Talk:Free Inquiry

This article was nominated for deletion on August 27, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Free Inquiry in general[edit]

Free Inquiry is besides apparently being a magazine, also a very important principle of Freethought. I feel - since wikipedia's priciple goal is being a encyclopedia not an advertisement - that the main article Free Inquiry should also - and maybe even first - refer to the principle meaning of Free Inquiry (no offense or insult intended). How would you think we should best solve this? Should we use the Wikipedia:Disambiguation option or maybe put both on the same page? I'm kind of new to wikipedia and since some of my recent edits have been reverted i decided to make a username (should have done that a long time ago) and discuss this on the talk page first.

Some general information about Free Inquiry: The principle is based on a text by the French philosopher and mathematician Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), in which he says that:

Thinking must never submit itself, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, nor to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, nor to anything whatsoever, except to the facts themselves, because for it to submit to anything else would be the end of its existence.

Mykeyspace 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)mykeyspace[reply]

Yes, we could do this; they should be on separate pages though. I think the abstract concept of "Free Inquiry" would be here, while this article would be moved to "Free Inquiry (magazine)" say. Laurence Boyce 11:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If such an article existed it would be free inquiry, no capitals. I don't know that it's sufficiently different from freethought and related articles to merit its own article though, especially since there's probably ample room for expansion of those articles. Richard001 (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Inquiry. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070918150100/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fnews%2Farchive%2F2006%2F03%2F29%2Fnational%2Fa163611S00.DTL to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fnews%2Farchive%2F2006%2F03%2F29%2Fnational%2Fa163611S00.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]