Talk:Determinism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Determinism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 12 months

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Science 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

High

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Philosophy of science

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science High‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

}}

Modern Perspective in Biology

I liked the headline in Biology for Modern Perspectives in this article the best. I wish some one would expand it. I think it is interesting because it says that you can't predict what you will do even if you were set in a controlled environment.

Inappropriate econophysics source

A paragraph near the end of the QM section starts Moreover, chaos theory highlights.... It had a citation:

Capoani, L. (2025). From Newton’s Laws to Walras’ Equilibrium: A Historical Perspective on Determinism in Economics and Social Sciences. Histories, 5(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/histories5010009

While I think the source is interesting and it is a review, but it has no citations and its area of expertise is expressed in the title: economics not physics. This source is not about chaos theory, but only mentions it in passing. It did have a reference to a short article by Edward Lorenz, one of the pioneer's in chaos theory. I used that source and later added a ref to Lorenz's book. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary quotations in the references

Most references contain some kind of quotation. This is unnecessary, as the point of the reference is to point the reader to the information. Adding a quotation is both unnecessary, and added an extreme amount of bloat to the article. Adding details to a citation should be used sparingly, and quotations should either be placed in the body text, so that they can be read by a user, or should be eliminated, since the citation points in the direction of the quote.

I would request permission to eliminate the unnecessary quotations, and please, do better. AlmostHalfOkay (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bibliography is also absolutely out of date. Either everything cited in the references needs to be cited in the bibliography, or the references should stand alone. There is no benefit to having an article citing more than 50 sources, and only having 11 sources in the bibliography. If you add a source, please add it to the bibliography, or else, please delete the bibliography. AlmostHalfOkay (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short quotations that aid in verifying that the content matches the source are ok. I agree that this article is way overboard. The article also has 'hidden content', stuff only in the footnotes that are not quotes and some are not even sourced.

As for the mix of citation formats, this is almost inevitable in my experience. Editors have different experiences and tools. It's much more important to have good references than pure consistency. Anyway I wait your improvements. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having different citation formats is inevitable. I don't care so much about that. One of the main ways I contribute is by trying to reorganize citations to make them more standardized. It's ok if citations aren't perfect, especially if you don't know how to cite something. Doing your best is good enough, rather, I just think that on an organizational level, the bibliography is only of minor assistance, since it is not citing everything used. I'd argue that it should be eliminated entirely, or needs to be reorganized. My plan is just to reorganize it, since it's the thing I like to focus on anyway, but I can't be the only user editing it. AlmostHalfOkay (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove page numbers in citations, thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't remove page numbers, as that would no longer serve as a pointer to the quote. If I have, I'll need to fix that. AlmostHalfOkay (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

@IP: Please read WP:CITELEAD. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too big

WP:SIZERULE applies to this article and WP:SPINOUT is advised. ~2026-32920-02 (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]