Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2024

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 April 2024 [1].

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

[edit]
Nominator(s): K. Peake 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010), the fifth studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It was recorded during West's exile in Hawaii after a period of controversy through 2009, resulting in a maximalist style with elements of his previous work. The album was met with widespread critical acclaim and also received much retrospective praise, including being ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time. West promoted the album with four singles that were top 40 hits in the United States and the film Runaway, while it reached the top 10 in countries like the US and Canada. The article became a GA back in 2011, more than five years before I joined this site, though I have monitored it over the years and put in extensive work back in both 2022 and the start of 2024 for a FAC. I did take it through peer review before a third FAC and also made sure to incorporate the book sources, as West's magnum ops my dedication was guaranteed! --K. Peake 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

[edit]

Will be saving a spot ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 02:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You do not use false titles in the lead section but you do in several instances down the article (e.g. "recording artist Lady Gaga"). Make this consistent
  • It feels weird to cite grammy.com pages as "Grammy Awards", given the awards/ceremonies themselves obviously do not write or publish the articles. usually I see those sources cited under the work/publisher The Recording Academy.
  • I will be commenting on the lead after I'm finished reviewing the prose, to ensure that it properly summarizes all relevant details in the article.

Background

  • Not quite; you missed [10]. - E.
  • I think it would be more beneficial if the explanation for the "public-image controversy" bit came immediately after the sentence. What's the purpose of the sentence "Around a year previously..." in this part of the paragraph?
  • Linking just the word "outburst" and "interruption" is a MOS:EASTEREGG issue; furthermore, the sentence does not clearly convey that the outburst happened at the VMAs.
  • I would say yes. - E.
  • Indicate the VMAs acronym immediately after spelling it in full, as the article uses the acronym a few more times down the line.
  • Great, but I think you can remove the "VMAs" from the lead since you don't use the acronym elsewhere in it. - E.
  • What is "rode the waves and rode it and rode it" here supposed to say? I assume it means West thought Swift was "riding the wave" of public sympathy - if so, make it clearer, possibly with a wiktionary link .
  • "he feels like 'a soldier of culture', realizing no one wants this to be his job and he also honestly set out to maintain a large involvement in culture" two things. first, all of the verbs should be in past tense, and number two, i do not understand what any of this intends to convey. unfortunately, i do not have access to the cited book at the moment, so it will be hard to check.
  • "I feel like, in some ways like I’m a soldier of culture, and I realize that no one wants that to be my job...will I feel convicted about things that really meant stuff to culture that constantly get denied for years and years and years and years, I’m sorry, I will. I cannot lie about it in order to sell records." phrased to be most appropriate. --K. Peake 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this can still use a bit of work. The easiest approach, I think, would be to let the quotation speak for itself. You may replace this with the quotation, but I warn you will have to be careful with limiting these. - E.
  • close paraphrasing issue with "a minimum of 80 percent was what he wanted to deliver, with the remainder 'fulfilling a perception'". it does not sufficiently reflect the source, "It's always going to be 80 percent, at least, what I want to give, and 20 percent fulfilling a perception". from what i understand it's "80%" of west staying true to himself and "20%" assuming the role the public expects him to play?
  • "dissing Dark Fantasy" can be paraphrased; also I don't think you should enclose "Dark Fantasy" in single quotation marks since West was clearly referring to the album
  • "what he wanted to deliver" can be tightened to "genuine" IMO. - E.

Recording and production

  • the "later" in "He later explained" is not necessary
  • "Various contributors engaged in sessions with West... Other artists recorded vocals for the album... Record producers who contributed in the sessions..." repetitive sentence structure. i think we can switch it up a bit?
  • Eh, good enough - E.
  • "Record producers who contributed in the sessions include:" misuse of the colon
  • link the "Tweeting" from "No Tweeting" to Tweet (social media), removing the wikilink in "West tweeted", and link Rolodex
  • Linking rolodex has yet to be done - E.
  • "The heavy work ethic led to West and his crew having a multi-course breakfast" was this, along with the 21 games, marijuana, and workouts, a one-off thing? readers would benefit from a clarification that these happened regularly or at least a lot
  • "solicited other producers" perhaps you mean enlisted ? to solicit sometimes means to ask someone for sexual favours ..
  • "to weigh in" sounds informal; trim to "for opinions"
  • "In an interview with Callahan-Bever" don't think this is needed given the previous sentence establishes we are in the context of an interview"
  • IMO the fourth paragraph of this section contains too many quotations, and there are ways to paraphrase some if not all of them to avoid this issue.
  • I still think there are still too many. - E.
  • "West subsequently recorded in hotel rooms for Watch the Throne" i am unsure if this fact is relevant enough for inclusion in the article.

Will return with comments soon, perhaps this weekend ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 13:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the long delays. Here are some further comments after a sweep at my previous suggestions.

  • WP:CLOP issue with the last sentence at the Background section. Furthermore, I don't exactly understand why this sentence is relevant to comprehending the article's contents.
  • It might be worth namedropping chipmunk soul in the article, as it is a prominent production style used in the album.
  • Usually, I appreciate the use of quote boxes when the quotation picked is compelling. In this case, I am unsure about using it for the aforementioned section especially since we already have so many quotations. It just essentially repeats what is already said in the prose. Perhaps we can remove this?
  • Apologies in advance, but I still see even more quotations in the article as I read through the musical styles section. I completely understand that some descriptions of the album and summaries of critical commentary are best described by quotations and/or cannot be sufficiently paraphrased, I found twenty-three quotations in the musical style section alone --- in almost every sentence, some in close proximity to each other. Of the 452 words in that section, 149 come from quotations, or almost 33% or around 1/3 of the section. In the next section, 165/423 (39%) of the words come from quotations, and I note that every sentence about a critic saying something consists of at least one quotation. The rest are more generous: the song section has a 205/964 (21.3%) quotation/prose ratio, title/packaging 128/654 (19.6%), marketing 106/631 (16.8%), sales 0%, reviews 116/476 (24.4%), rankings 80/456 (17.5%), and industry awards 110/479 (23.0%).

I will have to pause my review here and oppose this in the meantime. Two sections have over a third of its words come from source quotations, indicating an overuse of them, which in turn tells me more work needs to be done to properly summarize the literature around this album. Not to mention a hint of close paraphrasing issues; if you wish, you may ask for spotchecks from a more experienced reviewer to weed out some of these instances. My sincere apologies because I have never opposed a nomination before, but my gut feeling tells me it must be done. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 01:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Power Thank you for the comments, regarding the direct quotes and close phrasing I have chopped these down heavily throughout now if you want to take a look. While I do appreciate these comments for improvement and will also be searching today to find source(s) for chipmunk soul, the opposition is not justified since these are not issues that take a long time to resolve so it may not be supportable upon your comments but they would be more suitable as comments rather than oppose – sorry if this strikes your gut, so to speak. --K. Peake 08:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, a reviewer should feel free to oppose anytime they feel the FA criteria are not (yet) met. If the issues can be dealt with quickly, and the oppose struck, that's great, but a reviewer clearly flagging such concerns is a benefit to the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, this should not have really been somewhere to intervene regarding whether it is suitable or not for the user to oppose. Who knows, maybe they will support on next comments now... K. Peake 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elias, any further comment in light of the changes? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gog the Mild, apologies for taking me a week to get to this. I just saw Heartfox's comments below, and after comparing it with the state of the critical reception as well as the rest of the article, I doubt I will be striking my oppose any time soon. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman

[edit]

Support on prose. The only thing I suggest is using subheaders in the Songs section, i.e. Tracks 1-6 and Tracks 7-13. 웃OO 02:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added these in now, although it actually is 1-7 and then 8-13 but thank you! K. Peake 20:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

magiciandude

[edit]

Also support on prose and as well as the issues addressed above. Erick (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]

