Talk:Worldview

message: This was my meager attempt to put a bit more clarity in this very general term.
IMO the best way to identify would be to draw the distinction from the words I listed in the "Related notions" section. Unfortunately I lack skills of expression and deeper understanding to do this. Mikkalai 19:19, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 07:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. This is original research. A map or maps would be great; but they must be based on the work of a well known theorist. :ChrisG 11:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. Further: 'If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is correct, the worldview map of the world would be similar to the linguistic map of the world. However, it would also almost coincide with a map of the world drawn on the basis of music across people.' - one of the most foolish things I've read on wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.135.11 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I see the point about such a map giving an impression of homogeneity, but it's also valuable to see the dominant cultural worldview of different nations. As long as it's clear that the map presents a generalisation, and that there is of course a variety of minority worldviews, I don't think this in itself should prevent use of such a map. Good on you however for standing up for minorities, and avoiding an impression of homogeneity. A statement in the article accompanying the map would help to clarify this. For those of us who do not share the dominant cultural worldview of our nation, there's benefit in having this overview of what we are steeped in. I'm not sure about the accuracy and other merits of this particular map however, what it's based on etc. (haven't yet had much of a chance to take a close look). There are others available, created on the basis of solid research. Inclusion of such a map would make an important contribution to this article. Deluno (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: For example, Christianity, Islam, socialism, Marxism, Scientology may be called worldviews; at least they generate clearly identifiable worldviews.
Of all of the different types of value/belief systems that could be listed, I find it curious that Scientology is listed as an example. Surely, it can be considered a world view—but are there not more suitable choices for describing examples of world views? Such as:
* Humanism
* Mysticism
* Capitalism
I keep wanting to add Atheism, but I have to keep reminding myself that it is itself not a world view. — Darco 18:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, yeah, that's odd. The first two are religions, the second two are political philosophies, and then you have a quasi-religion. It might make sense to have a few different worldviews from different categories, just to illustrate the wide applicability of the term (is socialism really a worldview? it seems too vague for me to quite be that. Marxism is pretty well defined, as is Islam, etc., but socialism can mean a dozen things -- it seems like the result of a worldview rather than the generator of one, in my opinion). --Fastfission 19:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. Habibie 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that Scientology is the wrong choice of examples, and that the others listed are more appropriate. Atheism is a worldview according to the definition I've read in various psychology articles. What do you think disqualifies atheism from being a worldview? Religion is a very clear example, dictating perspective, values, etc., but relatively vague examples aren't any less fitting. It's important to present a variety. Deluno (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree that a global worldview map is a long way off.  Currently, it could only be a roughly construed qualitative representation.  Any quantitative, graphical representation of contrasting, broadly defined worldviews or a regional/national/large ethnic group construct of such would need to be rooted in clearly identified, shared group characteristics (as said by most of you above). We have worldview, paradigm, culture, but not nationality (unscientific; essentially political) to compare individuals from as well as groups of people. There would be a natural evolution, refinement, and development of scale and sample type/size based on several hypothesized controlling factors: education, language, religion, group-level, and regional selection. But doesn't worldview function more as a perspective (the purview of psychology?) on life or life guide? I use it as a cognitive and prescriptive composite attribute - more value, belief, and selection-oriented than culture, since the latter has behavioral, artistic, and technological aspects that are more the objects of choice than agents of it (?). Paradigm thus seems closer to the emotive value and cognitive belief composites of worldview than a more vast in scope, materially and historically inclusive concept of overall culture.  Perhaps worldview should be kept practical/particularized.  Then there could be some validity in a linear gradient done here(instead of a nominal or categorical) display in terms of shades of particular colors,i.e., ones that tend to blend into each other based on geographical proximity, similarities and actual aggregate, weighted measurements taken from interviews of individuals reflecting national, regional, and large ethnic groups' common situational outlooks, beliefs, and the values of individuals. And there should be vastly more colors.  Back to measurement and thus type of representation: much like Hofstede's culture dimensions, Schwarz's cultural values, or the GLOBE (project) leadership cultural dimensions scale attempted to measure, that is (for culture), it would be a composite measure and somewhat arbitrary construct until an acceptable scale were decided upon after considerable peer review. Any scale of combined measurements would be multidisciplinary; it might never reach peer review acceptance. Still it is a useful construct in a field of few high-level group constructs. I would leave the psychologiests and not linguists or philosophers to start it. REFERENCES:  For the last mentioned GLOBE case, look at https://globeproject.com/data/GLOBE-Dimensions-Definitions-and-Scale-Items.pdf For an available psychological worldview scale to use, Obasi et al's "Worldview Analysis Scale" (WAS) would be a good start. See Obasi, E. M., Flores L. Y., & James-Myers, L. (2009). Construction and initial validation of the Worldview Analysis Scale. Journal of Black Studies, 39(6), 937–961.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1A:A97:4500:CC15:2BCA:8FE6:2B64 (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi cogibyte: 
The colours signify distinct worldviews. The graphical representation not only shows distinct worldviews but also displays the variations within worldviews and comparative relations with other worldviews. Eg: The variations of blue across Europe, or the variations of brownish shades across South Asia and south-east asia, etc.
Weltanschauung is pronounced as velTAANshaaOOngh --- User:Robin klein
---
Nice map!  Nice idea!  Where did you get the data you plotted in your "Weltanschauung map"? ---Rednblu 16:48, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  weltanschauung map 

