Talk:Nihilism

Untitled

There is more to Nietzsche, than that he said "God is dead", if that is mentioned...maybe there should have been said more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.38.2 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

whoever wrote the original article said that Nietzsche created nihilism and a number of other things that were factually inaccurate. This is a place holder until I write a more accurate description.

i really dont understand why this grossly inaccurate article with zero references has been restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.159.46 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reworking the page.

This page needs work, ideally by someone good at philosophy:

• 'Nothingness' at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)
• 'Moral Skepticism' at SEP
• 'Søren Kierkegaard' at SEP

There may be other nihilists or philiosophers which were important.--Eptalon (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Macdonald-ross

@Macdonald-ross: If you wish to be constructive feel free to open a discussion, and please try to be precise when raising issues. Cheers, Oeqtte (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop reverting back and forth and discuss before moving forward. --IWI (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue that Macdonald-ross is having is that your writing is in complex English which defeats the purpose of our wiki. You have to remember our target audience is children and people learning English etc. So sentences like "It was also a broad cultural movement that mixed with some revolutionary movements." are very complex, broad and movement for example would be words that would likely confuse our audience when used in this context. I chose that sentence randomly there may be even better examples in the text. A good page to read would be Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. -Djsasso (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As a way forward: I have added a {{complex}} tag to the article. This will allow us to proceed. In a first step, new content can be added. In a second step, the language can be adapted to this Wikipedia. Once the language is simple enough, the complex tag can again be removed.--Eptalon (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I will think Eptalon approach is good here, it can solve all the disputes in one go; it allows the content to be added while flagging it as complex. I am rather worried about it being directly copied from en without attribution, if OK by all I will add a translated page to this talkpage? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Make sure you check to see if it is actually copied. -Djsasso (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Compared to en, seems it's based on that. I guess they copied and simplified along the way but still it's sort of translated. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not copied from enwiki. However, I did write a fair amount of what's on the enwiki article so there are definitely some similarities! Cheers, Oeqtte (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)