Got into Ye's music recently so I will try my best to make time for this!--NØ 15:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the Swift interruption relevant enough for the lead? It looks too text-heavy, honestly.
  • I would say so since this album is often seen as West's redemption after his incident with Taylor Swift, therefore this being in the lead brings significant context for viewers instantly. --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the album's marketing, West released free songs through his weekly GOOD Fridays series, as well as four singles, including "Power" and "All of the Lights", with all of them becoming top 40 hits on the Billboard Hot 100." - "During the album's marketing" bit is redundant. Maybe the simpler "Alongside several free songs released through his weekly GOOD Fridays series, West supported the album with four Billboard Hot 100 top 40 singles, including "Power" and "All of the Lights"?
  • I would avoid referring to the singles as "hits" later on in the article as well for neutrality
  • "It eventually registered a triple platinum certification" - Registered does not sound right. Maybe achieved?
  • The "RIAA" abbreviation does not need to be included since it is not used again.
  • A clean version of the alt cover seems to be available from Amazon, which seem to be generally preferred
  • Suggest combining more than three refs in a row to avoid citation overkill: "[6][26][27][28]"
  • The "EW" abbreviation in the bracket after Entertainment Weekly seems unnecessary to me
  • Why not "Commercial performance" instead of "Sales" as a section title? The certifications included here include streaming performance and the last sentence concerns Spotify.
  • Done, I agree with you here but this had been the idea of another editor a while back yet that was not at FAC so commercial performance outweighs sales verdict! --K. Peake 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the end of 2010, numerous critics and publications included My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy on their year-end top albums lists" - That the lists were published at the end of 2010 is sufficiently implied by them being year-end lists, imo. So I would let go of the part preceding the comma.
  • Are HipHopDX Awards notable enough to be included? Just asking since I am not familiar with the hip hop scene and these do not seem to have a Wikipedia article.
I will refrain from voting since this isn't an in-depth review. Hope this is helpful--NØ 02:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit dissatisfied with the convolution in the prose. That's the primary reason I haven't converted to a support after my initial comments. Significant work looks required in that department and I unfortunately won't be having the time to help with that within the time constraints of an FAC.--NØ 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan Thanks for your comments in detail here, I have looked and tried to revise the convolution even though I'm not 100% sure what you mean – I appreciate your viewpoint on the time constraints, although can you explain convolution and cite at least one example please? --K. Peake 06:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

I am going to oppose per 1a due to the structure of the critical reception section as unengaing. Right now it is mostly a line-by-line quote/paraphrase of each reviewer, with little discernible themes/patterns among reviewers and paragraphs lack topic sentences which are helpful to readers. With 45 reviews indexed on Metacritic alone, I don't think it is unreasonable for there to be more of a thematic structure. Overall I don't think it's as good as it could be at the moment. There are also weird statements such as "In a November 2010 review" (the album was released in November 2010), and "esteemed reviewer Robert Christgau" which is unsourced and not really neutral, etc. Heartfox (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox I have revised the reception now to be more cohesive and neutral, how is this coming along? --K. Peake 06:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • With two outstanding opposes, a consensus to promote does not seem to be forming. So I am going to archive this with the suggestion that work on the reviewers' concerns continue off-FAC. I look forward to seeing it back here after this, although the usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2024 [2].

Nestory Irankunda

[edit]
Nominator(s): JC Kotisow (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nestory Irankunda is a professional football player who plays as a winger for A-League Men club Adelaide United. He was born in Tanzania as a refugee to Burundian parents and moved to Australia at an early age.

This article went through several refinements to the point I believe can be considered a featured article although there are no images. This article has gone through two good article nominations, which have been approved last year. JC Kotisow (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Hi JC Kotisow, sorry to come with bad news but I don't think this article is quite ready to be a featured article yet, although it could be in future. I read through the article until "Player profile" and hit various problems which I think would be helped by putting the article through Wikipedia:Peer review and/or an edit by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors before resubmitting at FAC. I think also it would prob be worth asking for guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football if you haven't done so already. Here's a list of the sort of issues I was hitting on a quick readthrough, the fact there are so many in half the text makes me think withdrawing and resubmitting would be the best course of action:

  • "His parents were originally from Burundi, but fled their home due to the Burundi Civil War escalating at the time" - repetition of Burundi
  • "Irankunda initially played with the reserve side.[15] After a couple of weeks, he started featuring for Adelaide United NPL side." - repetition of side
  • "His goal received media attention and praise from manager Carl Veart simply stating, "This is the talent that Nestor has."" - not grammatical, i'd expect something like: His goal received media attention and was praised by manager Carl Veart who said "this is the talent that Nestor has."
  • "the forward later stated he won't" - the forward later stated he will not
  • "to which he jokingly responded, "Nah, nah I’m going to England. Bruce is my agent"." - i'm lost, whats the joke here?
  • "In November 2022, Irankunda would miss the first Original Rivalry match of the 2022–23 season after facing a month suspension from the club for turning up late to several team meetings, as well as not doing the "chores" associated to being one of the club’s younger players." - closeparaphrasing with "The 16-year-old has been read the riot act and warned after turning up late to several team meetings, as well as not doing the ‘chores’ associated to being one of the club’s younger players." from theroar.com.au/2022/11/17/irankunda-suspension-a-lesson-for-all-young-players
  • "After his announcement to Bayern" - after the announcement he was moving to Bayern
  • In the post-match conference, Irankunda was criticised by Veart for not meeting to club standard, adding he hasn't "seen enough happiness from him."[87][88][89][90] - not sure why this needs four references? also has not for hasn't
  • "scoring a stunning goal " - it's not encyclopedic yo say this in wikipedia's voice, better to quote someone saying it (or not mention it at all)
  • On 14 November 2023, Adelaide United announced the sale of Irankunda to Bayern Munich for a club-record fee, with the forward set to join the club on 1 July 2024.[99][100][101][102] - this doensn't need four references, same for next sentence as well
  • "netting a hat-trick by the 38th-minute before" - weird that hat-trick is wikilinked on fourth mention in body and also not wikilinked in lead
  • "His second goal, a "world-class" powerful long-range strike, " - who is saying it's world class? text doesn't specify
  • "However, after Marco Tilio sustained an injury" - however not needed
  • "Coach Tony Vidmar stated his absence was to protect him from overwhelming pressure but remains in consideration for the squad, despite being deemed available by his club" - this sentence doesnt make sense
  • "he did not feature in either matches" - in either match
  • hope this helps and good luck with the article in future Mujinga (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Although some of the above points are minor and easily corrected, the overall concern with the writing is valid, and a quick glance at the latter half of the article indicates similar issues re. grammar and neutrality. Per Mujinga, I'd suggest a copyedit and listing at PR before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2024 [3].

Reformed baptismal theology

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jfhutson (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about mystically uniting babies and converts with Jesus by sprinkling water on them. I wrote it a few eons ago, and I think it meets the FA criteria. I've written FAs on historical theological topics in the past, but this would be the first on a theological concept. I hope you enjoy it enough to seek baptism in your local Reformed church, if you've not been baptized already (that's a joke, sort of). Jfhutson (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean oppose I have not evaluated most of the article content, but the lead itself needs significant work: the history and "Mode and administration" sections are not summarized at all. Is it correct to imply in the lead that all Reformed Christians do infant baptism? My understanding is that a lot of Baptists at least in the United States follow Reformed theology. (t · c) buidhe 17:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Temple_de_Lyon,_Nommé_paradis.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Baptism_in_Scotland.jpg, File:Christ_Receiving_the_Children.jpg
Done--JFHutson (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done--JFHutson (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jfhutson, as per the FAC instructions, please do not use markup templates like {{done}} as they are known to slow down the load time of the FAC page. FrB.TG (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You've clearly read the sources, but at risk of being the person from the outside saying "Eh, I dunno", I'm not sure I agree with the lede's summary. It's in the article body, but my impression of the General Stance (usual disclaimer goes here that lots of denominations are "Reformed" in some loose ways, not all agree with Calvin on everything, and beliefs change over centuries) was just the "it's a symbolic replacement for circumcision" explanation. Circumcision symbolized becoming a Jew and joining the covenant, and (in Reformed churches) baptism is "just" symbolic "joining the Christian team". That's it, an initiation rite. I guess the lede hints at this with "joining the visible church", but I'd be even more blunt. Notably, I don't see anything about predestination or soteriology here, which is a notable difference Reformed churches had - I get that this is an article on Reformed theology, not other theology, but given that Calvin was reacting against the 16th century Catholic church, it seems relevant to bring up. Renaissance-era Catholicism saw baptism as a cosmic act, almost like a magic spell, that changed the default trajectory of the soul - it was going to hell by default before (that's the whole controversial "unbaptized infants go to hell" thing), but goes to heaven by default afterward unless you screw it up. (The article talks about Catholic midwives performing emergency baptisms, but doesn't say that this is why emergency baptism is a thing in Catholicism, and also why there's no need for emergency baptisms in Reformed theology.) Calvin propounded predestination, that salvation was just God's choice, and more Luther-inspired Reformed groups went with salvation-by-faith, but neither of these involve baptism being a part of it. Again, this is technically in the article if the reader knows how to read church-ese (that's the "invisible church" part), but I think it could be blunter and more accessible on this, and this part is possibly worth discussion in the lede. SnowFire (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel qualified to review this on a thorough level overall, as I am of a strongly Southern Baptist spritual background (so not Reformed/Calvinist) and the hard theology is not my strong suit (again, the Southern Baptists tend to de-emphasis this stuff in favor of the fire and brimstone) but "Reformed Christians believe that immersion is not necessary for baptism to be properly performed, but that pouring or sprinkling are acceptable" seems overly broad to me. Don't, for instance, the Primitive Baptists generally require immersion baptism? Hog Farm Talk 21:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to withdraw as it turns out at the moment I'm not going to be able to address these concerns sufficiently. I appreciate the feedback and hope to circle back at some point.--JFHutson (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2024 [4].