message: I'm not sure the map clarifies anything to anybody, and if it's not based on a well-accepted definition of paritioning worldviews then it seems like it would fall into original research to me. It also seems to assume a world view homogeny based on geography which seems very incorrect to me. Are you really going to argue that North and South India have very different worldviews but California and the Southern U.S. do not? Does South Africa really have the same worldview as its northern neighbors? Cuba and Haiti have the same worldview? Ireland and Britain? Austrailia has a geographically homogenous worldview? etc. I'm inclined to remove it... --Fastfission 03:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 07:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. This is original research. A map or maps would be great; but they must be based on the work of a well known theorist. :ChrisG 11:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. Further: 'If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is correct, the worldview map of the world would be similar to the linguistic map of the world. However, it would also almost coincide with a map of the world drawn on the basis of music across people.' - one of the most foolish things I've read on wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.135.11 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I see the point about such a map giving an impression of homogeneity, but it's also valuable to see the dominant cultural worldview of different nations. As long as it's clear that the map presents a generalisation, and that there is of course a variety of minority worldviews, I don't think this in itself should prevent use of such a map. Good on you however for standing up for minorities, and avoiding an impression of homogeneity. A statement in the article accompanying the map would help to clarify this. For those of us who do not share the dominant cultural worldview of our nation, there's benefit in having this overview of what we are steeped in. I'm not sure about the accuracy and other merits of this particular map however, what it's based on etc. (haven't yet had much of a chance to take a close look). There are others available, created on the basis of solid research. Inclusion of such a map would make an important contribution to this article. Deluno (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: For example, Christianity, Islam, socialism, Marxism, Scientology may be called worldviews; at least they generate clearly identifiable worldviews.
Of all of the different types of value/belief systems that could be listed, I find it curious that Scientology is listed as an example. Surely, it can be considered a world view—but are there not more suitable choices for describing examples of world views? Such as:
* Humanism
* Mysticism
* Capitalism
I keep wanting to add Atheism, but I have to keep reminding myself that it is itself not a world view. — Darco 18:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, yeah, that's odd. The first two are religions, the second two are political philosophies, and then you have a quasi-religion. It might make sense to have a few different worldviews from different categories, just to illustrate the wide applicability of the term (is socialism really a worldview? it seems too vague for me to quite be that. Marxism is pretty well defined, as is Islam, etc., but socialism can mean a dozen things -- it seems like the result of a worldview rather than the generator of one, in my opinion). --Fastfission 19:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. Habibie 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that Scientology is the wrong choice of examples, and that the others listed are more appropriate. Atheism is a worldview according to the definition I've read in various psychology articles. What do you think disqualifies atheism from being a worldview? Religion is a very clear example, dictating perspective, values, etc., but relatively vague examples aren't any less fitting. It's important to present a variety. Deluno (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree that a global worldview map is a long way off.  Currently, it could only be a roughly construed qualitative representation.  Any quantitative, graphical representation of contrasting, broadly defined worldviews or a regional/national/large ethnic group construct of such would need to be rooted in clearly identified, shared group characteristics (as said by most of you above). We have worldview, paradigm, culture, but not nationality (unscientific; essentially political) to compare individuals from as well as groups of people. There would be a natural evolution, refinement, and development of scale and sample type/size based on several hypothesized controlling factors: education, language, religion, group-level, and regional selection. But doesn't worldview function more as a perspective (the purview of psychology?) on life or life guide? I use it as a cognitive and prescriptive composite attribute - more value, belief, and selection-oriented than culture, since the latter has behavioral, artistic, and technological aspects that are more the objects of choice than agents of it (?). Paradigm thus seems closer to the emotive value and cognitive belief composites of worldview than a more vast in scope, materially and historically inclusive concept of overall culture.  Perhaps worldview should be kept practical/particularized.  Then there could be some validity in a linear gradient done here(instead of a nominal or categorical) display in terms of shades of particular colors,i.e., ones that tend to blend into each other based on geographical proximity, similarities and actual aggregate, weighted measurements taken from interviews of individuals reflecting national, regional, and large ethnic groups' common situational outlooks, beliefs, and the values of individuals. And there should be vastly more colors.  Back to measurement and thus type of representation: much like Hofstede's culture dimensions, Schwarz's cultural values, or the GLOBE (project) leadership cultural dimensions scale attempted to measure, that is (for culture), it would be a composite measure and somewhat arbitrary construct until an acceptable scale were decided upon after considerable peer review. Any scale of combined measurements would be multidisciplinary; it might never reach peer review acceptance. Still it is a useful construct in a field of few high-level group constructs. I would leave the psychologiests and not linguists or philosophers to start it. REFERENCES:  For the last mentioned GLOBE case, look at https://globeproject.com/data/GLOBE-Dimensions-Definitions-and-Scale-Items.pdf For an available psychological worldview scale to use, Obasi et al's "Worldview Analysis Scale" (WAS) would be a good start. See Obasi, E. M., Flores L. Y., & James-Myers, L. (2009). Construction and initial validation of the Worldview Analysis Scale. Journal of Black Studies, 39(6), 937–961.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1A:A97:4500:CC15:2BCA:8FE6:2B64 (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Map?

