Wikipedia:Peer review/Logos/archive1

Logos

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this page is overly thorough toward a Christian-centered perspective, especially since there is also a page at logos (Christianity), and weak in all other areas which are highly relevant to the topic, particularly philosophy and rhetoric. My efforts to balance the page have been shut-down at every attempt, so perhaps I am going about it in the wrong way?

Thanks, Edunoramus (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is also an outstanding RfC on the same topic posted to the Religion and philosophy list on 22 August 2010 -- see Talk:Logos#Proposed_Re-Write. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some comments, focused mainly on the article content and the issues under discussion at the moment:

With respect to the RfC, I do not think the article needs to be rewritten to disambiguate the various uses, but it does require a lot of expansion. So much so that it may be tantamount to a rewrite in any case.
As to the question of how to handle the discussion of logos in Christianity: Because a main article exists on that topic, the discussion here should be condensed to a single brief section that summarizes that article. For WP:SS, what is here now is much too long. That’s what the main article is for.
In general, the article is kind of a WP:QUOTEFARM at present. The blockquotes should be replaced with more extended discussion, augmented with pertinent quotes if need be. Direct quotes from primary sources should be used with caution. To the extent that they require even minimal interpretation by the editor or the reader, they should probably be avoided.
They etymology discussion could be expanded a smidge. Why assume, for example, that we know the word is Ancient Greek? You should mention that it emerged around 700BC as the common term for discourse. Also, the primary distinction, which is important for the article, is between logos as discourse on the one hand and logos as reason on the other. All of the treatments of term that follow play on one or both of these themes from the Ancient Greek.
You do not need to italicize the word logos. It appears in English dictionaries.
The phrasing “Use of … “ in the headings is awkward. I might just say “In Ancient Greek philosophy,” etc.
I would avoid using the Greek alphabet here. It will not help most English speakers.
The Sophists of the 5th century also talked about logos, which is where the rhetorical sense of the term in Aristotle comes from. That should be mentioned.
Plato uses the phrase in quite a number of different senses, including the expression of thought (nous) and an argument as a component of knowledge (which equals true judgment with an logos). There is a lot of ambiguity and thus a lot of debate, but it should definitely be discussed here.
There are also many uses of logos in Aristotle, and I would not think the rhetorical sense is the most important (is it not original to him). In On Interpretation it means a statement or assertion, in Ethics it means reason (as in “right reason” = orthos logos), in Politics it means speech ( humans are animals with logos), in Metaphysics it is the form or essence of things. On the one hand, he uses it so freely that it is hard to say which distinctions are useful, but his logos as assertion will be important for Heidegger and all of the other uses are worth mentioning at least briefly.
The discussion of the Stoics could be expanded. For example, that the human expression of divine logos is ordered discourse. As the overall rational principle of the universe, they thought humans should strive to live consistently with logos.
You might consider moving the section on Philo to the Logos in Christianity section, since he is really the precursor of that line of thought.
You might also add some discussion of the concept of The Word in Judaism to that article and rename it Logos in Religion. It would be more comprehensive that way.
Logos also appears a lot in Hermetica. Might deserve a mention.
The Neoplatonism section obviously needs expanding. The main point is probably that they saw it as a creative force emanating from the higher to the lower planes of being. In Augustine, that becomes the means by which God is incarnated in Christ (word became flesh). The part about Augustine should really be in the Logos in Religion article, though.
Maybe stick Plotinus in with the other Greeks and call the section In Greek Philosophy? It is odd to have him after Christianity.
Would you say that logos was a broadly Sufi notion or an Idn Arabi notion? I would lean towards the latter.
I agree with the discussion on the talk page that a Modern section is warranted. It will be difficult, since the term appears often but seldom prominently, except perhaps in Heidegger and maybe a few others. You might combine all of the German Idealists into one subsection (they will all be similar). Maybe the 20th century folks together if there are enough common themes. Have to think about that.
I don’t know much about Islamic philosophy, but if the term (or an analogue) is relevant, it should certainly be mentioned here.
Obviously, expand on Jung.
With respect to who influenced whom, unless is it so obvious from the primary sources that no one would ever disagree, you will have to find secondary sources for the interpretation and discuss and major disagreements per WP:NPOV. It will be hard to tell a coherent story about the history of the concept. I am not sure there really is one. Other than the general definitions of discourse and/or reason, it is more or less applied at will in philosophy. That is my own view, of course, which is really just a caution not to presume any view for which there is not strong academic consensus.
Whoever said not to use Heidegger as a source on Aristotle is right. There are a wealth of authoritative sources for that.
Minor points:

The See also source should be worked into the text. That should be easy enough.
Once you have expanded it, the lead will have to be reworked. It needs to summarize the article fully. There will be a lot to do there.
I don’t think the image of the Greek word is all that compelling. It is tough to illustrate these articles, I know. But some interesting images of the people would be an improvement.