David J. Brewer

[edit]
Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Brewer spent twenty years on the U.S. Supreme Court. Theodore Roosevelt thought he had "a sweetbread for a brain" and was a "menace to the welfare of the Nation", and he hasn't fared too much better in the annals of history, despite considerable scholarly efforts in recent years to rehabilitate his reputation. But whatever one might think of him, he undeniably served at a formative moment in modern American history, and this article provides a window into how a conservative Supreme Court responded to that moment.

I wrote the bulk of this article back in 2022, when it passed a GA review by MaxnaCarta. After a few recent touch-ups, I think it's now ready for FAC. Most of the sources should be easily available (usually through the Internet Archive or the Wikipedia Library), and I'm happy to provide help accessing any of the others. Looking forward to your comments! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll definitely leave some comments. It would simply be rude not to do so 😅. It’s EW after all. As usual this just looks *italian chefs kiss* perfect. Your articles are a model I try to use when writing. Will review and come back, though I don’t have much experience at FA and others may be better at polishing diamonds than I am. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is not showing signs of moving towards a consensus to promote, and so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "In Board of Education v. Tinnon,[b] " I would mention much further up that Brewer dissented. As it is, we have to wait several sentences.
    • Done.
  • Is it worth consolidating in one place the discussion of Mugler and that Mugler was affirmed by the US Supreme Court? The way you phrase it, it might escape the reader they are the same case.
    • Yeah, it probably does make more sense that way (despite the chronology). Done.
  • It might be made clearer that as a circuit justice of the Eighth Circuit, Brewer would have heard both trial and appellate cases. I also wonder at your capitalization.
    • Sentence added. Re capitalization, I've reworded to make clear I'm using "circuit court" is a description rather than a title. (Pre-1912 circuit courts are strange: Brewer was a circuit judge for the 8th Circuit, but the court is called the "United States Circuit Court for the District of [state]" rather than the Circuit Court for the Eighth Circuit.)
  • In an era when regional representation on the Supreme Court was so important, as was Ohio in presidential politics, how on earth did Ohio lose Matthews' seat to Kansas? The Eighth Circuit was already represented through Miller, and Waite, an Ohioan, had just been replaced by Fuller. The Sixth Circuit had nobody.
    • Harlan was from the Sixth Circuit (as were two of Harrison's next three appointments), and geography wasn't quite as important once circuit-riding started to decline (there was no one from the Fourth Circuit for almost 80 years), but yeah, definitely surprising. Foraker used a lot of political capital on McDougall, and allegedly Harrison actually offered the nomination to him, but when McDougall refused there wasn't much more the Ohioans could do. (It couldn't have helped that their next choice, Taft, was pretty clearly too inexperienced and that Foraker's "recommendation of Taft, whom he disliked personally, was relatively cool".[5]). The sources don't have much else to say, although from what I can tell from the newspapers, it was realized from the beginning that a non-Ohio candidate was likely. It seems Harrison was more concerned with picking someone from "the Midwest" broadly construed than from any particular state or circuit. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vice-President Levi P. Morton " Why the dash?
    • Fixed.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks—looking forward to the rest of your comments! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most well-known opinions" Why not "best-known opinions"?
    • Fixed.
  • Consider a quote box with a longer extract from the "Christian nation" opinion opposite the paragraph in which you discuss it.
    • The famous part comes at the end of a lengthy paragraph where Brewer lists a bunch of different religious aspects of American life. If I quote the whole 220-word paragraph it'd be too long, and if I quote just the decisive sentences I'd have to start at "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations...", which leaves the reader wondering what "these" are. Not sure there's an easy way to make a quote box work.
  • Where did Brewer live as a justice? Did he live in DC or did he maintain a home in Kansas where he went when court was not in session?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All responded to. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of them. Looks good. Support. Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2024 [6].

Big Raven Formation

[edit]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a geologically young rock unit in northern British Columbia, Canada. I've researched the Big Raven Formation thoroughly and I haven't neglected any major facts or details in this article, having been familiar with the subject for many years. It's the youngest but least voluminous geological formation of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex, one of the most active volcanic complexes in Canada throughout the Holocene. Volcanoguy 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Recusing to air a concern.

  • One of the FAC criteria requires an article to be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". This one is extremely reliant on a single source. While the specialist literature on this formation is limited I am a little surprised to see no mention of, for example, Read and Psutka 1985; Spooner and Osborn 2000; Hungerford et al 2000; Lakeman et al 2008. I note that the last three of these are more recent than Souther, demonstrating that the sum of knowledge on this topic may have grown over the past 32 years and leading me to wonder if the FAC criteria "it neglects no major facts or details" has been met. This sample is not exhaustive. While I understand the difficulty of proving a negative, I hope that it is clear where I am coming from and hope that you can reassure me that FAC criteria 1b and 1c are met. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no access to the sources you mentioned except for Lakeman et al 2008 which mentions the Big Raven Formation only once and is not very useful (it mentions information from Souther 1992). The last detailed study of the Big Raven Formation and of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex in general was conducted by Souther as far as I'm aware of. Volcanoguy 22:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Oppose an inspection of source-text integrity (which I note does not appear to have happened at GA, contrary to WP:GAN/I#R3) shows extensive issues ith close paraphrasing; this is often an issue with articles that rely near-entirely on one source. Note the following from the "Erosion and vegetation" section:

Wikipedia article Source
"the oldest pyroclastic cones have been deeply eroded or reduced to mounds of red rubble" "The older cones are deeply dissected or reduced to formless mounds of red, scoriaceous rubble."
"of intermediate age retain most of their original forms, although fine tephra ... has eroded away to expose larger bombs and agglutinated spatter." "Those of intermediate age retain their original form, but the fine tephra has been washed away, leaving only the larger bombs and agglutinated spatter."
"Intermittent meltwater streams have cut small meandering channels" "intermittent meltwater streams have already cut rills and small meandering channels"
"Pioneer vegetation occurs only as isolated pockets on lava flows of intermediate age which are more or less overlain with caribou moss and lichen." "Flows of intermediate age support only isolated pockets of pioneer vegetation , and ... are more or less covered by lichen and caribou moss."

As this level of close paraphrasing is below even GA standards, I would recommend withdrawal and an immediate GA reassessment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at WP:LIMITED? Volcanoguy 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That does not justify essentially copy-pasting with minor adjustments for large quantities of text: "Note, however, that closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression." Most of the rest of that section was also essentially CLOP—I just selected the most egregious examples. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's users like you that make Wikipedia not worth writing for anymore. Always finding faults with no solutions. Volcanoguy 04:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is rewriting without the plagiarism, which is supposed to be the norm here. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest doing so by incorporating the sources Gog mentioned above, Volcanoguy. In general, if you cannot "write for Wikipedia" without plagiarising, the advice is to not write at all. Not every article can realistically be taken to FA, and if the quest for "comprehensivity" takes you into contravening a policy with legal implications, focusing on another is probably a better shout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above. I was also concerned with the heavy reliance on a single source throughout; not being a subject expert I don’t push the point, but it does raise the question of whether this constitutes a thorough review of the literature. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Going by this it doesn't seem like there is a lot of sourcing that can be used here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the lesser of my two concerns (although both that search and a few others do show some sources no present in the article; I haven't been through each of them, but some use of these would allay that concern). The plagiarism aspect is still a knock-out for me, however. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the issues of copyvio/overclose paraphrasing and over-reliance on one source, I'm going to archive this. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 April 2024 [7].

