Talk:Philosophy/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 22:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well this is the big one, isn't it? I should have a review done within a few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Thebiguglyalien and thanks for taking on this task. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my thanks as well! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7 & PatrickJWelsh: I've completed a source review, so I'm going to post it here while I go through the article in more detail. I may or may not have more to say about sourcing later. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7 & PatrickJWelsh: I've posted the rest of the review below. Most of the issues are about readability and wording, which should be easy fixes. I'm also marking the source review as passed, since all of the concerns have been adequately addressed. I suggest marking each item or section as done when changes are made without further comment, since there are a lot of notes and there are three of us here that need to stay on the same page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Thebiguglyalien, thanks for such a careful and speedy review! We should be able to implement your suggestions within just a couple days.

@Phlsph7, maybe we each just start with the sections for which we are mostly responsible and go from there? If there is something you specifically want to claim, or else would like me to take care of, please just let me know with a tag.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: This works fine for me. I would probably get started with the sections "History" and "Relation to other fields" and then slowly work my way toward the others. But I don't want to "claim" them so feel free to address any of the issues in them that you are confident with. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7 & PatrickJWelsh, I've gone through criterion one and left replies under some of the points. If I haven't replied under it, assume it's good to go. Another thing I want to bring up is the use of first person. An article should never use "I" or "we" unless it's used in an exact quote. They're used a few times throughout the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. As far as I can tell, the only remaining ones are in quotations. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I expect that the uses of "I" and "we" in the italicized questions are going to cause some bother, particularly if this goes to FA. It's an edge case where it isn't clear whether they should be used or not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien and PatrickJWelsh: I kind of lost the overview of all the different points but as far as I can tell, all the main points have been addressed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7 & PatrickJWelsh, I intend to quickly go over the article once more after all of the points are addressed, mainly to take a closer look at the history section. Right now, the only question left for criterion 1 is whether to use the level four headings under "other major branches". I personally wouldn't, but I'll leave it up to you two. I've also left replies under criterion 4. That one is almost ready to go as well. Phlsph7, if you haven't looked at the rest of criterion 3 yet, you can see if anything stands out there, but there's nothing there that's required for GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7, I think our GA editor is waiting for your verdict on sub-heads for "Other major branches." I am satisfied that I have made my case for keeping them. But if you have considered it and are not persuaded on the merits, please go ahead and make that edit. I will not contest their removal. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I removed them in the hope this minor point won't bog us down anymore. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

