User talk:Phlsph7

Archives (Index)

1 s/ 1 s/1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The article Relations (philosophy) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Relations (philosophy) for comments about the article, and Talk:Relations (philosophy)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Human history you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Human history and Talk:Human history/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Human history you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Human history for comments about the article, and Talk:Human history/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For getting human history to GA. I think you're the only Wikipedian to have two VA1 GAs :) Cerebellum (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't help at the end! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerebellum: Thanks for the barnstar and for all the work you have poured into this article before and during the GA! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See you did considerable work on Algebra, up to FA? I made a style edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algebra&diff=1245452894&oldid=1244983589, then looked up to see whose work I had changed, and realized it was yours. Happy to revert, discuss. Jd2718 (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jd2718, thanks for your edit and for raising the point here. I agree that repetitive language should be avoided. I made some adjustments to make sure that no paragraph overuses one term or the other. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for Ethics, introduced: "Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. It examines competing theories about how people should act in general and in specific domains while considering the assumptions on which the theories rest." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Human history, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that public health measures and advances in medical science in modern human history helped raise global life expectancy from about 31 years in 1900 to over 66 years in 2000? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Human history. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Human history), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally nominated the article. Please take a look if you can: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive1. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I'm sorry that it didn't work out with the nomination. The expectations for wide-scope articles like this one are usually higher than for articles on more narrow and less important topics so just getting this type of article to GA status is already a significant achievement. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind. Thank you. It failed in 6 hours. Must be a record. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mind you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mind you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mind and Talk:Mind/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mind you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mind for comments about the article, and Talk:Mind/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pselph, I'm really curious how you go about learning and writing about so many big topics comprehensively! In particular, what is your background/area of expertise, and when you decide to tackle a new topic, where do you start and what process do you go through? It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi It is a wonderful world, that's a good question. When tackling a new topic, I first aim to gain a broad overview of all the main subjects it should cover. To get a comprehensive perspective on a topic X, I typically rely on overview sources of the topic like encyclopedia articles on X, encyclopedias of X, handbooks of X, introductions of X, and textbooks or academic books titled "X". Ideally, this approach helps divide the topic into different sections, with each section dedicated to one or several subjects based on how much weight these subjects get in the overview sources. More specific sources can then be used to write the details of each section.

How well this approach works usually depends on the number and quality of the available overview sources. I often work with topics somehow related to philosophy that have been around for centuries or millennia. For them, this is mostly not a problem. Some topics provide special challenges, like when the overview sources present divergent perspectives or when the topic is studied by different fields of inquiry but each source only presents the perspective of one field. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's super interesting and useful. Thank you very much for sharing this! It is a wonderful world (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ontology you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lisha2037 -- Lisha2037 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ontology you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ontology and Talk:Ontology/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lisha2037 -- Lisha2037 (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ontology you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ontology for comments about the article, and Talk:Ontology/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lisha2037 -- Lisha2037 (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the above article in specific but given your successful attempt to take Education to FA status, do you think you could weigh in on this FAC for infant school? UC is currently disputing the article's balance between historical context and modern relevance, as well as its distinction from general primary education. FrB.TG (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the note. I left a comment and I'll see how the discussion develops. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Algebra, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt review, I just saw it and highly appreciate your feedback. It appears that most of the issues were with the references, which i'll endeavour to find more reliable sources or remove the text until a suitable reference is found. i'll work on these asap when i can find some free time.

i'll also fix the typos not caught before publishing.

after all of these have been addressed i'll resubmit for a new GA review.

thanks again :) Adenosine Triphosphate (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adenosine Triphosphate: Thanks for taking care of these points. I have my fingers crossed for the renomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Phlsph! I'm a big fan of your broad concept articles — I'm real excited whenever a new one gets to GA or FA. I know you and Cerebellum got Human history to GA about a month ago, and it made me think that History itself might be a fun one to collaborate with you on. I've been looking at that article for a while; it's a bit messy at the moment and I think it could benefit a lot from a top-down rewrite. This is a big task though, and I thought it'd be fun to do it alongside someone who's seasons with writing to that level of breadth and summary. I know that you probably have a lot of articles on your to-do list at the moment though, so no pressure for anything immediate. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, that sounds like a really exciting proposal and it would be an honor to work alongside someone as experienced as yourself. It would be a big project indeed and we would probably have to figure out what needs to be done and whether our visions for the article roughly align.