I hope my comments are helpful. Please feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I can be helpful in the future. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response 1

Thank you for this very thorough review. I agree with you in pretty much every regard. Here are my responses.

I agree that Aristotle rhetorical use of the term is not the most imporant. I would like to add that confining it to rhetoric is probably the first big blunder of the article since subsequent philosophical traditions were probably influenced more so by Aristotle's logic.
The islamic philosopher I am thinking of (Al-Farabi, Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Avicenna) were all devoted to merging Aristotle's logic, neo-Platonism and Koranic scripture. There influences on medieval philosopher likes Maimonides is undisputed. They should definitely be included.
While the word logos appears sporadically in modern philosophy prior to Heidegger, I don't think it would be controversial to state that Aristotle logos influenced Kant's Reason and thus we can bracket German Idealist and their use of reason.
I think Bracketing philosophers becomes much more problematic starting with Heidegger. Most contemporary philosophers gain their understand from him but then diverge pretty radically. I think philosophers that need to be included are Lacan (he translated Heidegger logos). Maybe instead of a section on Jung and lacan, probably a section on logos in psychoanalysis. There is Derrida and his critique of logocentrism (a word he did not term) as well as phallogocentrism (which he did term). Finally, (to my knowledge) there is Deleuze who popularized the idea of anti-logos in Proust and Signs. I guess what a common theme of contemporary would be they all wish to distance philosophy from logos(?)

Those are my two cents لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response 2

Thank you for the detailed feedback.

I agree that the article requires a lot of expansion.
I don't believe the Christian section will be seen as too long once the article is complete. It is after all this article which will discuss influences between the different uses of "Logos," including the Christian one.

It has nothing to do with length, really. It has to do with summary style. When a separate article exists, the content should not be duplicated, but rather summarized and linked. Either this section needs to be summarized heavily or the Logos (Christianity) article needs be combined with this one and then deleted. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but this article is really about historical development of versions of the Logos concept, and that requires more than a paragraph on the Christian use. For example, proper expansion of the Sufism section will require referring to specific aspects of the Christian use; those aspects will need to be in this article.

To put it another way, this article should summarise information one would find in books on philosophy discussing "Logos," Logos (Christianity) should summarise information one would find in books on Christian theology; some overlap is inevitable, but once both articles are expanded in appropriate ways, that overlap will be relatively small. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really am going to stop now, since I am not sure my comments are going to make much impact here, but I actually don't think you do see my point. If you read WP:SS, good form dictates that the detail be in one article only and only the summary everywhere else. You can link between them as needed. There are other ways to do it, but that's the way Wikipedia does things. The idea that we have a philosophy "slant" and a Christianity "slant" on essentially the same material is the antithesis of NPOV. Both points of view should be represented, no matter in which article the material appears. When I have seen these disputes in the past (it happens a lot), I have found this essay to be helpful. Maybe it will be helpful here. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. What I meant was simply that much of this article is out-of-scope for Logos (Christianity), and many topics either in or potentially in Logos (Christianity) would be out-of-scope here. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Greek alphabet should be retained, as some readers will want it. There's no need to "dumb down" the article.

Please see WP:MOS#Foreign terms. Foreign terms should be used sparingly. "Foreign terms within the article body do not need native spellings if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles." --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that applies, since the article is specifically about a Greek word; I would expect a philosophy text written in English to use the Greek word; I think we should too. And if I understand the policy you quoted, it applies to other articles not spelling Logos in Greek, but linking to this article instead. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this essay will help. If a term could be a separate article (like most philosophical terms), it does not need a native spelling. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But surely this is the "separate article" on a philosophical term? -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and native spelling in the first line is appropriate. But lexis? Pathos? Ethos? Could be (or are) their own separate articles. So why the native spelling here? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Plato and Aristotle both used "logos" in philosophy. Aristotle's rhetorical use may not be the most important, but it needs distinguishing from his philosophical use.
Philo must not be moved to the Christian section, since he was Jewish. His influence on medieval thought in various religious groups should be distinguished from that of others, and medieval Jewish thought should be distinguished from Christian and Islamic thought.