Chetana Nagavajara

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eevnnap (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chetana Nagavajara is a Thai author and scholar in literature. He is an significant figure who connects introduce and connect European academic society with Thailand. As the professor and author who received multiple awards both domestic and internationally, Nagavajara built a legacy and created significant impact to multiple fields in Thai academic society. Eevnnap (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the content + sourcing, but at least the prose looks like it may need a substantial tune-up. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser

[edit]

There are issues with the prose even in the lead and they seem to continue throughout the body. Unfortunately, I don't think the article complies with GA-1a, and I'm going to oppose for that reason. I'm hoping the prose issues can be worked on, because I'd love to do a full review later. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h+

[edit]

This is an oppose from me, unfortunately. But I will leave some quick comments:

  • The lead uses way too many unnecessary/unencyclopedic/excessively formal words such as "enriched" and "bestowed". (I hope I don't sound annoying but is this AI written?)
  • "His administrative acumen extended beyond the university campus, as he actively" Wikipedia presents to a general audience, and I doubt the majority of this general audience knows what "acumen" means.
  • There is not one picture.
  • "Chetana Nagavajara (Thai: เจตนา นาควัชระ RTGS: Chettana Nakwatchara), born 19 July 1937" should be changed to "Chetana Nagavajara (Thai: เจตนา นาควัชระ RTGS: Chettana Nakwatchara; born 19 July 1937)
  • Some of the sources do not seem reliable.

I highly recommend you take this to WP:GOCE or WP:PR because this definitely does not comply with WP:FACR (unfortunately, I don't think it even complies with some of the WP:GAC). I do believe this article has the potential to be featured though. Best and best of luck,  750h+ | Talk  15:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


It seems clear that a consensus not to promote has formed, and so I shall be archiving it. I commend 750h's parting advice to the nominator. This one can get there, but it needs a fair bit of work. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 7 April 2024 [8].

Crusading movement

[edit]
Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the ideology and institutions associated with crusading. Reviewers have suggested that to keep in on topic the MILHIST should be kept to a minimum - this is largely covered in the Crusades in any case. That article doesn't have the space to cover this subject in detail. It has just been through an exhaustive A-Class Review and passed GAR 9 months ago. So it should be in good shape. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

I thought I had reviewed this article a long time ago, and I was right. I am glad to see from the nomination statement that the approach I suggested over two years ago, of cutting the majority of military history details, was followed. Back then, the article looked like this; the improvement is very evident, so well done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was good advice, addressed the scope and focus issues it once had. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

General comments
  • The structure needs another look. Why are the "Knights and chivalry" down to "Perception of Muslims" subsections under "Evolution"? These are very definitely "Major themes" or "Major elements" and should be sectioned as such.
    • MOS:HEADINGS: subsection headings should not have links in them.
—Taken this one. This is restoring the structure to what it was prior to GAR, changed on a recommendation. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why so few images? This is one of the most well-represented historical eras in terms of images/diagrams/maps. It seems criminal not to use some of them for illustrative purposes (don't go overboard either).
  • I disagree with Jens below that "Birth" should be renamed "First Crusade", as it is well established in scholarship that the movement began earlier. I also disagree that "main articles" are necessary for the century subsections, which should not be taken as subtopics of individual crusades. I do however concur with him on the length of the 13th century subsection (not helped by its complete lack of images to distract the eye from paragraphs upon paragraphs).
I will copyedit the century sections to reduce the length, particularly the 13th—this may go as far to reduce some of the WP:DUE questions below. Will look at those as part of the exercise. Might take a few days. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the last time I looked at this article, I felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing. I do hope that issue has been adequately looked at and resolved—because that of course is a reviewing dealbreaker.
  • This article likes its simple lists—I count eight. I think most of them are fine, but feel, per MOS:EMBED, that the last three (relating to Gregory IX and Pius II) might be better suited as prose.

More specific comments to follow later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that I also raised the question of how to tell whether paragraphs sourced entirely or near-entirely to entries in a general crusade encyclopedia were WP:DUE. With that in mind, could you please justify how the following paragraphs are WP:DUE and "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature":
    • In "12th century", beginning with "From the end of the century..."
—added citations to Buck, Tyerman and Morris + 3xW-L Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why is it WP:DUE?
because Crusade historians, and these are just 3 examples + a church historian, consider it integral. How the crusaders understood their relationship to God, what impact it had on their behaviour and how they represented it formed part of the institution. It is literally how the whole enterprise got its name. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "13th century", beginning with "Crusade providentialism was intricately linked..."
added Barber citation - eschatology was a significant factor in the 13th century crsusading movement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intricately linked with a prophetic sensibility" this is not very clear. In fact, the whole paragraph is not very clear at all (the "Third Age"—where are we, Middle-Earth?) As far as I can make out, it appears to be combining a general focus on prophecies with a semi-intelligible digression into the legends of the children's crusade. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "13th century", beginning with "For recruitment purposes, popes initiated..."
Added intoductory sentence sourced to Tyerman to explain—it is about propaganda. Abrideged, copyedited and added sources. Might be worth moving to its own subsection - what do you think ? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but the prose is not FA quality. It gives the impression of a list in prose, with each sub-theme given its own bullet point new sentence. This is one of the parts that best exemplifies a "movement"—you can't not do it justice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "13th century", beginning with "From around 1225 to 1500..."
Again, rephrased and summarised. Paragraph is also about Propaganda + image added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same stilted prose as above. Take the following four sentences: "Despite being written after the decline of crusading fervour, they indicate a sustained interest in the topic. Authors depicted a triumphant and morally superior chivalric Christendom. Some likened Muslim leaders to contemporary politicians. Common motifs included Christian knights engaging in chivalrous adventures against Muslim adversaries." This is something I would encourage you to focus on throughout the article Norfolkbigfish; get a non-specialist editor with FA experience to read it through and point out parts that might fail FACR 1a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the image is meh: Jean de Mandeville himself is not explicitly mentioned in text, and his relevance to the topic is not immediately apparent, meaning one could pull up MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Consider using {{multiple image}}, and take some time to look for better ones. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "13th century", beginning with "Part of the tradition of outbreaks of popular crusading..."
Tyerman considers that Dickson has done notable research that expands the diversity of the topic. Added a sentence to that effect and cited to him. Added citation for Children's crusade. FYI this isn't actually sourced from the Encyclopedia but to another of Dickson's works. Rephrased. To me it now stands as WP:DUE but would seriously welcome your feedback. It is about the informal instituitions. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "13th century", beginning with "There is evidence of early criticism of crusading..."
—rephrased and additional citations added. Important to highlight support for crusading and its institutions (like taxation)was not uniform. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "13th century", beginning with "Remediation included ceremonial marches..."
—as above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "13th century", beginning with "At the end of the 13th century..."
—rephrased and additional citations added - crisis in the movement nad taxation both relevant, no? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "14th century", beginning with "There were more than twenty treatises..."
—rephrased. Cover the writing and failed plans of the movement and the successful taxation regime Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "15th century", beginning with "The Venetian Gabriel Condulmaro succeeded..."
—rephrased, the key here is the shift in strategy from conflict to conciliation with other churches. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "15th century", beginning with "The humanist Enea Silvio Piccolomini became..."
—rephrased, the shift in focus from Jerusalem to Constantinople. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "15th century", beginning with "Rodrigo Borja, who became Pope Alexander VI in 1492..."
—rephrased, and now the focus is on the Pope's christian enemies. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Historiography", beginning with "The Byzantines held a negative view of holy war..."
—although taking your general point this segment is not from the Encyclopedia and was added at ACR at the request or a reviewer. I agree with them that it is relevant to identify other opinions amongst Christians of the crusades and to highlight that rather than a Muslim v Christian conflict it was more a Catholic Church v a variety of other actors. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

