Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Existence/archive1

Existence[edit]

Featured article candidates/Existence/archive1

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existence is the state of having reality. Often contrasted with essence, it is a wide and fundamental concept associated with various tricky problems, such as the status of imaginary entities like Santa Claus. Thanks to Of the universe for their GA review, to Jenhawk777, Bilorv, and Patrick Welsh for their peer reviews, and to Baffle gab1978 for their GOCE copy-edit of this level 4 vital article.

750h[edit]

I have read through this article twice and have not seen any obvious problems. Expressing my support of this nomination. I love the examples used, such as "kangaroos live in Australia", which facilitate the reader’s experience. I’m happy to have been the GA reviewer of the Ethics article and hope to see it here sometime soon :-). 750h+ | Talk 04:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: Thanks a lot for the support! I'm working to get Ethics ready for a nomination and I'll let you know, hopefully after this one. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness[edit]

Another great summary article on a massive topic like existence :) These are the only comments I have after reading through, I expect to support when they are cleared up but I might also make some more comments if I look through the source list. Shapeyness (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I'm happy to see that you haven't become tired of reviewing those wide-scope articles :) and your background on Quine should prove quite useful for this topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willard Van Orman Quine (1908–2000) defends a different position by giving primacy to singular existence maybe it would be useful to say why, e.g. "arguing that general existence can also be expressed in terms of individual existence"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to this view, a universal that has no instances in the spacio-temporal world does not exist optionally, this could be simplified by removing reference to the "spacio-temporal world" (if you decide to keep, should it be spatio-temporal?)
I fixed the spelling but I left the term. I'm not sure how relevant the concern is but one universal could instantiate another universial without either of them existing in space and time. I don't think Aristotelians would be happy about that kind of existence so this way, we have our bases covered. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right so this is actually a slightly more cautious wording, I didn't realise that at first. Shapeyness (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstract objects ... exist outside space and time the use of a spatial concept ("outside") here is unfortunate, although it gets the idea across pretty well. Maybe "do not exist with a location in space and time"/"do not have a location in space and time" would also work?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the relationship between abstract and fictional objects - in the source this seems more of a passing comment or something to keep in mind rather than an important point in its own right, do you think it is due weight to include? Maybe it would be better to discuss fictional objects more holistically in their own subsection or in "Modes and degrees of existence" given fictional objects are generally thought to exist or to have being in a different way
That was more of an intermediary solution since I thought that fictional objects should be mentioned but I didn't want to give them their own section. I added a subsection called "Others" to discuss them in more detail. I also used the opportunity to add some information on intentional inexistence. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Physical entities include objects of regular perception given the later reference to perceptions being mental objects, I see it being quite easy for a reader to get confused here by not realising the subtlety of the word choice (objects of perception, not perception itself). Also, idealists and indirect realists would argue the objects of perception are mental, so maybe best to reword.
Good catch. The reference to perception was not essential here so I rephrased it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, according to Gibson, a thing either exists or does not exist; this means there is no in-between alternative and that there are no degrees of existence This was very famously argued by Quine in "On What There Is". It is probably better to remove this sentence or put Quine here instead, or at the very least add a supporting secondary source here to demonstrate the importance of Gibson's argument
Agreed, Quine would have been the better person to ascribe this view to. The main point of this phrase was not so much to talk about Gibson's or Quine's philosophy but to give the reader an idea about what this position means. I found a way to phrase the sentence differently that does not require attribution. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that makes the most sense I think, Quine is already well covered elsewhere. Shapeyness (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the previous point, when Gibson is first mentioned he is cited there too, do the secondary sources mention him in regards to existence being an elementary concept?
Vallicella discusses him but the essential point is the view itself and not that Gibson in particular defends it so I removed his name. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think keeping reference to Gibson is harmful if RSes think they are important enough to mention in this context, just wanted to check. Either way is fine though. Shapeyness (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) explored how being and nothing pass into one another in the process of becoming This is slightly confusing, although maybe it's because I don't know much about Hegel
- Sorry, Phlsph7, I didn't get back to you on this before peer review ended. I was looking at the Rosen again, just because it is a source you chose, and found additional support for my suggestion about internal mediation on p. 93. But perhaps more appropriate for an article at this level would be something quite simply along the lines of "According to G. W. F. Hegel, there is no pure being or pure nothing, only becoming." This is enough to provide a little bit of the flavor of Hegel's thought to someone with no background in philosophy. It's also such a bare description of the opening of the logic that it would be supported by just about any secondary source that discusses that section. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I implemented your suggestion and adjusted the page numbers, though I'm not sure whether it solves Shapeyness's concern. For whoever is interested, there was already a lengthy discussion during the peer review on how or whether to mention Hegel. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Patrick Welsh: would becoming (philosophy) redirect to the right concept, might be worth a link in that sentence if so. Shapeyness (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I haven't read Whitehead, who is the primary subject of that article, but it sounds as though he took some inspiration from Hegel but departed on some fundamentals (e.g., his Aristotelian commitments). A wikilink on that term would probably be confusing to readers.
  
  "Dialectic" is a term that I think means less than some some scholars admit. In this case, however, it might be useful as a modifier to distinguish Hegel's views from at least some other accounts of becoming. Something like only a dialectic of becoming. Hegelian dialectic is an okay section of Dialectic, and it links out to the relevant section of Hegel for anyone who wants a more integrated account.
  
  As I said in the peer review, however, while I think that it's entirely appropriate to mention Hegel in this article, I don't think it is necessary. If it's a problem, I wouldn't object to its removal.
  
  Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern philosophy is given slightly less space than western philosophy in the history section, that may be justified but just checking
There would be many ways to expand that section but if we strictly followed the weight given to these views in the overview sources, we would probably have to reduce the section rather than expand it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some sandwiching of text in the history section on my screen - choosing shorter images or using |upright for narrow images might help
- FYI I reduced the sandwiching in the Eastern philosophy section, but there is still some between Aristotle and Anselm of Canterbury which I'm not sure how to deal with. Shapeyness (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I reduced the image sizes but depending on the display device, the problems may remain. We could use the clear-template but that is also not ideal since it creates white spaces. Maybe it's just too many images in the history section so we could remove one or two. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Phlsph7: What do you think of this. It removes most of the sandwiching and the article keeps an extra image. Shapeyness (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That looks like a good solution and it has the additional advantage of covering Plato in addition to Aristotle. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses so far! Comments on sources below. Shapeyness (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The American Heritage Dictionary Entry: Existence" - should the title be simply "Existence"?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aho 2021 - this needs editor details
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SEP entries - (optional one) some specify the location in both Citations and Sources, would it be better to remove it from Sources
I agree, I removed the locations from the full source templates. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ásta 2017 - this needs editor details
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Borchert Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries are inconsistent - some refer to it as Encyclopedia of Philosophy and others as Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, some have the subtitle (e.g. Oakeshott - Presupposition) and others don't, some have publisher Thomson Gale, Macmillan and others just Macmillan
I fixed them by following how title and publisher appear in the book. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A number of sources have the volume number in the book title, I think they should be in the volume field instead
I hope I got all of them. I left it for Balthasar 2000 since the volume has its own subtitle, which is not possible to include in volume parameter of the template. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borchert Encyclopedia of Philosophy is still inconsistent on this (volume in book title or volume field). Shapeyness (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mathematics for Elementary School Teachers" - this is already ok but are there any even better sources
I replaced it with better sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Existential Sociology" in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology - authors listed here are wrong, I guess they are editors? Also, the doi leads to an old version, is everything you need also in the newer version?
I replaced it with the newer version and fixed the details. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some journal articles are missing ISSNs
Done. I hope I got them all. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Ontology" in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy - Honderich is the editor, is he also the author of this entry?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful for some of the works by famous 20th century philosophers (e.g. Camus, Husserl) to have the original publication date too, for Camus should a translator be there too
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kim 2006 - "Boulder: Westview Press" I think should just be "Westview Press"?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lowe 2005 - editor details might be useful here
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Magnus 2005 - contains location of publication etc when other books don't
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smith, Mulligan & Simons 2013 - missing chapter/entry details I think
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Van Inwagen - inconsistent capitalisation
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also many chapters from edited collections that are cited to the entire book/editors rather than the individual chapter author, I can add a list of the ones I noticed if that's useful.
Thanks for catching this, I have to be more careful in the future when citing from edited collections. I went through the sources but I'm not sure that I got all so it might be good to cross-check with your list. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You got all the ones I noticed! Shapeyness (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion: this article covers everything I would expect, and checking against overview sources I can't see any major points that aren't covered. I think there is space for the Eastern philosophy section to be expanded some more without unbalancing the article or causing it to become overlong but it's not neglected as is. Overall, it is a well-written article that meets all the FA criteria. Shapeyness (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the support and all the insightful suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and image review by Generalissima[edit]

I don't know how you do it Phlsph, you are amazing at both prose and sourcing for these extremely ethereal concepts. The layout of this article makes sense, and you do a good job breaking up the topic in a way that someone who might not know very much about ontology can understand.

@Generalissima: Thanks a lot for doing this review and for your kind words! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede is good; my only concern is that instantiated might be a bit too obscure a term for the lede, where generally we want to distill concepts down to a very easy to understand level.
I've been struggling for a while to get this passage right, I hope the new version is better. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definition and related terms is good, see no prose issues here.
Types of existing entities is also good.
Modes and degrees of existence, Theories of the nature of existence, History, In various disciplines are all good.

And then in regards for images:

I'm a bit confused by your linking of certain names in image captions and not others; is there a MoS guideline I have overlooked on this? Nothing on MOS:CAPTIONS seems to indicate it.
I'm not aware of any guideline. It's probably best to follow consistency and just link all. I hope I didn't miss any this time. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all pictures here are public domain due to their antiquity, and those that aren't are own work and CC licensed:
- Existential quantifier.svg - Own work, good to go.
- Avicenna lithograph - cropped.png and Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli.png - Public domain, good.
- File:Bellerophon riding Pegasus and killing the Chimera, Roman mosaic, the Rolin Museum in Autun, France, 2nd to 3rd century AD.jpg - Public domain.
- File:Bertrand Russell 1949.jpg - Creative commons.
- File:Alexius Meinong 1900.jpg - Public domain.
- "The School of Athens" by Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino (cropped).jpg - Public domain.
- Anselm of Canterbury2.png - Public domain.
- Franz Brentano in Vienna, 1875.png - Public domain.
- Raja Ravi Varma - Sankaracharya - cropped.png - Public domain.
- Head of Laozi marble Tang Dynasty (618-906 CE) Shaanxi Province China.jpg - Published under CC, statue itself obviously public domain.
All have alt-text.

And that's all for know. Happy to say I don't see anything else that needs fixing! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on image and prose review. The changes have resolved my only concerns here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]