Talk:Pensées

I removed the following section from the article because being pretty knowledgable about Pascal, this is the first I had ever heard his name connected to the social contract. Also the phrase "nothing is more important that" is prejudiced and unencyclopedic. Many people would consider his work on salvation the most important, since, well, salvation equates to an eternal state of bliss that no social contract could ever attain.

Nothing is more important then Pascal's Social Contract. Like Locke's Social Contract Pascal believed in the importance of Life, Liberty, and Property of each individual.

I would be happy to reinstate a reworded version if provided with a legitimate source. David Bergan 15:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I concur with you because I've searched Wiki articles as well as other sources such as Robert Ardrey's dedicative work to Rousseau, which actually depicts Rousseau as an idealist unaware of Nature's "territorial imperative". I cannot find any reference to a social contract that is specifically Pascal's.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  21:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

"How hollow is the heart of man, and how full of excrement!"

I laughed out loud at this! I did in fact almost add an internal link around "excrement", which redirects to "feces". Then I thought better of it via a concern that such might be construed as a tacky form of vandalism. But I was tempted – oh BOY was I tempted!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  21:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

As per the most basic Wikipolicies, I am removing the majority of this article as it's purely quotations and will place it on the Talk page of Pascal at Wikiquote [Wikiquote Pascal Talk] for anyone who wants to appropriately incorporate these quotes into the body of the Wikiquote article. See WP:ISNOT; anyone who wants to see the state of the article before I cut the inappropriate material out: [[1]] Peace and Passion (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering if, in your good-faith haste to delete most of this article, you were in contact with the three projects noted above, the Philosophy, Books and Christianity projects? They might have a plan for improving this article. Have you taken this into consideration?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

All the information is still available and can be used to improve this article however contributors see fit (within the constraints of policy); however, it is now located in the appropriate Wikiproject namespace. I did not contact the projects—that would have probably been fruitless (as for the last year there have been no significant edits to this article, indicating that this article probably isn't even on the active radar of any of those projects), and, regardless, this information goes against WP:Directory, subsection 1 (Part of WP:ISNOT, one of the key guidelines of Wikipolicy):

"Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of [...] quotations [or] aphorisms[....] If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote."

I did however, do my due diligence and look through the history of the article, and see that it has existed in this form for over a year, indicating in no way that someone had entered the information with the intent of significantly formatting it and integrating it into an article. The article did not contain any "major overhaul" tags, nor did it have any "expand section" tags, or the like, nor any mention of such plans on the talk page. The body of the article below the table of contents was even entitled "Quotations" — clear evidence that the section was meant to be nothing other than a repository of quotations. The projects you listed are in no way hampered by my actions from implementing whatever plans they may have for "improving this article." Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 20:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS: As I see you've been doing good copyediting in the history of this article, I would like to invite/suggest you lend a hand over at Wikiquote, because it is in desperate need of good editors like you (it has significantly fewer dedicated editors than Wikipedia). The policies there are slightly different (as per more significant copyright issues, etc.), but quick to learn. The smaller community of editors can be interesting to work with!