message: This section is a defense of religious beliefs rather than a discussion about worldview.  Always drawing conclusions against WP:OR.  If there's an article on religious conflict, religious misunderstanding, etc, it belongs there.  But it does not seem to belong here as it is not clarifying the subject of the article.  Any objection to removal of this section? (to the editor who added the section, your objection is already noted). --*Spark* 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted. Such an obvious policy breach I deleted it on sight, even before coming here. Sorry if I was presumptive and pre-emptive. But you may take it that I agree with deleting the section! Snalwibma 18:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not at all. It is simply an explanation of what major religious systems actually are. They simply are not "hypotheses".  Naturalistic Atheism is a worldview as well. Whether or not these worldviews are valid or true is another matter altogether. If you need refs for such a basic concept I'll dig them out in due course. NBeale 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Whether or not these worldviews are valid or true is another matter".  Exactly.  So why are you inserting a section that is defending one worldview?  Assuming "religious believer" = "one who believes in God" is inappropriate, simply wrong, and statement like "they do not simply mean" is pure POV.  The whole section isn't appropriate here. --*Spark* 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Spark. "Much of the confusion surrounding the debates between religious believers and proponents of atheism is due to a failure to distinguish between an hypothesis, a theory and a World view. For example, when a committed religious believer says "I believe in God" they do not simply mean "I assign a high probability to the hypothesis that there exists an Ultimate Creator"" does not defend any worldview or assert that all religious believers believe in God.  If I give a Cow as an example of an Animal I am not asserting that all Animals are Cows. NBeale 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know that they don't mean "I'm playing the odds".  Your defense of that might be "well then, they're not a committed religious believer". POV. --*Spark* 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well done Spark. By a 'committed' religious believer I do indeed mean one who is committed to their religious beliefs, and not playing the odds. Since this is apparently unclear, I'm happy to make this clear in revised text.  BTW the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says "According to physicist Paul Davies Science began as an outgrowth of theology, and all scientists, whether atheists or theists … accept an essentially theological worldview. (Davies 1995, 138)" NBeale 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Making yourself the arbiter of what constitutes someone who is committed to their belief is about as POV and OR as you can get. Regarding your other statement, WP:NOT. --*Spark* 22:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No need. I removed it.  Passing judgement on what constitutes a committed believe seems particularly strong violation of POV, while the statement regarding how their belief in a god is internalized seems a particularly strong violation of OR.  The whole section doesn't parallel other sections in the article, which already cover religious belief. --*Spark* 22:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Snalwibma 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Snalwibma. I thought this was all common knowledge, but if you think it's OR I'll just have to quote and be a bit boring! However to say that a debate between A and B is confused due to a failure to distinguish between X, Y, and Z does not (in logic or I think in rhetoric) take any position on the validity of A or B's position.  And there is a big difference between an Atheist (like Martin Rees) and a Proponent of Atheism (like Dawkins). PS How can one debate with someone who thinks that taking a Cow as an example of an Animal is "passing judgement"? NBeale 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think labelling what "committed" means is passing judgement, I can't help you.  Not all "committed religious believers" even profess belief in a god.  Sourcing it would do nothing to cure the POV.  The whole section doesn't fit with the rest of the article, see previous statements above.  --*Spark* 12:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New section is much better.  Little iffy on the last paragraph, but it holds much more in line with the article than the previous addition did. --*Spark* 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 'the Enlightenment project to put all knowledge underneath a single universal standard of "rationality" failed'
This is an appellingly sweeping and under-justified statement. The supporting arguments seem to confuse rationality with rationalism. The Age of enlightenment was an age of empiricism as well.
1Z 13:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious outlooks and worldviews 