This is a big one, but looks fascinating. I'll try to chip in at some point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yes, and a good one at that. I don't have a strong opinion, but I suspect so. I think this is about the Latin Church specifically rather than all the churches in communion with the pope. But, I am happy to be corrected. I did check the four sources cited and Lathem x 2, Flori and Davies all use the term.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy here, then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crusading was a paradigm that grew from the encouragement of the Gregorian Reform of the 11th century and the movement declined after the Reformation. : I would put a date on the Reformation here, or at least for the decline of the crusading movement, as we have for the Gregorian Reform.
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but in practical terms dwindled in competition with other forms of religious war and new ideologies.: not sure about the last bit here. Suggest "in competition with new ideologies promoting other forms of religious war [such as...]?"
—I removed the latter clause. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ancient idea of just war: suggest clarifying ancient to "Greco-Roman", "Roman" or even "Augustinian": we're using "ancient" in its specific meaning of "belonging to Greco-Roman antiquity" rather than the more everyday "really old".
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a form of special Christian pilgrimage: reads oddly to me: better as special form, I think, unless I've missed some distinction.
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pilgrimage and crusade were penitent acts and they considered participants part of Christ's army: reads oddly with they: I'd either clarify to "adherents" or put into the passive: "participants were considered..."
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this was only metaphorical before the First Crusade: I mean, it was metaphorical after, too, unless I've missed something big.
—combatants on the first crusade literally considered themselves Chris's soldiers.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one is going to need some explaining, then: are you saying that they honestly believed that Christ had manifested himself and was leading the army in the same sense as its temporal leaders were? At least, we need to frame it in the positive: something like "during the First Crusade, this metaphor was developed into the belief that crusaders were physically led in their endeavours by Christ". UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—I have excised the sentence. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After this, the movement became an important part of late-medieval western culture, impacting politics, the economy and society.: suggest cutting after this, or else alluding to what happened between the First Crusade (pretty generally early medieval) and the late medieval period.
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph of the lead was tough going for me in terms of clarity. Suggest another look at the big list of places and peoples: can it be cut down and split up a bit?
— rephrased, does this work? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the medieval concept of one Christian Church ruled by the papacy: this would have been news in medieval Constantinople, and therefore in much of the medieval "European" world.
—I think the idea of Papal primacy was a big deal, although softened this by changing medieval to western European. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but then we need solidifying Latin Christendom as a geopolitical entity (or similar). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—removed geopolitical, w-l papal primacy, reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • one Christian Church ... separate from non-believers: was this ever really a Thing? I know a few medieval realms tried to expel Jews, but most didn't, so I'm starting from a position of scepticism that medieval Christians generally believed particularly strongly that Christian realms should only contain Christians.
removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • so that Christendom was geopolitical: must admit I'm not sure what this means.
—rephrased, Christedom was a geopolitical entity, it acted in the world across its geography. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm -- I'm not sure this is really true. Do we have any evidence that "Christendom" functioned in any meaningful sense as a political entity? We're clearly a long way off the Weberian definition ("claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of force"), but I'm also deeply unconvinced that any non-Christian powers ever sought to negotiate with, ally with, declare war on etc "Christendom" (as opposed to an individual ruler within that), or indeed that "Christendom" had any political structures that weren't (often temporary, fragile and self-interested) freely-made ad hoc compacts between its different rulers. After all, Christians were far more often found fighting other Christians during this period than pagans or Muslims, and the High Middle Ages were hardly a uniformly golden age of submission by temporal rulers to popes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— It needs expansion, not sure it is appropriate in this article. I think it is covered in detail so will remove the geopolitical reference. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you are right again. See below. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the ninth to the eleventh century, the concept of Christendom was pervasive in both East and West. Pretty much everyone - from medieval writers to ordinary folk - used the term to identify themselves, their religious culture, and yes, their state, and even civilization itself.
Evidence that it functioned politically can be found in the formation of those countries that eventually made up East-Central Europe - Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Hungary and Croatia are certain examples. These countries were not formed politically separately from Christendom. They were formed because of it, because they saw the advantages and wanted to be a part of Christendom. Christianization and politicization went hand in glove. I would say this qualifies as examples of Christendom as a politically influential concept. This can be found in The Routledge History of Medieval Christianity: 1050-1500. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subtitle "Instituitional Reform" should be "Institutional reform" per MOS:CAPS (or possibly MOS:TITLE).
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist I think I may have addressed your points to date, although I may have missed something so stand to be corrected. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will have a look through, bracket off resolved points and add new ones as needed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More follow:

  • The period following the collapse of the Carolingian Empire and the onset of the feudal revolution: a few things here. Firstly, when exactly are we talking about? Secondly, I can just about wear the word "feudal" (see this classic article), but really struggle with "the feudal revolution" as an uncritical term: see (especially) the conclusion of this no-longer-so-recent book, which is pretty clear that whether the "feudal revolution" was a Thing is, at best, highly contentious -- West is at least very hesitant about its utility as a concept.
—feudal removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • was seen by an 11th century reformist movement as an era of decline in morals and religious institutions: which 11t-century reformist movement? How influential were these people?
—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolkbigfish You are correct in saying the eleventh century was an age of religious reform and renewal. It is generally seen by most scholars as a turning point in western Christianity. Cluniacs became the leading center of Western monasticism because of their reform, and the Cistercian movement - a second wave of reform - became a primary force of technological advancement and its diffusion in medieval Europe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the monasticisation of the clergy: I would explain this a bit more clearly: we don't literally mean that the priests became monks (or, frankly, anything close to it). I don't know much about the Cluniac Reforms, but what I do know is mostly centred on reforming the monasteries themselves, rather than exporting their ideals outside their walls.
—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More generally, there's a lot of This-es in this section without clear antecedents. Replacing them with noun phrases would make things clearer.
— rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latin phrases, even when in links, should be in language templates for the benefit of screen readers and the Wiki software.
  • this became known as Cluniac reform: as the Cluniac Reforms, I think.
—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, an ideological framework was created for a faction within the clergy: I am still very unclear on how big this fraction was: it previously sounded as if the whole Latin church had gone this way.
— rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As church historian Colin Morris noted: Professional writing generally avoids false titles, so the church historian. Scholarship that is being treated as 'live' is also generally referred to in the present tense. More seriously, though, we should avoid a word like notes, which indicates an observable statement of fact, when we are introducing an opinion (MOS:SAID).
—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • this reforming party gaining control of the Roman Church was an important turning point because these were men who stood for the concept of holy war: lots here: we haven't said that they gained control yet, nor has holy war been part of our discussion of the Cluniac Reforms so far.
—left in place but changed grammar Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20th—century: needs an endash, not an emdash (MOS:DASH)
—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Latham, an international relations theory academic: in a high-level article on a historical concept, why are we giving the whole voice (on a fairly uncontroversial topic) to someone whose specialism is in another field? More generally, it would be better to explicitly say what scholars have established as a consensus on the issue: the nitty-gritty of individual interpretations can and should be left to sub-articles.
—toned down Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The core interests of this identity provoked conflict with ... heretics: this is putting the cart before the horse: heretic was a label used by the Church to mark out people with whom it had or wanted a conflict: nobody identified themselves as a heretic and nobody was thought of as one until the Church labelled them. It's a bit like "terrorist groups" or "rogue states" in modern international relations: we need a more neutral term here, or to explicitly say something like "those with beliefs it [the Church] deemed heretical". The work of RI Moore is good here (there's a lot more on the same concept in Late Antiquity): even this somewhat critical review of his latest book accepts the basic point at issue here.
—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of Latham even after that bulleted list. A couple of big statements: what International Relations Theory considers the structural drivers of anarchy: what are those? More importantly, we're saying that it wasn't about them, but we haven't yet set up the case that it was about them. I'm also going to raise an eyebrow at Without these factors, the crusades were impossible: impossible is a big word in historical explanation. I can wear an argument that the specific ideology of crusading was inextricable from its historical context (as all ideology is), but saying that there was absolutely no scenario in which Christian armies launched religious wars if "these factors" (which ones?) were absent is a pretty WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim.
—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theologians widely accepted Henry of Segusio's justification: when and who was this guy? We've been pretty loose on the chronology so far, but the current framing makes it sound like he was in play from at least the C11th.
—removed, it was incorrect. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The theology of war evolved from the linking of Roman citizenship with Christianity; Christian citizens now had the obligation to fight against the empire's enemies: we're talking a lot of steps very quickly here. I'm very unconvinced by the argument that Romans, at least in late antiquity, believed that Roman citizens (as individuals) had a duty to fight against the empire's enemies: once we've demonstrated that, we can then go on to make an argument that Christian theologians conceptualised the Church as being basically an empire, and religious affiliation as basically citizenship, but we need to prove the first step first or the whole thing is built on sand.
—agree, I have excised this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gregory VII extended the institutions of holy war: what does this mean, concretely? When did it happen?
— I have excised this as it seems to add little value. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is Barbastro?
— Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Norman conquest of the Sicily: of Sicily, or of the [Muslim] Emirate of Sicily.
—removed the pipe. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalise Battle of Nablus.
— Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