I'm currently occupied with reworking the article Hedonism. Most of the main changes have already been implemented but it will probably still take another week or two, depending on how much time I have available. After that, I could get started with going through the literature to get a rough overview and figure out what changes to the article History may be needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, that's a fun one! And yeah, it'd require finding a structure that makes sense. I'll also search through academic literature on history as a field (I'm bet there's good stuff from Cambridge on that) and see if I can take a leaf from how it's divided into subconcepts. I'm imagining something similar to how you structured Philosophy, starting with its evolution as a field over time in different contexts, and then detailing subbranches and methods of historical inquiry. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using this structure sounds like a solid approach to get started. There is probably a wealth of sources on specific history topics, like sources on particular branches of history. Let's hope there are also some good overview sources focusing on the topic of history in general. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: I've mostly finished my other project so I have some time now for the article History. It's probably best if we focus first on the body of the article and concentrate on the lead once we are happy with the body.

I've had a look at the article and several overview sources. Some of them are on history specifically while others belong more to historiography or philosophy of history. I don't think we can directly read off the structure of our article from any of them but they could come in handy for questions about scope and what should or shouldn't be included. A few overview sources that might be helpful are:

• Arnold, John (2000). History: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-285352-3.
• Bentley, Michael (2006). Companion to Historiography. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-97023-0.
• Jenkins, Keith (1995). On 'what is History?': From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-09725-3.
• Little, Daniel (2020). "Philosophy of History". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 6 November 2024.
• Tosh, John (2002). The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-582-77254-0.
• Tucker, Aviezer (2011). A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-5152-1.

I have something to say on most sections of the article. Focusing on the points you have raised so far, I agree that having sections on the evolution of the field, its main branches, and methods makes sense. We currently don't really have a section on the evolution. Our current section on the branches has too many subsections. Maybe we can reduce them by using the major subdivisions "By period" (e.g. ancient history), "By geographic location" (e.g. history of Africa), "By theme" (e.g. economic history), and possibly a section called "Others" for branches that don't fit this division.

Our current section "Methods" is a little odd: it starts with universal history in the early modern period and then gives historical reflections on methodology and a criticism of history. Some of these ideas might fit better elsewhere in the article. My initial impression is that it might be better to talk more directly about the methods, like source evaluation, different types of sources, interpretative approaches, and interdisciplinary considerations, to provide a clearer understanding of how historians conduct their research and write history.

I'm not sure if you agree with these points and I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those look like good sources - I also compiled some other sources which seem useful here. (Will expand on rest later.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woolf's 2011 A Global History of History and The Oxford History of Historical Writing from your source list look like great sources for the section on the evolution of the field. I have access to Woolf's 2019 A Concise History of History, which is a revised and abridged version of his 2011 book. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for workflow, it seems like it'd make the most sense for us to each take different sections of the article and write those, and then we can look at it as a whole and make edits from there. I'd be interested in writing about the evolution of the field - would you want to start on methods and branches? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good approach, I'll see what I can do about the methods and branches. I was considering a few more changes and I would be interested in your thoughts. I think it would be good to have a "Definition" section to discuss the different meanings of the word, like the contrast between history as a series of events and history as the study or representation of these events, which is often mentioned in overview sources. This section could also cover history's classification as a science or part of the humanities and questions about its scope, like whether prehistory is included. For an early draft of what some of this could look like, see User:Phlsph7/History.

I don't think we should have separate main sections for "Etymology", "Judgement", "Pseudohistory", and "Historians" since these topics don't seem to be important enough. The part on etymology is rather long. It could be integrated into the new section "Definition" in a condensed form. The contrast with pseudohistory would also fit in there. The section "Historians" only explains what the word "historian" means. This part could also be covered in the section "Definition".

The section "Teaching" should be more global and less focused on conflicts and biases. It could instead concentrate on things like curriculum and pedagogical approaches.

I was thinking about having a section to discuss the relation between history and other fields. This section could have subsections like historiography (which is currently a separate main section), philosophy of history (which is currently only covered indirectly ), teaching/education (which is currently a separate main section), and possibly some of history's interdisciplinary connections (like archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics).

The topic of the section "Description" seems to be rather vague as it covers bits and pieces of philosophy of history, discussion of sources, methods, the classification of history as a discipline, and its internal organization into branches. Its contents could be moved around to be covered in other sections with a more well-defined scope. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about informing other editors on the history talk page of our plans? It could be something along the following lines:

Generalissima and I were thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. It currently has 6 unreferenced paragraphs and 2 unreferenced subsections. As first steps, we were planning to add a section on how history as a discipline evolved and to rework the sections "Areas of study" and "Methods". We currently don't really have a section on the evolution.

Our current section "Areas of study" has 15 subsections with several subsubsections, which is too many. Maybe we can reduce them by using the major subdivisions "By period" (e.g. ancient history), "By geographic location" (e.g. history of Africa), "By theme" (e.g. economic history), and possibly a section called "Others" for branches that don't fit this division. The current section is also repetitive in several locations. For example, it explains two times what military history is. I also don't think we need repetitive explanations like History of North America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's Northern and Western Hemispheres., History of Central America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's Western Hemisphere., and History of South America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's Southern and Western Hemispheres.