Prose review

General notes: There are a lot of very short paragraphs. If it's less than 2–3 sentences, try to find a way to combine it with other paragraphs if feasible. no change – considering that nearly everyone will be reading this on an electronic device, which in many cases will be phone, I submit that short paragraphs are most appropriate Compliance with MOS:PARA is required for GA. So at a minimum, the article should avoid single-sentence paragraphs, and short paragraphs should not have their own headings. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) I removed all single-sentence paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC) claim is used several times. It's fine if it's talking about claims in the abstract philosophical sense, but saying that a person or idea "claimed" something should be avoided in most circumstances per MOS:CLAIM. replaced in all cases where I thought another term would be at least as good Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC) It still needs to comply with MOS:CLAIM. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) The term "claim" is very common when discussing philosophical theories. This is also the case for encyclopedias. I open the first 3 SEP articles we cite ([1], [2], and [3]) each one uses the term "claim" several times. Are there specific cases in our article where you feel that this term introduces an undue doubt or implies a disregard for evidence? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC) I agree that it's not as clear cut in this article as it is on others. I think a fair compromise between WP:WTW and this specific subject matter is that there should be no instances of a person being described as "claiming", but schools of thought are okay. I checked the article, and this is in fact the case, so we'll say no further change needed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Several uses of very that can be deleted Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Lead: A little more could be said about the history of philosophy. Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Metaphysics seems to be given a little more detail than the other branches here. Maybe the examples should be trimmed. Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Etymology: Etymologically, it means "the love of wisdom". – The reader was just told that it comes from "love" and "wisdom", so this is redundant. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC) The term philosophy acquired, and to some extent still retains – I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Did it used to mean something else? When? Does it mean something else now? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Several exact definitions of philosophy are quoted. Are these all exact quotes from the sources? If not, they can be paraphrased to give general ideas of what's covered by philosophy. They are exact quotes, see the discussion at Talk:Philosophy#section_on_Conceptions_of_philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC) It encompassed a wide range of fields – Unclear whether "it" refers to philosophy or to natural philosophy. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC) but it is today considered and the more narrow meaning common today – I know this doesn't literally mean this exact day, but it still doesn't feel right to use present tense to describe a change that happened in the past. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This section seems to get into information like conceptions and branches that otherwise aren't explained or sourced until later in the article. no change–the shift in the meaning of the term, which is independently sourced here, is most properly documented in this section (or else please elaborate the objection?) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC) General conception: It requires thinking... – This sentence starts with an unattributed quote which could probably be written as an encyclopedic description. no change—the only quote is in the second sentence, and it is directly attributed; the first sentence is an encyclopedia composite of the multiple sources listed answer once and for all – Informal. Maybe "definitively answer"? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC) What he comes to conclude, however – There's no contradiction, so "however" is unnecessary. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Socrates comes to the paradoxical conclusion – In what way is this paradoxical? no change–what he knows is that he does not know – and that he might never attain genuine wisdom regarding – "what is truly fine and good", but that this itself is wisdom These ideas aren't connected in the article. The paradox is his wisdom consists in his knowing that he does not possess the most exalted kind of wisdom. It's not a paradox that the active pursuit of wisdom is good and valuable in itself. That's just a value judgement. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Okay. This is routinely described as a paradox, but it doesn't particularly matter whether the article takes a stance. I have deleted the adjective. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Perhaps a brief explanation of the Russell quote is warranted so it's more accessible for laymen. If this quote is relevant, then there should be works about Russell that analyze this belief. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Academic definitions: focus more on – There are two uses of this where "more" can be dropped. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) the biggest patterns, the world as a whole, and the big questions all seem informal: no change: article is critical of these approaches for similar/related reasons In this sense, philosophy is the midwife of the sciences – Fun analogy, but not something that should be said in wikivoice. no change: this is an incredibly common metaphor dating back to at least Plato Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC) There is no reason for an encyclopedia to speak in metaphors. If you want to quote someone using a metaphor, then put it in quotations and state in text where the quote comes from. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Done. There are countless sources so I'm not sure that it is a good idea to single out one for attribution. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC) It should be fine now, but for good measure I put it in quotation marks. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) such as Edmund Husserl and his followers – It can be assumed that his followers generally share his beliefs The Husserl paragraph is too technical and unapproachable. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC) I suggest rewording the Greco-Roman/Foucault/Hadot example so that they're mentioned in the first sentence. Something like "found in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, and later adopted by modern philosophers such as Michel Foucault and Pierre Hadot," Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC) quite simply – Can be cut. Besides, who's to say our simple isn't someone else's complex? History: The history of philosophy studies the development of philosophical thought – History can mean past events or the study of said events, but in "history" sections it's usually the former. And indeed, most of this section refers to the developments themselves rather than modern "philosophical historians". It's trickier with philosophy, where the historical ideas blend into the modern ones, but it should be clear that this section is about the historical developments rather than the study of said developments. There can still be a few sentences about how the history is studied, but it shouldn't be defined as a form of study in this case. Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) The paragraph still doesn't make it clear whether its subject is "historical events" or "the study of historical events". Also, The history of philosophy is the development of philosophical thought feels redundant or meaningless. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) The first paragraph touches both issues: it describes the discpline and list the main traditions. The first sentence could be rephrased to The term "history of philosophy" can refer both to the development of philosophical thought and to the discipline studying this development. Would that solve the problem you see? Or do you have other suggestions? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) I've never seen a history section that talks about the discipline of studying the history. Historiography is usually separated from the actual history of the subject. I'm not objecting to the inclusion of both, but it should at least be clear which is being discussed. I personally would start the paragraph with a brief description of how philosophy developed and the main traditions, and then information at the end or in a new paragraph about how the history of philosophy is studied and maybe how it relates to present day philosophy. Regardless, I expect to take another look at this whole section toward the end of the review to make sure it accurately presents the main traditions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) @Phlsph7, I've been leaving this section to you since you wrote it and (at least most of) the larger article on the history of philosophy. On this point, however, I would consider nixing the first sentence entirely. Most people who describe themselves as working in the history of philosophy focus almost entirely on one figure or period. Overarching theories about the development of philosophy as a whole are few and far between. Please just ping me if you want me to edit or comment upon anything more here or elsewhere. I'm reviewing now, but I think we've hit everything from at least this round of comments. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC) @PatrickJWelsh: I followed the suggestions: I removed the first sentence and split the paragraph into 2. However, I kept the order as it is. It's usually a good idea to provide a short definition of a new topic before diving into it. This way, we avoid jumping back and forth between topics since the subsections following the 2nd paragraph go more into detail on the history itself. In the case of the history of philosophy, clarifying the discipline is important since the approaches differ widely based on what the discipline takes as its subject matter. Some restrict it exclusively to systematic rational and critical inquiry and focus only on Western philosophy. Others understand philosophy in very wide sense and discuss general myths and proverbial lore from all around the world, including those that have no critical or systematic aspects. But I don't want to insist so if others feel that these clarifications are not required then we could remove most of the 1st paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) philosophically relevant today – Another instance of present tense for developments over time. While not necessarily wrong, it would read more naturally if it used perfect tense like "and have remained philosophically relevant". Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) The first sentence of each region's history is redundant. The reader knows that Chinese philosophy is the philosophy of China. Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Western: The following modern period – "following" can be cut; it's clear that it's after the last one Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) in the later part of the modern period – Imprecise. Does this mean the late modern period (which is also imprecise)? Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) but they still remained underrepresented – Is it possible to make this more precise, maybe with approximate numbers? Preferably from a different source, as this one is almost 30 years old. This passage is about general patterns in 20th century philosophy. I'm not sure that having precise numbers of male vs female employed philosophers for a particular year (and possibly for one particular region) is useful in this context. There is some data here <https://women-in-philosophy.org/data> we could cite if that would be helpful. I am inclined to agree with Phlsph7, though, that this is not the place to get into this. I have also added a Wikilink to women in philosophy, which contains a lot of information. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC) If this is about the pattern, then is this something unique to Western philosophy? If not, then changes over time of who practiced philosophy should be discussed separately. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) It's discussed mostly in relation to Western philosophy. But it's not exclusive to Western philosophy. It could be discussed elsewhere if you have a concrete suggestion. Most overview articles on philosophy or history of philosophy do not give much emphasis to this point (if they mention it at all) so a separate section or subsection wouldn't be justified. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Arabic-Persian "Arabic-Persian" is the only one of these subheadings that doesn't correspond to its main article. I saw that Adamson was hesitant specifically about the term "Islamic philosophy", preferring "philosophy of the Islamic World" to cover non-Islamic philosophers in the region, but this section seems specifically to be about Islamic philosophy. Of course Wikipedia articles are not required to be consistent with one another, but it does raise the question of what the optimal title is here. As you already mentioned, there is no generally accepted heading. Other candidates are Arabic philosophy and Persian philosophy. I tried to roughly structure this section based on geographical regions. For this purpose, "Arabic-Persian philosophy" is better than "Islamic philosophy". This approach and arguments in favor of it are found in Grayling 2019. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Indian: One of its distinguishing features is its integrated exploration – This looks like it lists three distinguishing features. I suggest a verb here. Something like "that it integrates its exploration of" or "that it uses and integrated exploration of". Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) when the religious scriptures known as the Vedas were written – It seems like "known as" was just added so it could specify that they're religious scriptures, but it adds imprecision Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Should specify the relation between Hinduism and the Vedas Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Chinese: It was more interested in practical questions and it placed less emphasis – This seems to refer to Chinese philosophy as a whole in the past tense, as if it's lost. Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) This is getting specifically into political philosophy, but can the jump be made straight from Marx to Chinese Marxism without the lens of Marxism–Leninism? This text was slightly modified in response to Aza's suggestions. Have a look if this is still a problem. resulted in the development of – how about "produced" or "brought about" Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Core branches: Could the heading here just be "branches"? no change—there might be a better adjective than "core" ("primary", "main", "central", etc.—I do not have a strong view, but it is important to be clear that these four central branches are not exhaustive of philosophy Several sections have italicized example questions. These could be reworded into standard encyclopedic prose. For example, with ethics: "Philosophical ethics addresses such basic questions as whether ethics are relative, whether to prioritize well-being or obligation, and what gives live meaning." Some of the sections already do this. This was discussed at Talk:Philosophy#adding_sample_questions_to_various_branches_of_philosophy. I think either way works fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) My only concern is that they remain sufficiently concrete to be accessible to someone with zero background in philosophy. I'm not sure that rewriting them in the declarative would improve readability or better serve the reader, but I'm not opposed in principle. Also, it is quite common to introduce philosophy (basically any branch besides logic) in terms of the questions that it attempts to answer. So this procedure is consistent with many college syllabi and introductory texts. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Most of the sections use the phrase tries to when defining the given branch. To me this seems informal. Other sections use "studies", "examines", and "reflects". Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Two uses of so-called. Either that's what it's called or it's not. Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Epistemology: like knowing that Princess Diana died in 1997 – This is an oddly specific example. Are the examples used in this paragraph derived from the sources? This example is from Colman 2009a. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) like knowing a celebrity personally – This one might be confusing, because celebrities are generally known indirectly (I know of Meryl Streep in that I've heard of her, even though I don't know much about her or her films) rather than directly ("yeah, I know Meryl, we get brunch together every week"), and the article doesn't make a distinction between these two types of knowledge by familiarity. Knowing someone personally is different from having heard of someone so this shouldn't be a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) The description of rationalists says they hold that some forms of knowledge, like innate knowledge, are not acquired through experience. But the article on rationalism gives it a stronger definition, that reason is the primary source of knowledge. From Hetherington, § 3c. Knowing Purely by Thinking: When philosophers ask about the possibility of some knowledge’s being gained purely by thinking — by reflection rather than observation — they are wondering whether a priori knowledge is possible. Historically, those who believe that some such knowledge is possible are called rationalists about knowledge.Phlsph7 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Two uses of based on the idea. Either it is the idea, or we should be talking about the idea instead. First use: the idea is described in the next sentence. Second use: this expression is used to talk about the source of doubts.Phlsph7 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) The problem is that – Feels informal The expression "the problem" refers to the problem discussed in the same passage. We could replace it with "the problem consists in the fact that..." if we want to make it sound less informal and more complicated. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) and that humans are unable to acquire it – "It" could apply to either "knowledge" or "absolute certainty". If it refers to absolute certainty, then this could read "which humans are unable to acquire", since "which" identifies the object of the sentence. Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Ethics: They claim that what matters is that actions – Besides the "claim" issue, the two "that"s this close to each other hurt readability. Done Phlsph7 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC) A few more words could be used to explain virtue ethics. I don't think it gets the main idea across, because "virtuous agent" is a meaningless term until it's defined. Done Phlsph7 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Logic: Formal logic uses formal languages – I know what this is saying, but it still feels redundant. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC) The entire logic section uses really wordy phrases, creating some tongue twisters. A lot of this could be reworded with the target audience (perhaps a freshman philosophy student encountering these ideas for the first time) in mind. I did the best I could, but there is a lot about logic that does not admit of rephrasing Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Are the examples of logic derived from the sources? That's always preferable whenever possible. I assume the answer is yes. Can you confirm, Phlsph7? Pings only work with a signature at the end. Phlsph7. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) The sunday example is from Velleman 2006, p. 8 and the raven example is from Vickers 2022. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Metaphysics: on the other hand can be cut. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Other major branches: These are some of the most prominent – This sentence could introduce the branches. "Some of the most prominent are aesthetics, philosophy of language"... and so on. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) It's not a big deal, but I personally don't like the series of one-paragraph subsections. It might be worth considering deleting the level 4 subheadings here. Since each idea is one paragraph long, and each paragraph begins with the heading title anyway, the ideas are naturally divided without subheadings. I like the subheads because it gets the branches into the TOC, but I think Phlsph7 shares your inclination; I will leave it to them to make the call Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) @PatrickJWelsh: The relevant discussion is found at Talk:Philosophy#Changes_to_the_section_"Branches_of_philosophy". I would be slightly in favor of removing the subsubheadings but I don't think it's an important point. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC) I probably made this point before, but another advantage to the headers is that they raise the barrier to adding additional branches. And in this case, I think that is a good thing. A format that clearly requires a full, well-sourced paragraph should make it easier to maintain the page—while still allowing for additions that actually do belong. Anyone who has just a few sentences they want to add to promote philosophy of x probably shouldn't be editing the main philosophy page. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC) MOS:PARA leans in favor of removal, though it depends on how you define a "short paragraph". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Is there a term for people who believe that beauty is objective? I can find one good source that once calls them "objectivists", but I don't think this is very common (although I could be wrong). In my experience, people with objective concepts of beauty are usually categorized more narrowly as, for instance, aesthetic rationalists. I am inclined to avoid introducing a label here. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC) @PatrickJWelsh: "Objectivist" is correct, see [4]. We could introduce the term if there is a natural way to do it but I don't think it is important. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Agreed—particularly given the way the term has been co-oped by the followers of Ayn Rand. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Could truth conditions and pragmatic use be very briefly explained? I'm not sure how to define these terms in less than a sentence that would not amount to basically just parsing the meaning of the English words. My inclination would be to let the Wikilinks do the work here for anyone not satisfied with what is written in this article. But maybe you have an idea, Phlsph7? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) It's not clear what a common-sense distinction is here. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) inner world and external world don't need to be in quotes, and inner could be replaced with internal for consistency. those are scare quotes indicating an opposition under investigation; they are used in Heil (2013), which is currently cited only at the end of the para, but could be added to that sentence as well if it would be helpful Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Scare quotes are an expression of doubt that should be avoided per MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) In this case, the doubt is being expressed by the philosophical position being described, not by the article itself. So, although a good policy in general, I do not think it applies here. (If you feel strongly, though, it's not like it will ruin the article to eliminate them.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC) I've opted to removed them. Even if it's the position doing the doubting, Wikipedia shouldn't agree or disagree, even implicitly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC) Its topics cover nearly all branches of philosophy – This makes it sound like the branches are just sub-disciplines of philosophy of religion. Maybe it "intersect with" or "are relevant to", or "belong to" as is used under philosophy of science. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) within and transcend – Avoid using italics for emphasis Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) purpose of government and compares different forms of government – Redundant use of government. Maybe "and compares its different forms". Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Methods: "Methodology" would be another option for the heading, but either is fine. This choice is often guided... – Could this sentence be simplified? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Various disagreements on the level of philosophical theories have their source in methodological disagreements – Wordy Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Conceptual analysis is a well-known method – Is "well-known" the right word, as opposed to "commonly used" or something like that? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC) into their fundamental constituents – This could use explanation/simplification. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC) tries to draw interesting conclusions from them – Not clear what interesting means in this sense Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC) tackles philosophical questions – Tackles is informal/idomatic Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC) to expose merely verbal disagreements – Does it change the meaning if "merely" is cut? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC) starts from a first-person perspective – Could this be reworded or explained a little more? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Relation to other fields: Would it be accurate to say that this section is about applied philosophy? If so, "applications" or "applied philosophy" would be a more concise heading It's not primarily about the subfield of applied philosophy but about how philosophy has affected other fields. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) A similar problem in relation to the law – Similar to what? Similar to the problem of evidence in theology discussed in the previous paragraph. I added a short clarification. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) on the social and political movement known as feminism – can just be "on feminism", or maybe "on feminism and gender studies" depending on how broadly this applies. Talking about feminism in the context of philosophy often refers specifically to feminist philosophy. Since this section is about relation to other fields, it's helpful to make it explicity that we mean not just feminist philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) Would "the feminist movement" or "feminist movements" work? If not, I'd at least prefer a wording that doesn't use "known as". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

