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.
I came across this page in a random search. It contains a bad grammatical error (second para), but I don't know enough about the subject to be sure of the appropriate correction. JackofOz 02:24, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If the error is still there, can you at least indicate what it is? There might be more than one grammatical error in the second paragraph, so it'd be good to make sure your particular one gets addressed. --Ryguasu 12:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Isn't this article redundant with Original position? If there are no objections I am going to merge this into the other article. --Malathion 5 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
What about Kant? I thought that he originally explained that we can't get beyond our senses, and called it the veil of ignorance (but I'm trying to remember this from first-year philosophy, so I could be wrong). In any case, I've linked here from fallibilism and the link comes off as a little odd because veil of ignorance redirects to Rawls. Any ideas? --Frekja 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
How come the Hebrew version of this entry does not appear on the sidebar of other Languages? I don't know how to change this. See the link, including the sidebar that leads to this entry, and its German equivalent:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. Clear primary topic. Ucucha 21:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support, because it's the primary topic (incidentally not because of TWODABS, which just says what we should do after deciding that there's a primary topic).--Kotniski (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The reference to an SF story about the concept at the end seems pointless and possibly an exercise in self-promotion to me, given that neither the author nor the story referenced are in any way particularly note-worthy. IMO it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)