I was not suggesting he be moved the the Christian section, but rather that all religious discussions be combined in a single, separate, and more comprehensive article. They are, after all, closely related. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they are also closely related to the ancient Greek and Neoplatonist uses; the inter-relationships between uses should be here. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think so, propose to combine the two articles into this one. That would be fine. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I strongly oppose your suggested split. Too many things in this article straddle the religion/philosophy boundary. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neoplatonism should not, IMO, be combined with older Greek philosophy, since it followed Philo and early Christianity. However, Neoplatonism had considerable influence on medieval thought in various religious groups.

If the article is going to flow chronologically, it should do so consistently, in which case the later Christian writers should come later (as it stands right now, they would come last). If the Christianity section is summarized they way it should be, it will be an non-issue. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should indeed generally flow chronologically. That does suggest splitting the Christianity section, but I don't think splitting the Christianity section aids the reader. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So which is it? Surely it should not be a mere matter of taste. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be up to the editors writing the article to decide what flows best. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editors do not WP:OWN the article, of course. There should be a good reason for the flow, whatever it is. And there should be consensus. If the Christianity content really just belongs together, chronology notwithstanding, it gives still more reason to think it belongs in a different article.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree we will need reliable secondary sources on interpretation and on to who influenced whom.
I strongly agree that the lead should summarize the article.
Your point on images is well taken. I don’t think the image of the Greek word is all that compelling either. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Process issues

By the way, editors should note the review comments by Nasty Housecat above were in response to specific canvassing in response to an existing RfC discussion. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered canvassing if the intent is to influence "the outcome in a particular way". As Nasty Housecat, is a volunteer peer reviewer, listed on the peer review volunteers page for Philosophy and Religion, my actions here are in accordance with the guidelines for the peer review process. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس is also a contributor who was invited here to review by the same peer review volunteer process. Edunoramus (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, the peer review process is for editors of articles to seek help in getting to FA status, not for resolving disputes. Second, I note that you canvassed only selected volunteers from the list. I suggest we wait for the RfC to run to completion. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to peer review the article and I did. My comments are well beyond the scope of the RfC on which I chose not to comment because I think it is pointless. The article clearly needs extensive revision, whatever you want to call that. I am not interested in wading into this edit war, but it seems to me the real dispute you cannot resolve is about what to do with the Christianity content. I shared my view on that question in the review, and will reply to further comments above. I resent any implication that my comments were anything other than requested and delivered in good faith. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was certainly not implying any breach of good faith on your part, and I'm sorry for any offence caused -- no offence was intended. However, I note that you have waded into an edit war, whether you wanted to or not, simply by responding to the canvassing that took place.

Any revision of the article will have to be based on consensus on the article talk page; this peer review does not over-ride that requirement. I would suggest that we close this review until the RfC is resolved; I don't see any point in turning this page into an alternative article talk page. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is your insistence on calling it canvassing (when it clearly was not) just wading deeper into the edit war? This dispute seems way more personal than it should be. I hope the RfC resolves something. In the meantime, I hope the many other comments left here by myself and YWGonzalez are helpful. Seems to me this is the right place to discuss them, but maybe not. I have offered one way to resolve the conflict, based on clear Wikipeida policy, namely, to adhere to WP:SS. It would improve the article and eliminate your conflict altogether. Let the consensus fall where it may. I hope you work something out. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do I; I'm not sure this peer review is really helping the RfC get anywhere, especially in light of some of the points I made above. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war is pretty silly an easily resolvable. Obviously the medium for this is was not peer-review (or RfC) but probably adding it to Requests for feedback page. However I think this was done by accident. I don't think it was canvassing. I think it was done in good faith as this page obviously needs revision. I have more to say but I agree we should close this page and merge the contents with the logos talk page. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement that we should close the peer review page and merge it with the talk page. We have some highly relevant material here that will be helpful as we tackle the expansion and revision of the page. Thank you both for your input! As to comment on my own actions here, they were executed in good faith, perhaps I jumped the gun in moving so quickly from RfC to peer review but I was eager to get this project moving and that we accomplished. As an editor, I am learning as I go. In terms of additional comments on what has been stated above in terms of content suggestions, I too, have some things that I would like to add but I will wait until we are established back on the talk page to do so. --Edunoramus (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I also stated on the talk page for Logos, I will leave this page open for discussion for two more days and after that time, unless there is further comment to be made here, I will turn this page into an archive and move the content to the talk page. RfC will remain open for thirty days and it is presumed that the bot will remove it when the time has elapsed. I have also added a sub-heading for WP:SS discussion on the talk page. --Edunoramus (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be transcluded, not moved. I'll do that. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded is better. I had no idea that was possible. Thanks. --Edunoramus (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]