Source review

Most of the sources are high quality. There are also a few sources which are reliable but not necessarily high quality. They all meet the requirements of GA, but finding replacements for some of these is an option for further editing, particularly if FA is on the table. The ones I noticed are: Baggini & Krauss (2012); Duignan (2010); Duignan (2012); and Zack (2009) are not academic. Jäsche (1800); Kant (1781); Bertrand (1912) are older/primary sources. It would be preferable to find high quality sources that discuss them. Whether this applies to Plato (1997) depends on whether Plato's text or the editor's text is being cited. The references to Kant/Jäche and Plato are supported both by citations to the original and to a good secondary source, which is my preferred practice on Wikipedia; the Russell quote currently stands on its own, but it gives one answer to an obvious question the reader is likely to have ("Why study something I've been told in advance never arrives at any final answers?") and does not to me appear to be in need of any additional scholarly commentary. If it's a problem, though, I can certainly dig around for something. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC) There are various dictionaries and general purpose encyclopedias, including Britannica, that could be replaced with academic books and articles, or even philosophy-specific reference works. If anything controversial (or otherwise likely to be challenged) relies on a dubious "general purpose" source, please do flag this! I am sure that I can find a better one. I did not add these, but my recollection from reviewing others' work is that they were mostly sort of "extra" and so basically harmless. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC) The "Notes" section is empty. I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Within contemporary normative ethics, consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics are influential schools of thought. – unsourced I added references, they are the same as the following paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC) The paragraph on bioethics is unsourced. I added references. This paragraph was initial part of the following paragraph and we forgot to rearrange the sources as it was split. This is not a GA requirement, but some sources have very broad page ranges. In some cases it's clear that the source's overall argument is supporting the claim, but in some cases these could be made more precise. Spot checks: Jacobs (2022) – Good. Tuomela (1985) – Both uses good. Grant (2007) – Both uses good. Chalmers (2015) – Good. Blackson (2011) – Second use good. In the first use it supports the general idea but it doesn't explicitly state that the Presocratics were the early philosophers or that they were trying to understand the cosmos. It's combined with two other citations here that hopefully cover these. Overgaard, Gilbert, & Burwood (2013) – All uses good. Verene (2008) – Both uses good. Adamson (2016) – Does this support It started in the early 9th century CE and had its peak period during the Islamic Golden Age? Adamson 2016 supports the sentence only indirectly. It's more about Aristotle's influence and the focus on the teachings of the Quran. The sentence is more directly supported by Adamson & Taylor 2004, p. 1 (This was the beginning of what one might call the classical or formative period of philosophy in Arabic, which goes from the ninth to the twelfth centuries C.E.) and the Britannica article (The prominence of classical Islamic philosophy declined in the 12th and 13th centuries...). I would have to look up Grayling 2019 but I think it also supports the sentence. Smart (2008) – Pages 1–3 seem to mention religion, but otherwise doesn't really support this. Pages 1–11 define Western, Indian, and Chinese, but I don't see where it identifies Japanese, Latin American, or African as the next three most important, nor does it combine India and China as "Eastern". From Smart 2008 pp. 1–3: Even so, we need to think through the main varieties of speculative and critical thinking to which, in the West, the term ‘philosophy’ has been attached ... we can ask: do the conceptions which we find in Chinese and Indian civilizations give a separate slant on what ‘philosophy’ is? Do they add something to the Western tradition about the nature of the enterprise? ... But I mention them so that we are not mesmerized by the narrower confines of modern English-speaking professionals’ account of what philosophy is. It comprises not only the more critical and technical kinds of thinking which have come to dominate Western academic philosophy, but also those more sagely and spiritual aspects of human thought that have often been prominent in China and India and their surrounding regions ... There are traditional worldviews, including myths of origin and accounts of human nature in relation to the wider world, ethical values and proverbial lore. Such material may be called ‘worldviews’ for short. And the articulation of such worldviews, their critique and adaptation, may be fairly called philosophy. My impression is that this, together with the other sources, is sufficient to support the claim. But it shouldn't be a problem to find more sources if this is an issue. Smart 2008 pp. 1–11 mentions these different philosophical traditions but I dont think it gives an explicit ranking of their importance. Such a ranking would probably be controversial anyways. I added one more page from this chapter and I added a page for the table of contents, which shows that the book has individual chapters for these philosophical traditions. I also added 2 additional sources that mention them. I removed the claim about eastern philosophy. I'll ping PatrickJWelsh since, if I remember correctly, it was them who added it. One difficulty with this claim is that eastern philosophy is not just Chinese & Indian philosophy but includes others as well. I added the Wikilink to Eastern philosophy because that article appears to be quite detailed, and readers might be well-served by its contents. Also, some readers will just expect it. There are, however, scholars who object that lumping various traditions together under this head is an artificial Western construct (this criticism is included in that article). I would still be inclined to preserve the Wikilink in some form, but I don't feel strongly about it if you both object. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC) I missed the wording there in 1–3; that's more than sufficient. My main worry is about the selection of which regions go under the history section. I find it plausible that those four are the most prominent (and Adamson supports three of them). Essentially, what I'm asking is whether the cited sources explicitly support this in its entirety: The main traditions in the history of philosophy include Western, Arabic-Persian, Indian, and Chinese philosophy. Other influential philosophical traditions are Japanese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, and African philosophy. Currently, the article is making the claim that those four are the "main traditions", and that those three are the next most prominent. I notice that history of philosophy does something similar. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC) I think it supports the claim that those 3 are "Other influential philosophical traditions". As far as geographical locations are concerned, the main one discussed in Smart 2008 in a separate chapter and absent in this overview is Korean philosophy. My personal impression is that it is not as influential as the others mentioned. But we could add it to the list if this solves the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) By the way, I added Grayling 2019 as a reference since it explicitly supports the 4 main traditions mentioned. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC) If the article's sourcing confirms that these are the main traditions, then it shouldn't be an issue. Especially since there's a sourced statement explicitly saying "these are the main traditions", so that way it's clear that the section's organization isn't random. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Added the subject 'World' to History of Philosophy, testing Bing Chat(Box) for referencing/citing Arnbiology (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Brenner (1993) – Good. Brown & Fehige (2019) – Good. Losee (2001) – Not sure if this supports anything about pseudoscience or the purpose of science, though it's bundled with several other sources. Losee 2001 talks about the nature and subject-matter of the philosophy of science and provides various definitions. It does not mention pseudoscience explicitly but it talks about how to distinguish scientific inquiry form other types of investigations. Wei 2020, p. 127 discusses the problem of pseudoscience explicitly.

Broad in its coverage

As the article is written, I'm satisfied that it acknowledges all of the main ideas of philosophy that would be expected of a broad topic article: namely the definition of philosophy, the main branches, and the historical traditions. I'll just leave a few ideas for possible additions:

• A few miscellaneous philosophical schools of thought that aren't mentioned. Don't force them in if they don't fit, but consider using them if there's a gap in coverage and the sources identify them as important to their respective branches: coherentism, modernism and postmodernism, holism and reductionism, moral relativism, nihilism, absurdism, existentialism, determinism, libertarianism, compatibilism, and positivism. A few of these, like coherentism, seem to be touched on in the article but not mentioned by name.
  • I added a "See also" to List_of_philosophies in Other Branches. I also completely welcome the mention of any that come up, especially if a Wikilink might be helpful to some readers. It's impossible to be comprehensive, however, and I think it is important not to create a section that well-intentioned future editors might turn into a bloated list of their particular interests. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Arabic-Persian and Indian histories don't mention contemporary philosophy in those regions.
  • Phlsph7, in case you didn't see this and have not already addressed it above, could you speak to this? Thanks! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    • @PatrickJWelsh: Thanks for the reminder. This point was presented as a an optional idea for future additions. My idea was to address it once all the GA-relevant issues are resolved. The last 3 sentences on Indian philosophy are about modern philosophy. Given the limited size available, this seems to be sufficient. The subsection on Arabic-Persian philosophy ends with Mulla Sadra, who belongs to the post-classical period. Grayling 2019 ends his discussion of Arabic-Persian philosophy even earlier with Averroes as the last one. The Britannica article on Islamic philosophy also does not go much beyond classical philosophy except for mentioning in a general sense that it influenced subsequent philosophy. Adamson 2016 (p. 195) states that it is a common academic assumption that Islamic philosophy was not very influential after the Islamic Golden Age. A short 2 paragraph overview section is probably not the right place to set out to disprove this assumption. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• There could be some information about written philosophy. Most notable philosophers published their ideas in written form, after all. Besides standard books like Critique of Pure Reason, there are academic journals, there's philosophy written to convince the public (this one comes up especially in political philosophy), there's philosophical fiction like The Stranger (Camus novel), there are dialogues like those of Plato, and any other form that might be relevant.
  • The best-known treatment of this issue (to my knowledge) is Derrida's critique of logocentrism. But that is insanely technical. If you are suggesting something more like a section on genres of philosophical writing, I'm not sure how I would source that. It's also rather meta for an introductory article like this. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• There might be something to say about the teaching of philosophy.
  • Again, I'm not sure how I would source this. Most of what I have seen on this topic is either polemical editorializing or else journalistic reports about specific instances of public philosophy. I have no opposition to such a section in principle. It's just that I'm not sure what I could write that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. With both this and the immediately above, however, I'm willing to dig around for good sources if you can provide more of a picture of what you have in mind. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

No serious concerns over neutrality, mostly just minor wording issues and a few comments about weight:

• Kant's description of philosophy is given significant weight under "general conception". He's undeniably an influential philosopher, but is he known specifically for his conception of philosophy relative to other philosophers, or is his work often cited when considering the definition of philosophy? I added a sentence to address this, but I am happy to further discuss if you think problems remain. (The reason I added these incredibly broad questions is that they show a major Western philosopher confronting issues in a way that should make total sense even to someone who has never had the chance to study philosophy in a formal setting where the meaning of terms like "epistemology" and "metaphysics" is taken for granted.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• and are revisionistic – This sounds like the article is taking its own position on these definitions.

  Done.

• We discussed this in the source review, but it wouldn't hurt to add a sentence acknowledging that there are many other national and indigenous philosophical traditions, and that virtually all societies have such traditions, even if they're not all listed out.

  This could be done but we would have to qualify such a claim since this is only true if philosophy is understood in a very wide sense. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'll leave it to you, but if it is worth describing the scope of philosophy in this way, then this is the article to do it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm content with things as they are. The lead to the History of Philosophy does state that "The history of philosophy is primarily concerned with theories based on rational inquiry and argumentation. However, some historians understand it in a looser sense that includes myths, religious teachings, and proverbial lore."

  This acknowledges that there are perfectly legitimate uses of the term "philosophy" other than those that are the topic of this article. But it would be impossible to pursue all of these. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are right, the point in question is already implied by the sentence you quoted. I'll leave it as it is for now. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• and had its peak period during the Islamic Golden Age – "had its peak" suggests a qualitative evaluation. Would "was most prominent" or something similar be accurate?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Stronger sourcing would be helpful to determine that the "other major branches" are the ones most commonly referenced after the big four and are worth including over other branches.

  Done Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• The close relation between philosophy and other fields... – This seems to give undue weight to recent (and presumably Western) trends in the study of philosophy.

  I adjust the formulation for the contemporary period. Is there good reason to believe that this trend only applies to Western philosophy graduates? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm only familiar with how Western philosophy is taught and applied, so I'd rather bring up the issue and have it be nothing than to ignore it and have a potential Western-bias. But your change should work. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• and what implications they have for the unfair treatment of women in male-dominated societies – The article shouldn't definitively say that something is unfair.

  I removed the "the". This way, it is not implied in wiki voice that this unfair treatment exists. There is overwhelming evidence that women were historically treated unfair. So we could also change the expression to "historically unfair treatment". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Arnbiology, could you clarify your objection on this point? Because even "unfair treatment of women in male-dominated societies" is an understatement. I would prefer something more along the lines of "the historical and ongoing subjugation of women."

  Even in what we call the developed world, it is only quite recently that societies have recognized the rights of women to own property, participate in political life, be admitted to institutions of higher education and the work force—and I could easily go on. This article is obviously not the place to go into any of this, but I would place these facts in the same category as, for instance, George Washington having been the first president of the United States. I don't know the relevant Wikipedia policy, balance does not require giving equal weight to male chauvinism.

  But I'm sure I am just not understanding the nature of the issue with the first version. Your clarification, most appreciated!

  Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:WIKIVOICE is the policy of what can and cannot be said by Wikipedia, and it's one of the pages where total compliance is required for GA. It disallows opinions, value judgements, or subjective descriptions being stated as fact. Charged language that introduces a direct value judgement would not only be disqualifying for GA, but it would violate policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I adopted the language of "prejudicial treatment" from articles on racism and sexism. I would also point out that editors seem entirely unable to agree on how to draw the distinction between fact and opinion: Neutral_point_of_view#What_is_a_fact,_and_what_is_an_opinion?_It's_time_for_a_more_rigorous_delineation_between_these_concepts.

  I'm happy to field other suggestions, but no article is a good article if it implies that it is merely a matter of opinion whether women are inferior to men and deserve to be second-class citizens.