Our current section "Methods" is a little odd. For some reason, it starts with universal history in the early modern period and then discusses methodological considerations in the ancient period and the following periods. I think the section should focus on the methods themselves rather than how they developed in the past. This could include discussions of the different types of sources, source analysis & criticism, how different sources are synthesized to arrive at a coherent narrative, and possibly what interpretative tools and approaches there are. This is also roughly how overview sources on the topic proceed, like [1], [2], and [3]. Maybe the discussion of how the methods developed in the past can be discussed in a paragraph or two, but this should not be the main focus of the section.

We were hoping to get some feedback on these and possibly other changes. For a discussion with more details and improvement ideas, see User_talk:Phlsph7#Idea_for_collab_-_History.

Phlsph7 (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good to me! Sorry I haven't had as much time for wiki stuff last few days, hope to get back to this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few slight changes to the text and posted it at Talk:History#Changes_to_the_article. Apologies if I'm too eager. This is not a sprint but a marathon after all, so feel free to go at your own pace. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mind, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that diverse fields study the mind, including psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mind. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mind), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Followed the trail of who was improving Mind and I'm frankly really impressed. Improving high-level VAs doesn't seem easy. Nice work SunTunnels (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SunTunnels and thanks a lot for the feedback! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ontology, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ontologists disagree on whether green is real? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ontology. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ontology), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Phlsph7!

Thank you for reviewing the "philosophical pessimism" article and giving your verdict on it.

In accordance with your suggestions mentioned on "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philosophical_pessimism/GA1", I have requested a peer review for the "philosophical pessimism" article; and I have also corrected the unreferenced paragraphs that you mentioned, as well as improved the wording of some sections -- also in line with your suggestions.

Are there still any details or fragments in the article that are in need of improvement that you could help me visualize and thus fix so that the article could meet the GA criteria? Alice793 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alice793, thanks for your work on the article and for implementing the suggestions. I would recommend ensuring that each paragraph in the body of the article has at least one reference. There are still a few unsourced paragraphs, like the ones starting with Arthur Schopenhauer introduces..., David Benatar argues that there..., and Julio Cabrera, Philipp Mainländer, and Drew M. Dalton.... If you need help spotting them, you could try a WP:User script like User:Phlsph7/ListUnreferencedParagraphs (but be aware that it is not perfect).

It might also be a good idea to deal with the WP:WIKIVOICE problem mentioned in the review. For example, the article currently states it as a fact that Constant dissatisfaction ... is an intrinsic mark of all sentient existence. However, this is not a fact, and most experts would contest it. This is an opinion common among Buddhists. This could be solved by attributing the statement: "According to Buddhism, constant dissatisfaction ... is an intrinsic mark of all sentient existence". If there are more cases like this in the article, this would be a stumbling stone for a GA renomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you for introducing me to that script, Phlsph7! Many thanks.

As of right now, there are only two "unsourced" paragraphs according to your script, but they serve in actuality to introduce topics wherein the actual sources are contained right below, namely:

1. "Pessimistic philosophers came up with a variety of ways of dealing with the suffering and misery of life"

2. "A number of philosophers have put forward criticisms of pleasure, essentially denying that it adds anything positive to our well-being above the neutral state".

I also fixed the paragraphs containing the non-neutral points of view: (that is, both "Constant dissatisfaction — duḥkha — is an intrinsic mark of all sentient existence" and "The person who attains this state of mind lives his life in complete peace and equanimity").

I am currently unaware of any other cases where a non-neutral point of view is presented; if you do find one (or more), please don't hesitate to inform me and I'll fix them right away! Alice793 (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the sourcing looks much better now. Spotting NPOV-views that lack attribution can be difficult and requires an indepth reading, which could be done at the peer review. It's possible that there are still other cases lurking somewhere. Having a short look, I spotted two more sentences: Taking one's life is a mistake, for one still would like to live, but simply in better conditions. and The ascetic way of life, however, is not available for everyone — only a few rare and heroic individuals may be able to live as ascetics and attain such a state. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning those two cases of NPOV-views that lack attribution, Phlsph7! I fixed them.

If there are still ways of further improving the article such that it finally becomes ready for another GA nomination, I would deeply appreciate your instructions. Alice793 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might remember I said some nice things about Algebra when you brought it to WP:FAC a few months ago. Today YouTube decided I should watch Climbing past the complex numbers so I did. This is the kind of stuff that would have gone right over my head before reading Algebra, but I was able to make it though the whole thing, only getting a little fuzzy on some of the stuff near the end. Greatly to my amusement, my wife came in about halfway through the video, looked at the screen, and said, "Don't tell me you actually understand that!?" to which I replied, "It's just algebra". RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: That's an interesting anecdote! I have the feeling that, for many math topics, finding a key to understanding them can make all the difference between getting lost after the first sentence and being able to follow the train of thought. Thanks again for your helpful review by the way. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]