message: The article really needs to explain how "worldviews" stand in relation to ideologies, theories, et.c. Is  it a redundant synonym for an individual's or society's theory of the world? Or is there a substantial difference.1Z 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are very interesting questions and I could (if I had time) write an essay about this - but Wikipedia is not the place for essays and OR. But to try to address your questions (numbered for convenience):
# Not if they want to be consistent, but people aren't always.
# In general, multiple, unless it is a very homogeneous society.
# Generally there is enough overlap that people can mutually comprehend to a significant extent if they try, but it isn't easy.
# Bit of both NBeale 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldview, Ideology, theory 

message: In the Anglosphere the two principal families of worldviews in terms of numbers of adherents are[6]:
    * The Monotheistic family of worldviews which hold that the Universe is created by God.
    * The Materialist/Naturalistic family of worldviews which hold that nothing exists beyond physical 
This claim is an artefact of the question being asked. You could just as well quote the percentage who call themselves liberal or conservative.1Z 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principal Worldviews. 

message: I'm reluctantly removing the following: "It can be argued that religious belief and axiomatic schemes are disanalogous on a number of points:
*Axiomatic schemes used in mathematics, etc, are typically kept minimal -- it is better to deduce than to assume. There does not appear to be a parallel principle in religion.
*Mathematical and logical axioms are (ideally at least) self evident, indisputable principles.; whereas religious beliefs are often highly specific and contingent claims — for instance, that the Absolute Truth was revealed to a particular person at a particular time and place. 
*Axiomatic schemes are used in abstract sciences such as mathematics. Religion does not portray itself as merely abstract.
*In science, empirical demonstration, where available, is held to override abstract reasoning. In contrast, religious believers may "axiomatically" assert, for instance, a Young Earth cosmology , against the empirical evidence.
*The existence of multiple axiomatic schemes seems to imply multiple, relativized truths. But religious believers often assert their beliefs or axioms as being absolutely true (that is true "for everybody")."
# No doubt this "can be argued". But to qualify for inclusion in the article we must give a reliable source that shows that some notable person or publication has so argued.
# For sure mathematics is different from philosophy or religion and therefore the way axioms are used in mathematics is different.  This does not argue against the basic beliefs of a worldview being axioms, merely against the idea (which no-one asserts) that worldviews are all mathematical.
# The failure of the enlightenment/rationalist project was precisely on the point that axioms are not, and can never be, "self-evident indisputable principles" - as explained in the article.
# The relationship between experiment and theory is not nearly as simple as suggested even in science.  The whole point about worldviews is that they are not necessarily science or "scientific": indeed he idea that a worldview ought to be "scientific" is in itself a component of a worldview.
I hope this is helpful because I hate removing other Editors' work, but I could see no sensible way to raise these concerns without doing so. NBeale 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It can be argued 

message: and an undertanding based on worldviews does not commit the holder to relativism
...because...
   Indeed Christians are well-known for wanting to spread their worldview, 
    following eg the injuctions to "proclaim the Gospel" in the Bible
But the fact that Christians are identified by others as "having a worldview" (NB singluar) does not mean they are "have an understanding based on  worldviews" (NB plural) in the sense of a non-judgemental sense comparitive theologian.