  (Also, please note that even on the Talk page I have deliberately avoided as unnecessarily inflammatory all the forms of literal violence against women. I have also avoided anything touching on religion.)

  Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, and also, I feel ridiculous even having to discuss this, but the only obvious candidate for excluding women from public life would be cognitive inferiority. (Or else why is it they should not be allowed to participate in political discourse?) There are plenty of robust scientific studies refuting such claims. I could produce citations if necessary, but I sincerely hope that it is not. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  That prejudicial treatment of women has existed is an uncontroversial fact. Stating it as a mere opinion would go against the third point of WP:WIKIVOICE. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is contesting that. Your removal of "the" resolved the issue. The original wording could have been read as an attempt to make a definitive universal judgement in wikivoice using partial tone, but the removal of a definite article relieved that enough that it wasn't a concern. "Historically unfair" also would have worked for the same reason. At that point, I was just waiting on your response on the history section before passing criterion 4. Mr. Welsh then suggested "the historical and ongoing subjugation of women", which goes entirely in the wrong direction per WP:IMPARTIAL and gives the impression of WP:COATRACKing, which would create an obstacle for passing this as GA. He then changed it to "prejudicial treatment", which is also good. Quite frankly, I don't know what's being argued now or what it has to do with this article. I've already listed what's left to address at the bottom of the review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, great. Sorry if I made this more of a thing than it needed to be. The finer points of the relevant policies are still not clear to me, but that's not an issue if the current version is acceptable to all parties concerned. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

All images are public domain or Creative Commons, and all have relevant captions.

Chinese history

There are some major issues with the Chinese history section. I am not trying to sound accusatory in the following, merely illustrate the issues at hand. Since (I assume, though feel free to correct me) that the nominators are primarily, if not exclusively educated in Western traditions, this makes me concerned that there are issues with the Arabic-Persian and Indian sections as well, which I do not have the knowledge to point out. For instance:

• the line It was more interested in practical questions associated with right social conduct and government forgets entirely the central issue of Confucianism, and arguably Daoism and Buddhism as well: self-cultivation (becoming a junzi or a Buddha).

  I added this item. I had to add another source since the current source do not give that much emphasis to this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• "The introduction of Buddhism to China in the following period"– what is "the following period"??

  The period after Confucianism and Daoism emerged. I reformulated the passage to avoid confusion.Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• "The modern period in Chinese philosophy began in the early 20th century"—how is it acceptable to skip 1000 years with no mention?

  I mentioned Xuanxue and Neo-Confucianism to close the gap.

• The only philosopher named is Karl Marx. This is a genuinely depressing sight; Marx only influenced the last 100 years of China, there are huge names missing who could be mentioned instead. In fact, the entire second paragraph seems far too skewed towards recent events. These are typical fallible tropes for the Western view of Chinese philosophy; the ancient established everything, and then nothing changed until Marx/Mao etc. This is simply not true, and I know that the nominators know this, but that is what is currently presented in the article.

  I removed the name of Karl Marx. This passage is about modern Chinese philosophy. In this regard, it is "skewed toward recent events" by principle. The most influential development in it was Marxism. I'm open to more suggestions but with our limit space, we have to be very selective. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Neo-Confucianism is a fundamental movement in Chinese philosophy, which actively informed entire empires for hundreds of years (it was state sponsored after all!). It was fundamentally altered version from the rise of Daoism and Buddhism. In fact, this is perhaps the main theme of all Chinese philosophy: reconciling merging and conflicting traditions. Xuanxue is another example of this balancing

  I mentioned them, see above. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I completely understand that there is limited space and such, but I do not think the current presentation is optimal. The Western section is carefully presented into a chronological narrative, naming numerous schools of thought with careful weaving. This is not the case for the Chinese section, and just glancing around, it does not seem the case with the Arabic-Persian section (no discussion of modern philosophy here) while Indian barely goes past 0 CE.

  The periodizations of these traditions are often not that straightforward as for Western philosophy. Regarding the Arabic-Persian subsection: the philosophers are presented chronologically. Mulla Sadra is mentioned as the most influential philosophers of the post-classical period. Regarding Indian philosophy: the last 3 sentences are about modern philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I apologize if these comments are at all discouraging, but this is an important article and it simply must be done correctly. We are already intrinsically biased by using only Western sources, so we must counter this with careful consideration Aza24 (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Aza24, this is really helpful. As far as I'm concerned, the more feedback an article like this gets, the better. I did mention above that the article was lacking in coverage of more recent Arabic-Persian and Indian philosophy; it's something I encourage the nominators to add, and it would be non-negotiable for FA. We're also still working on how much attention different philosophical traditions of the world should receive. I'm not going to ask you to go out of your way, but if you know of any useful sources, have a structure in mind, or just have any other suggestions, they are entirely welcome.