I remember I have reviewed this one a long time ago. I want to give some drive-by comments for now; I am not sure if I can commit to a full review. I have concerns about the structure of the "Evolution" section:

  • For a reader that looks at the article for the first time, the sub-headings seem confusing or random: You have "Knights and chivalry", "Military orders" and so on, and then, all of a sudden, list the separate centuries. So the first four sections do not seem to express a chronological order, but the remainder do, which is not ideal. Maybe it would make sense to move the first four sections to the "Background" sections, because they cover the starting conditions before the crusades?
—As above, I have taken this restoring the structure to what is was prior to GAR. Seems like it was an unpopular change. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heading "Birth" is not particularly obvious. That could mean many things. I suggest to rename into "First crusade".
—removed entirely as part of the restructuring above. Does this work? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "century" sections are too long. Any chance to cut them down?
I will copy edit these to reduce the length, looking at them again I think this can probably be halfed without losing any important points. This might take a few days to do properly though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, the "century" sections should have sub-headings to break-up the wall of text. In particular the "13th century" is way too long.
Will look at this when summarising. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help to have "Main articles:" indicated for the "century" sections.
—at the moment I agree with Airship above that this is not necessary. But, will look at this when summarising as noted above. These sections are chronological, and as such touch on a number of themes but I can't yet see how these map to main articles. Will have a think though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing some of the comments listed below and checking with the article, I have to agree that the article is not ready yet for FAC (even though I do not necessarily agree with all those comments, but there are enough where I do agree). Most importantly, I can confirm that some significant wp:close paraphrasing is still present after consulting of the main sources. For example, the article has The reformist Church's identity-interest complex framed Islam as a particular form of heresy while the source says "the reformers’ core identity-interest complex, which framed Islam as a particularly obdurate form of heresy", and Islamic polities' own identity-interest complexes led them to be equally violently opposed to the restoration of Christian rule while the source says "their own core identity-interest complex, were violently opposed to returning them to Christian rule". Additionally, I am concerned that by copying expressions from the scholarly literature (such as "identity-interest complex" in the example above), the article becomes unnecessarily difficult to understand; given our audience, I think we should attempt to summarize those sources in more accessible, less technical language, and avoid such expressions whenever possible. Oppose. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text
  • File:SCONTRO_A_NABLUS_-_AFFRESCHI_CONTROFACCIATA_S._BEVIGNATE.JPG is incorrectly tagged. Ditto File:Fragment_of_the_Cairo_Genizah_-_The_Passover_Haggadah,_page_1_of_4.png
  • File:Gestorum_Rhodie_obsidionis_commentarii_-_BNF_Lat6067_f3v.jpg needs a US tag
@Nikkimaria—happy to do the last three but lack the knowledge, would you mind explaning what, and how, needs to happen please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the first of these: these are tagged as own work by uploader. However, under US law, reproduction of 2D works does not garner a new copyright. These should instead be tagged according to the status of the original works (which are presumably PD due to age). The second needs an additional tag added to it to indicate its copyright status in the US (presumably also PD due to age - if you look at the current tag there is a link to a list of potential US tags). The last has a tag for the copyright of the photographer, but needs another added for the status of the pictured artwork (presumably also PD due to age). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Borsoka

[edit]

After reviewing the Background section of the article I concluded that the article does not meet FA criteria. It neglects major facts and details, it is not a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, it is not compliant with WP's copyright policy and is not free of plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing, its structure is diffuse, lacks any logic, etc. I think the article could be brought to WP:Good article reassessment. Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, and neither did reviewers at Good Article and MILHIST A-Class Review. As such I have refeered this behaviour to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Crusading_movement.
Comments and feedback is welcome from all reviewers from this article. @Johnbod: would also welcome comments on previous incidents. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not surprised that you chose to take me to ANI. I am sure that you realised that the article will probably quickly delisted during the GAR process. Borsoka (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General remarks
[edit]
  • A general remark on sourcing: more than 30% of the article is verified by references to individual articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Our relevant policy says, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I think the use of a tertiary source goes beyond this boundary, and the rationale beyond the selection of individual encyclopedic articles is unclear. As a consequence of this approach, the article looks like an encyclopedia with individual articles following each other without much connection between them. I am not sure that this method can secure that the movement is presented in WP as it is presented in relevant scholarly literature. Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica?
    • I disagree. The Encyclopedia contains secondary and tertiary material in about 1,000 entries that make use of both source material and secondary scholarship in a variety of languages. Each entry is signed by its author and has a bibliography. In what way does that go outside WP's boundary? especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other which they do. Your standard seems different than WP's.
    • Nothing can be legitimately concluded from the complaint of individual articles following each other without much connection between them since there is often an absence of connection between historic events, and creating a connection would require OR.
    • Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica? Who says these articles are arbitrarily selected? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read what our relevant policy says: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." Could you list instances when the secondary sources cited in this article contradict each other, so the use of tertiary sources is inevitable?
  • Sudden changes in tone and vocabulary and redundant content suggests that significant texts may be closely paraphrased. Has the article been reviewed from this perspective? I have only reviewed about one fifth of the article, but I have found several cases of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please list those. Earwig's copyright violation tester says there are no copyright violations. [9] If you are right, Earwig needs to be informed that their program has become undependable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I listed several examples below.
  • Secondary sources cited in the article dedicate several pages to the Muslim world and the influx of the Turks in the politics of the Middle East [Asbridge (pp. 17-29), Jotischky (pp. 40-47), Lock (pp. 3-19), Madden (pp. 1-5), Tyermann 2019 (pp. 33-45). Several other sources that follow the same path could be listed. Why does the article ignore this usual scholarly approach?
    • Do you say that the above authors who are cited in the article should be ignored?
  • The article's structure is diffuse, and seemingly lacks any detectable logic: several elements of the flourishing crusading movement are mentioned in section "Background". (For instance, why are the military orders or the development of the crusading ideology in the 13th century mentioned in this section?)