1Z 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sequitur 

message: *World view: Everyone has one, so there is no neutrality here (meaning there is no one who does not have one). People are either consistent or inconsistent with their world view and/or are either conscious or unconscious about their world view.
*Anthropology: basically good or bad; Is it that absolute power corrupts absolutely? Is there free will, determinism, or predestination?
*Theology: atheism, pantheism, polytheism, monotheistic, etc.
*Ethics: what is right and what is wrong i.e. utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontology, god, etc.
*Epistemology: how we know what we know i.e. rationalism, empiricism, mysticism, revelation, etc.
*Metaphysics: what is ultimately real? mind or matter, naturalism or supernaturalism etc. Asks questions of mechanism and teleology as well.
Nash (Faith and Reason 30-32)
A sixth ought to include Economics: capitalism, socialism, communism, interventionism, etc.Adriansrfr (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Categories of a World View 

message: Who wrote this sentence:
"One of the most important concepts in cognitive philosophy and cognitive sciences is the German concept of ‘Weltanschauung’"
I'm a cognitive scientist of some minor renown and I would say this is a wild hair idea.  No modern cognitive psychology course spends more than 5 minutes talking about this subject.  This needs to be revised.  [perhaps this is coming from a European perspective....I am speaking of North American Universities where I have been (Amherst, Harvard, U Southern Cal, and Stanford). This world view concept is NOT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE in Cognitive research or courses].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.48.40 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive Section 

message: the existings of life and its bennifits  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.168.133 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  science 

message: In section Worldview and linguistics first para:
:A worldview describes a consistent (to a varying degree) and integral sense of existence and provides a framework for generating, sustaining, and applying knowledge.
Sorry, probably I'm simply stupid or not knowledgeable, but "sense of existence" is kind of incomprehensible to me. Personally I don't sense the existence, I 1. exist, 2. am provided lots of senses as a result of my existence, but I don't sense my existence by itself. Or I'm miscomprehending the concept of "existence" which has a more elaborate meaning within philosophy? (An IMHO likely scenario). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sense of existence??

message: I have with this edit removed several paragraphs closely paraphrasing Worldview and mind: religious thought and psychological development. I'm taking steps to see if we can verify permission to use this material in accordance with Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Until we have verified permission, I'm afraid that policy does not permit us to incorporate the text as it was written. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Material removed pending verification of permission

message: the Six World Views:
there are six major world views in the world:
christian
islam
secular
cosmic
MARXISM-LENINISM
POST MODERNISM
more detail:
http://www.lertsirikarn.blogspot.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.156.51 (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six World Views 

message: Although the article begins by mentioning both, isn't it better to be consistent throughout the article? I've found that the psychological research literature (on terror management theory etc) use "worldview" (one word), so that's what I've used. Others here have also. What's Wikipedia's general rule on consistency? I suppose there's value in using both, and consistency has both pros & cons. Deluno (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "World view" or "Worldview"? Consistency needed? 

