being a discussion" a grounds for deletion. mydogategodshat 18:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Sure it is: it's under "dictionary definitions." Of course, if you think an encyclopedia article is a dictionary entry, or a map, or a music file.... Geogre 20:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I suggest you take a look at wikipedia:deletion policy. Being a definition is not grounds for deletion, neither is incompleteness nor is "not being a discussion". Only those definitions with no potential to become an article are possible candidates for deletion (or more correctly, moving to Wikiquotes). mydogategodshat 20:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Can only be a dictionary definition. Well? What's the difference between a definition and not a definition? I mean other than a picture or a tune? Discuss the term, place it in its historical context, trace its development. So, yes, dictdef is a reason for deletion, and discussion is what keeps it from being a dictdef. Geogre 22:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If your not prepared to follow Wikipedia policy, you should not be editing these pages. mydogategodshat 19:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsensical definition. Katefan0 15:37, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Important concept in science and human affairs - The definition makes sense to me. mydogategodshat 21:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is indeed a term used in law, but it doesn't need an article. Even if it did deserve an article, it would only be a short entry in Wiktionary. [[User:David Johnson|David Johnson [T|C]]] 00:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Key philosophical concept. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • And another extreme keep. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep current article Kappa 08:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur -- Jmabel | Talk 00:49, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur. Edeans 06:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur --Szabo 02:34, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion


I am not an experienced editor, but I don't think this is appropriate encyclopedia style: Rather than prejudging people based on generalizations, preconceptions, or other forms of incomplete information, we should judge individuals only when we have adequate information about that individual., not only is the language inappropriate, but also a moral suggestion should not be included in an encyclopedia article. - 29.10.2008


The author of this article appears to have had an affinity for the word "cornerstone". — Timwi 22:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have read the article and still have no clue on what it talks about. I propose the

tag to be added Pictureuploader 07:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Merger with Epoche[edit]

Epoche and suspension of judgement are certainly closely related and plausibly could work combined in one article. They mean slightly different things. Epoche really means "suspension", not "suspension of judgment". Its meaning is closer to suspension of belief rather than suspension of judgment. It can also mean suspension of thought. Hence, combining these articles may be tricky.Teishin (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that they're different enough topics to justify seperate articles. I'm expanding this to prevent an AFD of a notable topic due to it not having any citations before I got to it.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There doesn't seem to be much interest in pursuing this matter one way or another. I'd recommend keeping the articles separate. Can we just take down the notice to discuss the matter? Teishin (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. I'm getting a lot of work done here anyway so I think this article might be worth keeping. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I'm done expanding this I might just boldly merge them here and see if it sticks. They're distinct but the epoche article is a tiny thing and could be fit in. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know what? I'm going to do it. Here we go. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That merger was both unexpected and does not seem to work. I think this change should be reverted. Teishin (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:PYRAMID as the article has moved § Law and § Science to the bottom, while the general reader may find these aspects of suspension of judgement of more value than the philosophical material preceding them. — Rgdboer (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giving it a read today, not a thing I was aware of. Will adjust the article based on my interpretation of it. Thanks Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest the first adjustment should be to revert the merger, as that's a major factor in the problem Rgdboer points out. Teishin (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the important information is first, per the inverted pyramid idea now that I've read it. It also says that many encyclopedia articles are not written like that. Having said that, if someone else were to reorganize the article I'm not going to pick a fight about it.
I'm not going to revert the merger for two reasons: There was no interest in the discussion until it was done and looking at it the epoche topic integrates just fine as a sub topic in philosophy. Of course, that doesn't mean that someone else won't revert it but I think there should be a further discussion about it before that happens. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That you and I were the only ones who commented on the issue does not mean that there was "no interest in the discussion." And before you made those changes I had said on both 9 Feb and 6 June I thought the articles should be kept separate, and before you mand the change, you, Rap Chart Mike, said the same thing. You said on 15:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC) "I think that they're different enough topics to justify seperate articles." So, there was both a discussion and both people in it said not to merge.Teishin (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Epoche not even mentioned[edit]

Epoche redirects here, but this article does not mention epoche at all. So a reader (such as me), who does not know what epoche means, is lost. Even if it is a stopgap before a merger, please briefly define epoche and explain how it relates to suspension of judgment. Mgnbar (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mention is made of Epoché in § Philosophy. The redirect here was left over from a reverted merge. Correction today for redirect. Thank you for the alert. — Rgdboer (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see now. Thanks. Mgnbar (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]