Talk:Common sense

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Common sense article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

Common sense is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic / Ethics High‑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

High

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Logic
	Ethics

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 22 July 2013 for a period of one week.

change of opening lines with definition[edit]

@Adityaverma8998: you asked on my talk page why I reverted your changes to the opening of the article. The following points were in my edit summary, but I will expand:

You changed of opening line without discussion. The opening line is important and if you go around changing them you should expect to be challenged about your reasoning.
Style. See MOS:REFERS. It is not considered good style to open with "the idea of".
Duplication. The definition you added is from a dictionary and is already one of the several definitions which is mentioned

Overall, it was not an improvement. You have now made a new edit to the opening lines which is better. In effect you have now added reference to the fact that common sense can also be knowledge. That makes some sense to me. Our opening is not great because in a sense it gives several meanings. Looking at it afresh I think it would be simpler to use the sentence of van Holthoorn and Olson which is already in the footnotes: "common sense consists of knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument". This lists the several approaches neatly. I will try to tidy up the footnotes also. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks for responding and clarifying. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]