message: What do these aspects of English say about the English speaker's view of the world:
the absence of nominal gender and the extremely limited use of pronominal gender;
the simple (complete/punctual) and progressive (incomplete/durative) forms of every tense;
the resultative sense of the Present Perfect;
the concept of countability and non-countability with nouns;
the ability of English to transgress the 'rules of congruence' and treat singular nouns that refer to units or groups (e.g. family) as either singular or plural ? And so on. 
'Worldview' is a confusing and extremely imprecise term in any language (consider the wide range of meanings of 'Anschauung' in German). 
The reference to Humboldt in this section is very obscure.Pamour (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  view of the world and language 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on World view. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040909044414/http://www.mpi.nl:80/world/ to http://www.mpi.nl/world/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081201190718/http://usinfo.state.gov:80/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm3.htm to http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm3.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/11/lind_five_worldviews&source=newsletter
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090920230544/http://cognation.stanford.edu:80/press/newscientist.pdf to http://cognation.stanford.edu/press/newscientist.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303174819/http://www.wmich.edu/slcsp/SLCSP106/SLCSP106.PDF to http://www.wmich.edu/slcsp/SLCSP106/SLCSP106.PDF
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100113045231/http://press.umsystem.edu:80/spring2009/webb.htm to http://press.umsystem.edu/spring2009/webb.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140322001721/http://ej.kubagro.ru/2011/09/pdf/29.pdf to http://ej.kubagro.ru/2011/09/pdf/29.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From what I can tell, "weltanshauung" is the cognitive-philosophy equivalent of "ground" in the figure and ground of gestalt psychology, and of Marshall McLuhan. But it would be nice if the relationship was clarified/contrasted.  From what I can tell, "ground" seems to suggest something deeper, more pre-conscious, pre-verbal. If the "weltanshauung" is an "ecology of memes", then "ground" is the hidden, buried, errr... roots. Is this how other writers express this? 
p.s. the figure and ground articles are incomplete and stilted and misleading, and need a rather major update from someone who knows the subject. 116.49.33.125 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure and ground 

message: Anybody who wants to help develop a paragraph on this? 
Kick off: 
Agenda 21 is a clear Plan of Action to help Humanity make it beyond the year 2100, connect people and organisations to pool resources to achieve the intermediate objectives in the most efficient way, pool resources and minds.  Agenda21 - especially for young people - helps to make sense of all that is happening on our planet, to help see and bring order and a logic in things happening in both their direct surrounding and the world and discover the interconnections, to get in contact with people and join those with good analysis and solutions.
Every 10 years, since 1972, the best of the best humanity can bring forward, gather in the "Earth Summits":
Basically, the top civil society organisations, the majority of scientific federations and the United Nations took the initiative to call upon all nations to bring forward the best of the best in their societies to reflect about our Humanities achievements and seemingly ever increasing challenges inhibiting the majority of Humans to make it beyond the year 2100. 
Thousands of local governments now have a local Agenda 21 and more and more organisations and companies are aligning their strategic plans with the strategic plan of Agenda 21 because it helps to be understood and found quicker as everybody is using the same wording, citing the same resources, colours, logo's and images.
As Humanity was approaching the year 2000, and the Agenda 21 Plan of Action was further developed, out of it came the the "Millennium Development Goals" launched in 2000 by UN Secretary General Kofi ANNAN to be achieved by 2015.  Because of the positive feedback, follow up goals were formulated: the 17 Global Goals to be achieved by 2030.
Another great endeavour to establish a clear world view are the United Nations Observances.  They consists of a calendar of days, weeks, months, years and decades dedicated to a specific topic.  Following e.g. the UN Calendar of Observances over the year, will bring a person or organisation to just about all topics that are important to humanity today, with a portal site developed by the leading organisations on the topic with a logical framework to boost one's own actions and resources that can be used immediately or taken further.  There are also years, decades, week and months dedicated to a special topic.  All help to adjust human's world view on what are pressing or important issues to humanity.  The topics are negotiated and discussed both by leading organisations in the topics, strategic planning and management, and diplomatic delegations at summits.  Member states and organisations to the UN are supposed to take up these days, years, decades, weeks and months and develop a plan of action and dedicate a budget to them.
# More: http://www.un.org/en/events/observances/
# the 2013-2022 International Decade for the Rapprochement of Cultures https://en.unesco.org/decade-rapprochement-cultures, is an example of a UN Decade Observance Calendar.
Sincerely, --SvenAERTS (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  World view link Agenda21, the UN Observances and the Global Goals 