Borsoka (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article's structure makes sense imo, and the content is good. It's just the section title "Background" that needs changing to Overview or Overview of relevant concepts to better reflect what it actually is. As an overview, it must contain all relevant factors for the entire period including the thirteenth century, which it does. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what about section "Evolution"?
  • In most cases, the article does not explain the events, but mentions facts or PoVs without making clear the connection between them, or providing our readers with a coherent (or incoherent) story: "Pope X said this, Pope Y told that, and Pope Z said another thing, etc".
Specific remarks
[edit]
  • The period following the collapse of the Carolingian Empire and the onset of the feudal revolution was seen by an 11th century reformist movement as an era of decline in morals and religious institutions. Links to "feudal revolution" and the reformist movement? Was this a political or a culinary reform movement? Why did they think that the period was a period of decline?
—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Crusading movement's beginnings were propelled by a significant shift in the western Church during the mid-eleventh century. Reformers, supported initially by Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor and later opposing his son Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, assumed power over the papacy around 1040. They astutely perceived the papacy as the optimal vehicle for their mission to eliminate corruption in the Church and strategically took control of it. 1. The cited source does not verify the two sentences. 2. The texts in italics repeat the same information. 3. The date is not around 1040 but in the late 1040s [Barber (2012), p. 84] 4. Link to Western Church? 5. Consequency: "mid-eleventh century" vs. "mid-19th century". 6. The "reformers" were specifically reformist clerics. 7. Why did they perceive the papacy as the optimal vehicle?
  • It was considered the result of too much involvement in the dealings of the mundus, the Latin term for the world. Who were involved in the dealings with the mundus? The term mundus refers to secular affairs in the context. Do we have to use the Latin term?
—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—replaced with secular world Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reformers responded primarily with the monasticisation of the clergy. This was centred on ideals of personal piety, chastity, moral purity, spiritual discipline, and elaborate liturgies. Could the two sentences be consolidated? This way close paraphrasing ("the monasticisation of the clergy") could be avoided. When writing of the monasticisation of the clergy Latham does not mention chastity and elaborate litrugies, the two terms are mentioned in connection with the reform of monastic communities. (The reform of the monastic communities and "the monasticisation of the clergy" do not cover the same concept.)
—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This group viewed themselves as architects of a re-established res publica Christiana Closely paraphrased. The Latin term should be translated or explained.
—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As church historian Colin Morris noted, quoting the early 20th—century German historian Carl Erdmann, this reforming party gaining control of the Roman Church was an important turning point because these were men who stood for the concept of holy war and sought to enact it. I assume Morris and Erdmann write of the Gregorian reform movement, not about the Cluniac Reforms because similar statements in other scholarly works are connected with the Gregorian Reform.
—rephrased and resourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Augustin Fliche?
  • Explain "simony" with two or three words.
  • Eventually, the reformist faction within the Roman Church took the lead... This fact is mentioned twice in the section's second and third sentences.
  • Is Latham's PoV about the preconditions for the crusading movement widely accepted by medievalists who have published general works on the crusading movement or monographies about its origins?
  • Why was the reference to Latham deleted if his PoV is described? Even if he is not mentioned, the relevance of his thoughts should be verified as per WP:DUE.
  • Perhaps Latham's thoughts (if they are indeed relevant) should be described in a more natural style in order to avoid close paraphrasing: "motivated-by-God deliverer", "core interests of this identity", "war-making entity", "armed nobility"...
—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reform of the Latin Church identity:... Does "Latin Church" differ from "western Church" mentioned in the section's previous paragraph?
  • The Latin Church underwent a significant transformation, becoming an independent force motivated by divine authority for religious revitalisation. Was the Latin Church indeed motivated by divine authority?
  • The core interests of this identity provoked conflict with the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim polities, heretics, and pagans. This new identity led to conflicts with various entities, including the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian sects, and pagans Who and why was brought into conflict with these groups? Does the article suggest that relationship between the Christian communities/polities/leaders and Muslim polities, heretics "sects" and pagans had been peaceful before the Gregorian Reforms? Can the Eastern Orthodox Church be described as a sect?
—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a translation for milites Christi.
—and cited to Morris. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...milites Christi or knights of Christ... The cited author (Morris) does not verify the translation. He describes "milites Christi" as an "expression which until then had been the monopoly of monks had been extended to knights".
  • The development of formal structures for building an army that furthered the Church's interests. Development of Formal Army Structures: The establishment of formal structures for raising armies was crucial in advancing the Church's interests in crusading endeavors. Examples of these "formal structures"? Why is "Formal Army Structures" capitalised?
  • Section "Background" implies that solely the Gregorian Reform (or Cluniac Reform?) was responsible for the Crusades. I think this approach is quite unusual. Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Christianity and war" is quite confusing from chronological and logical perspective: Augustine is mentioned in at least three separate paragraphs, so the section does not clearly summarise his views. The section obviously mixes Augustine's views with his high medieval interpretators' thoughts (I will add at least one example below). As the section does not point at the differences between the classical just war theory and Augustine's views, and between Augustine's views and the high medieval theology of Christian holy war, the development of this important aspect of crusading ideology remains unclear.
  • A distinct ideology promoted and regulated crusades. Could you quote the text verifying this statement from the cited scholarly works?
—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—aplogies, I thought I had removed. I have now. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolkbigfish I don't agree this should be removed. It should be explained. Isn't this the core of what the article is about? The guiding presence of a distinct ideology is supported in Blake, EO. "The Formation of the Crusade Idea". The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 1970;21(1):11-31. doi:10.1017/S0022046900048429. and Maier CT. "Crisis, Liturgy and the Crusade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries". The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 1997;48(4):628-657. doi:10.1017/S0022046900013440 among many. A good discussion is in Allington, Richard DG. "Prayer Warriors: Crusading Piety in Rome and the Papal States (1187-1291)". Diss. Saint Louis University, 2017. But it's a dissertation and not yet a book, so though we are allowed, Borsoka has a dislike even of journal articles and will surely put the kibosh on a dissertation if you use it. Reading it is still worthwhile. The existence of a distinct ideology is supported in Kienzle B., "Religious poverty and the search for perfection". In: Rubin M, Simons W, eds. The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge University Press; 2009:39-53. and in Marcus Bull's "Crusade and conquest". In: Rubin M, Simons W, eds. The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge University Press; 2009:340-352. Good luck. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the kibosh on unverified statements. I have no problem with journal articles, although I doubt that a statement that cannot be verified with a reference to a book about the crusades should be mentioned in this article as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Borsoka I am curious about what makes a book a better reference than an article? They each have one author, so both represent one person's pov. They are often written by the same scholars. WP:DUE is about minority views, but articles are not more likely to represent minority views any more than many books do. Articles are narrower and more focused by nature, but if that's the topic, why is that not actually better than a broad overview from a book? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If books about the crusades do not refer to a specific aspect of the crusades mentioned in a journal article about this specific aspect we can hardly say that it is highly relevant in this article's context. Please try to make comments on the article instead of beginning discussions with other editors. The article needs significant improvement. Borsoka (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Borsoka I can't apologize for bringing this up here, since this is the reason - so often - given for claiming "The article needs significant improvement" and therefore fails. That's a lot resting upon your claim that, "If books about the crusades do not refer to a specific aspect of the crusades mentioned in a journal article about this specific aspect, we can hardly say that it is highly relevant". But journal articles are not generally written on topics that failed to be relevant enough to get in the book. Journal articles most often represent additional research done after a book was published - books take longer to publish, and research moves faster than rewrites and republication. Articles cover the gap. That makes them highly relevant.
      • Books generally provide an overview, and therefore have a little info about a lot of topics; articles tend to have a lot of info about a single topic. Containing more detail as dedicated monographs demonstrates the importance of a singular point - not the opposite.
      • Assuming journal articles are less relevant, significant or valid than the content of a book is not a usable definition of relevance, it is not supported by WP guidelines, and it's based on a huge false assumption. It is not a sound basis for saying an article "needs significant improvement" and shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged. This is a good article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With whom are you arguing? I have never said that this article needs significant improvement because it cites journal articles. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice straw man. You said I doubt that a statement that cannot be verified with a reference to a book about the crusades should be mentioned in this article as per WP:DUE. Due is about handling minority views - and this sounds like you think anything not in a book is a minority view. Surely that can't be right, but how else can Due be applied here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the above discussion more carefully. I said that the article contained an unverified sentence, and this statement was true. Upon your remarks, I also said that I would prefer references to general books about the crusades in this article but I did not say that the article needs improvement due to its references to journal articles. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you 100% @Jenhawk777 that sentence is the kernal of this article. Agree also that it should be explained fully, so many thanks for the sources. I did remove because it is a sentence that sort of hangs there, more of a introduction and it is the explanation rather than the sentence that it is important. When I get a chance I will look to restore supported by the sources. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of Christian pilgrimage. Maier writes of four principal elements: holy war theology, the model of pilgrimage, Old Testament history, and New Testament theology, thus this and the subsequent sentences do not reflect Maier's thoughts.