Phlsph7 & PatrickJWelsh: I'm hoping that it shouldn't be a problem to verify the line Aza quoted, since it has five sources in front of it. Either way, the omissions are worth considering. Ideally, it should be a 2–3 paragraph summary of the article Chinese philosophy, though there's no guarantee that the main article is of high quality. The Indian philosophy and Islamic philosophy articles are not organized chronologically, but a glance for obvious omissions wouldn't hurt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Aza24 and thanks for your input. To be honest, I expected this kind of comment at some point. Originally, I tried to have a larger history section to have more space to address the different traditions. But there was a lot of opposition on the talk page and it was quite a fight to get it to the current size. The original idea was to have only the size of regular lead without any subsections. For more details, see the discussion at Talk:Philosophy#Changes_to_the_section_"Historical_overview". In order to steer a middle course, I would suggest that we aim for 2 regular paragraphs for this subsection in order to not expand it too much in comparison to the others and to follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I expanded it now from 178 words to 216 words. I don't think it's a good idea to expand it much further. My fear is that this could easily lead to an expansion-spiral where editors associated with this or that particular tradition want the corresponding section to be expanded. All these traditions cover very wide fields and we can only really hope to trace some very general patterns and mention a few highlights. It will be close to impossible to do this in a way that every editor agrees with the selected patterns and highlights. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7, I completely understand your comment, but I fear you aren't interpreting me right. I've been around for a bit, and worked on plenty of summary articles and I know that these kinds of sections are kept to an absolutely minimal amount of information. I'm merely trying to illustrate that there needs to be more of a narrative between the paragraphs, and less a prose-ified statement of events (which I think has improved) Aza24 (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Working off of your improvements, what about something like this:

Chinese philosophy is particularly interested in practical questions associated with right social conduct, government, and self-cultivation. In competing attempts to resolve the politically turbulent 6th century, formal traditions emerged diversely, the most prominent being Confucianism and Daoism. Confucianism encouraged the acceptance of traditional values from earlier periods, emphasizing moral virtues—such as virtuousness, loyalty, ritual and filial piety—and explored how they lead to harmony in society. Daoism sought to lessen the reliance on worldly pursuits, and instead taught harmonious existence between humans and nature through the Dao ("the Way"). The ideas of other schools were gradually subsumed into larger traditions, including the utilitarian and altruistic Mohism, the strict ruling-based Legalism and the dualistic Yin and yang school.

From the introduction of Chinese Buddhism in the 1st century, subsequent philosophers worked on reconciling the conflicts of Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism. The first two of these were combined in the Xuanxue from the 3rd century CE onwards, which placed emphasis on metaphysical explanations. Neo-Confucianism fully emerged in the 11th century CE, systematizing previous Confucian teachings with Buddhist and Taoist influence, with a metaphysical foundation of ethics. As China and the West came into contact from the 20th century onwards, modern thought was shaped by the influence of and reactions to Western philosophy. The development of Chinese Marxism—which focused on class struggle, socialism, and communism—resulted in a significant political transformation. In an effort to preserve native teachings, movements such as New Confucianism have arisen

Some thoughts about my changes:

• The prose is a bit rough, and the whole thing is subject to further changes
• I think this more appropriately represents the fundamental nature of Chinese philosophy being continuously competing schools of thought—different than the often chronological nature of Western philosophy. Even now obsolete schools of thought such as Mohism are generally considered very influential
• I feel like saying a whole line to just say "they don't talk about metaphysics a lot" (" Compared to the other main traditions, it has placed less emphasis on questions of ultimate reality") is kind of a waste of space. Surely it is already implied by stating what the philosophy does focus on. It also rather ignores the purpose of Daoism and seems like a can of worms not worth opening.
• Daoism cannot be thought of as an extension of Confucianism, the previous said Daoism "broadened the philosophy...". There are fundamental differences between them that are often contradictory.
• I have chosen a lot of wording carefully: "formal traditions emerged diversely"—most of these philosophies have existed for a long time and the named traditions are merely formalizations (see the debate in calling it "Ruism" vs Confucianism). Same with "Neo-Confucianism fully emerged in the 11th century CE"—as it was deeply imbedded in the much earlier Tang dynasty thought
• I am happy to help find specific sources for changes, but I don't think it would be that difficult. I worked loosely off Kwong-loi Shun's entry in the The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. You may see that he dedicates an extremely minimal amount of time to the 20th century, so there may still be reason to lessen that in these paragraphs.

Aza24 (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Your suggestion works as well. I'm fine with using it if there are good sources for the additional claims. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

History

Phlsph7 & PatrickJWelsh, it looks like it just about meets the GA criteria. Like I said before, I want to take one more look at the history section to ensure that it gives proportional coverage.

• It stands out that Arabic-Persian doesn't mention years or centuries besides once at the beginning. When was the Islamic Golden Age? When did all of these philosophers live?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Arabic-Persian could really benefit from one sentence about contemporary philosophy. The influence of the west (particularly through colonialism), Islamic modernism, and Islamic revival#Contemporary revivalism might be relevant.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Does Indian warrant a mention of the heterodox nāstika?

  They are already mention (Buddhism and Jainism) but not under the title "nāstika". I gave each one more sentence to characterize them and to mention their founders by name. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• The influence of Arabic-Persian on Indian precedes the influence of Western and might warrant a mention.

  I'm not sure that this influence is substantial enough to merit a mention in this short characterization. If you have a good source on this then I can have a look. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Indian and Chinese both only mention one figure directly, as opposed to the three (all ancient Greek) in Western and the four in Arabic-Persian. Obviously we don't need to add names for the sake of adding them, but any philosophers that significantly changed the tradition should be mentioned.

  I mentioned some of the founders of the main schools by name. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• I wonder if more emphasis should be given the influence of Confucianism and the extent that it persisted in China.

  I mentioned New Confucianism as another development in the 20th century. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Are there any aspects of Aza24's suggestions that you intend to incorporate but haven't yet?

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7 & PatrickJWelsh: At this point, I'm satisfied that Philosophy meets all of the good article criteria. This is an article to be proud of. Given that it's such a broad topic, you might consider further input to go above the GA criteria: WP:PR, WT:PHILOSOPHY, and WP:FAC are all options. Aza24, I'm letting you know that the article has passed GA, and that any fine-tuning can occur on the talk page if you have further thoughts. Your suggestions were helpful, and I took them into consideration when reviewing the history section as a whole. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.