message: In the section entitled “Weltanschauung and cognitive philosophy,” the following words occur: “…Weltanschauung, first used by Kant and later popularized by Hegel….” Is it possible to cite the exact location in the voluminous works of Kant and Hegel where the word “Weltanschauung” is used? If citation is not possible, then that claim might be better deleted.173.61.223.45 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoping for a citation

message: Per WP:BRD, once your edits are contested you are expected to attempt to reach consensus for them on the article's talk page before restoring them.  What's wrong with "humans and other animals", exactly?  Why would an extra citation be needed for such an obvious sentence?  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other animals 

message: The "ideological map of the world" at the top of the article has numerous problems:
* It's from 2012, so everything else aside it's woefully out of date.
* It cites no sources for the information presented, so presumably it's original research.
* There is likely no unbiased source for the information that would go into such a map, should one be found.
* I believe the information presently in the map would be questionable to most people, though I don't see any discussion of it.
* The idea of presenting the concept of worldview as a map of ruling party political ideologies is not only unhelpful but actually misleading.
Given these issues, I'd like to propose removing the map. HyenaButter (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree. A map of ruling party ideologies is subjective as all heck, and it's not clear it has anything to do with worldview. Ungulates (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this map? 

message: Wikipedia sometimes accepts/recognizes that religion is not the widest hypernym of metaphysical opinion/metaphysical view/metaphysical worldview but being biased (metaphysically racist/ideological-cohort racist) but
 Wikipedia keeps using religion as the common hypernym of the religions and of the metaphysical opinions/metaphysical views/metaphysical worldviews. (Religion in Poland, Religion in Spain, Religion in so-and-so...)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:878E:7B00:BC1B:F42:B04A:AAE (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  sometimes Wikipedia contributors use [[worldview]] as a [[slanted hypernym]] (not unbiased hypernym, but with a nongeneric [different] character) of many views including [[religion]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Is this actually a concept that is the subject of academic discussion in reliable sources? I see a lot of use of the word "worldview" or "world view" as a generic filler word, but it's not obvious that this is an academic concept in any field of study? Is this just a word that a lot of people like to use? or are there actually secondary sources we can write this article off of? If so, I suggest rewriting the whole article based on those sources rather than leaning on so many dictionary definitions. If not, we should consider deletion.  - car chasm (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: After more fully reviewing the article, it appears that the main contributions to the idea of a "worldview" that are well-supported in the article are Wilhelm Dilthey and Leo Apostel, with some applications of the concept in, i.e. christian worldview and terror management theory. This appears to be a somewhat more niche topic in sociology than it was originally presented in the article, but it does look like there is coverage of the concept itself in enough sources to merit keeping the page.  - car chasm (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is worldview actually a topic that has [[WP:SIGCOV]]? 

message: A large portion of the text has been deleted, there are several nonsense words, and the editor left a note in parentheses explaining their intention of "deleting everything." I didn't notice any changes elsewhere in the article, but I could have overlooked something. I would repair the article but I don't have the topic specific knowledge to do so. 2601:840:8701:EDE0:845E:91C1:6608:867F (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism to the Etymology Section