Talk:Contemplation

Merger proposal[edit]

As discussed on Talk:World_view I suggest to merge Contemplation with Weltanschauung or it's calque World view!

--Rick Smit (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine by me. I was just responding to the spirituality portal page that listed pages that needed work, so I copy-edited and added references. Not sure how contemplation relates to world view and there are dozens of books on the topic of contemplation alone, but I'll take a look at the World View site. Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month since the merge template was put on this article. I've removed it. Please let me know if anyone has any objections. Thanks, Renee (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to object against any merging of this article. The word and concept of contemplation is important enough and is mentioned as a /terminus technicus/ in the philosophical and theological literature often enough to deserve a page on its own Steinbeck (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments[edit]

The deduction of the word "contemplation" from latin differs from the German version which again seems much more appropriate to me. In my opinion, it come from "contemplare", which means "to watch, to look at something". While there may of course be a deeper ethymological connection with "templare", the deduction from "contemplare" comes much more natural. I admit that my knowledge of English language is not good enough to make this change and provide a proper translation of "contemplare" (to behold, to look at something?). I would also in the first sentence of the article that it means "watching something with a certain relaxedness, enabling an inspired experience". This is in agreement with the German version, but again, this should be formulated by a native speaker Steinbeck (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality[edit]

I think this article needs serious help. Example problems:

Other usage needs to go to a disambig page.

There is irrelevant material, e.g. Peter Senge's book, with itself as a reference!

There is just one sentence on Western Christianity. That can not be enough.

Other world traditions just lists a Master's Degree program! Is this page for real?

I am going to clean these up in the next few days. In the meantime suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Contemplation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State my contemplation about the pieces[edit]

State my contemplation about the piece 2001:4455:2E7:4F00:58:BB49:F299:7839 (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]