Talk:Nietzsche and Philosophy

Philosophy: Literature / Continental / Modern / Contemporary Low‑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

Low

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Continental philosophy
	Modern philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Expand[edit]

This is a one sentence article about the existence of a book. The fact that a book exists does not belong in an encyclopedia. Article needs to say something about the book and/or its author.--Levalley (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Skomorokh 13:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text changes explained[edit]

Hello, you reverted one of my edits here, thinking for the good, I assume, but your reversion was perhaps a little fast.
Consider the following remarks.

To state that Nietzsche was not considered a serious philosopher in France before that book is simply false and not even Deleuze says so. Bachelard and Camus to name only two among the most famous authors (and not among obscure scholars), had already written most seriously about his work. Hence the quotation marks (a mild understatement) and the plural (one of the...) So undoing your revert concerning this is absolutely necessary (unless you prefer to leave something unfactual rather than true, I mean, but I trust you not to do so).
Also : a new line after the first sentence was rather better than a compact paragraph, the words "in general" seemed to me more accurate than "generally" in the sentence (try to read it carefully in both versions and tell me if I am wrong), and the link to system seemed useful. Please consider undoing your edit concerning also those detailed items if you agree with that.
As for the change from N. scholarship to N. studies, you are right, but I see no other part in the edit that needed be reverted, honestly. Best,--Hérisson de Cloche 07:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]