  • Theology merged Old Testament Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God with New Testament Christocentric views on forming individual relationships with Christ. What does this mean? I doubt that Israelite wars were any time merged with Christocentric views, first of all because of chronological reasons.
  • ...Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God... Were these wars indeed instigated and assisted by God?
  • ...canon lawyers developed it from the 11th century into bellum sacrum, the paradigm of Christian holy war. Maier mentions theologians as well. Could you name some of the theologians and canon lawyers?
  • Theologians widely accepted Henry of Segusio's justification that holy war against pagans was just because of their opposition to Christianity. Unverified. Maier states the opposite.
—indeed, removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maier emphasises that "In essence, the Christian theory of holy war was meant to justify, in specific circumstances, the transgession of the divine prohibition of homicide..." Likewise, Tyerman refers to the Bible's ambigious approach towards violence. The section does not draw our readers' attention to the fact that that crusading theology as it was developed by Gregorian theologians represent a radical shift from traditional Christian views' on acts of bloodshed.
  • ...if an authority such as a king or bishop proclaimed the war... I know Latham (who is not a specialist) verifies the statement, but I doubt that Augustine wrote of kings in a positive context taking into account that in his time kings were mainly the enemies of the Christian Roman Empire.
  • Gregory VII extended the institutions of holy war... No institutions of holy war are mentioned in the previous sentences.
—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...his supporter Anselm of Lucca consolidated the just war theories. Whose just war theories? What is the outcome of this consolidation?
  • In the 11th century, the Church sponsored conflict with Muslims on the southern peripheries of Christendom, including the siege of Barbastro and the Norman conquest of the Sicily. Absolutely out of context statement.
  • ...which produced a template for a crusade... This is not verified and obviously wrong: no crusades would be led by a pope.
—not what Asbridge writes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...but he was unable to garner the required support Why?
—see above Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Augustine's principles formed the basis of a doctrine of religious war that was later developed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas, canon lawyers, and theologians. Redundant with the exemption of its reference to Thomas Aquinas. Tyerman writes that Aquinas is responsible for "producing a codified theory of Christian just war".
  • This movement's influence is apparent in Pope Urban II's speeches... Why are Urban II's speeches relevant?
  • What is the connection between Latham's three pre-conditions for crusading (mentioned in section "Background") and Erdmann's three stages (listed in section "Christianity and holy war"). Why is Latham cited instead of Erdmann? Is Erdmann's PoV is widely accepted by medievalists who published general works on the crusading movement or its origin? I think the three bullet points could be distributed in the text in chronological order to better understand how the Christian ideology of Holy War developed.
  • The Church viewed Rome as the Patrimony of Saint Peter. This enabled the application of canon law to justify various Italian wars waged by the church as purely defensive crusades to protect theoretical Christian territory. Absolutely out of context. Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the 11th century, the Latin Church developed a system that provided for the remission and absolution of sin in return for contrition, confession, and penitential acts. 1. Why? 2. Perhaps "contrition, confession, and penitential acts" could be rephrased to avoid close paraphrasing. 3. The term "confession" could be linked to the more specific "sacrament of penance".
— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...martial activity... Use a more natural language to avoid close paraphrasing.
— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...noble warrior class... What about commoner warriors?
— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...revolutionary innovation.... PoV statement copied from Latham's work.
— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...in support of his causes, if selflessly given. Could you quote the text verifying the words in bold?
Gregory VII offered all who fought for his cause, in whatever fashion, absolution of their sins and the prospect of eternal salvation. Provided their motivation was grounded on selflessness and faith not gain, such soldiers could combine penance and violence.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is reference 11 necessary? (Furthermore, Tyerman explains Erdman's PoV in the cited page.)
::— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was developed by subsequent Popes into the granting of plenary indulgence that reduced all God-imposed temporal penalties. Could you quote the text verifying the statement. Did indeed God impose temporal or any other kind of panalties?
  • At the Council of Clermont in November 1095, Urban II effectively founded the crusading movement with two directives: the exemption from atonement for those who journeyed to Jerusalem to free the Church; and that while doing so all goods and property were protected. Why is this in the "Background" section? Why is the protection of property mentioned in section "Penance and indulgence"?
  • The weakness of conventional theologies in the face of crusading euphoria is shown in a letter critical of Pope Paschal II from the writer Sigebert of Gembloux to the crusader Robert II, Count of Flanders. Sigebert referred to Robert's safe return from Jerusalem but completely avoided mentioning the crusade. The text in bold represent copyvio; the remaining text is not verified by the cited source (it does not mention to whom Sigebert addressed the letter); the sentence from the article ignores the cited source's main message: "Sigebert attacked the idea of penitential war". Furthermore, why is something happening years after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • It was Calixtus II who first promised the same privileges and protections of property to the families of crusaders. 1. Reference 22 does not verify the statement. 2. The text in bold is not verified by any of the two sources. 3. Why is something happening decades after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • Under the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux, Eugenius III revised Urban's ambiguous position with the view that the crusading indulgence was remission from God's punishment for sin, as opposed to only remitting ecclesiastical confessional discipline. 1. The text in bold is not verified. 2. Urban's ambifious position is not previously mentioned. 3. What is Eugenius's conclusion. 4. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • Innocent III emphasised crusader oaths and clarified that the absolution of sins was a gift from God, rather than a reward for the crusaders' suffering. 1. Reference 25 does not verify the text. 2. Why is something happening more than a century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • With his 1213 bull Quia maior, he appealed to all Christians, not just the nobility, offering the possibility of vow redemption without crusading. 1. Could you quote the text verifying that indeed the bull Quia maior offered the possibility... 2. Did he appeal to the Orthodox, Nestorians, Copts also? 3. Which vow? The crusading vow is not previously mentioned in the article. 4. Why did he do this? 5. Are we sure that the payment did not constitute as an act of crusading? 5. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • This set a precedent for trading in spiritual rewards... No spiritual rewards are mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • ...a practice that scandalised devout Christians and became a contributing cause of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. Could you quote the text verifying the statement?
  • As late as the 16th century, writers sought redemptive solutions in the traditionalist wars of the cross, while others – such as English martyrologist John Foxe – saw these as examples of papist superstition, corruption of religion, idolatry, and profanation. 1. The text in bold is not verified, the text in italic is closely paraphrased. 2. Why is Tyerman's encyclopedic article about "Historiography, Modern" (one of the cited sources) revelant in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 3. What is the relevance of Foxe's PoV in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 4. Why is something from the 16th century mentioned in section "Background"?
  • Critics blamed the Roman Church for the failure of the crusades. War against the infidel was laudable, but not crusading based on doctrines of papal power, indulgences, and against Christian religious dissidents such as the Albigensian and Waldensians. Justifying war on juristic ideas of just war to which Lutherans, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics could all subscribe, and the role of indulgences, diminished in Roman Catholics tracts on the Turkish wars. Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius developed international laws of war that discounted religion as a cause, in contrast to popes, who persisted in issuing crusade bulls for generations. 1. Original synthesis? 2. Why are events happening in the 16th and 17th centuries mentioned in section "Background"? Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If chivalry was in its infancy at the beginning of the crusading movement (as the article states), why is "Knights and chivalry" mentioned in the "Background" section?
  • At the beginning of the crusading movement, chivalry was in its infancy; but it went on to define the ideas and values of knights, and was central to the crusading movement. 1. The text in bold represents copyvio. 2. The reference to Flori's article should be fixed to verify the statement in italics.
—rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literature illustrated the prestige of knighthood, but it was distinct from the aristocracy. 1. The text in italics is not verified by the cited sources. 2. What was distinct from the aristocracy: knighthood or its prestige?
  • 11th and 12th century texts depict a class of knights that were closer in status to peasants within recent generations. The text is unclear.
  • Texts from the 11th and 12th centuries portray a class of knights who were comparatively closer in status to peasants within the preceding generations. 1. The text is still unclear: were their fathers peasants or only close to peasants. 2. The texts in italics is not verified. (I think the cited encyclopedic article simply says that there were knights of peasant/humble origin.)Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 13th century knighthood became equated with nobility, as a social class with legal status, closed to non-nobles. The texts in italics contradict the cited source (Flori).
  • Chivalric development grew from a society dominated by the possession of castles. The sentence makes no sense and is not verified by the cited source (Flori): development cannot grow from a society, and possession of castles cannot dominate a society.
  • Those who defended these became knights. Copyvio. Some explanation?
  • ...coupled with the growing naval capability of Italy's maritime republics,... Could you quote the text from the cited sources verifying that there is any connection between the naval capability of the maritime republics and knighthood?
  • Contrary to the representation in the romances... Which romances?
  • Instead, raids and sieges predominated, for which there was only a minimal role for knights. A previous sentence claims that those who defended the castles became knights.
  • Knighthood required combat training, which created solidarity and gave rise to combat as a sport. The cited source (Flori) writes of special forms of combat.
  • Crusade preachers used tournaments and other gatherings to obtain vows of support from attending dignitaries, begin persuasive campaigns, and announce a leader's taking of the cross. 1. This happened from the Second Crusade. Why is it mentioned in section "Background"? 2. Close paraphrasing and original synthesis (Lloyd mentions church synods when referring to the "attending dignitaries", and church synods can hardly be associated with "Knights and chivalry".
  • ...medieval institutions were immature in feudal Europe... The statement makes no sense.
  • ...the crusades in the Levant were typically unimpressive. PoV statement by a 19th-century historian. Is his view accepted by modern historians?
  • Developing vernacular literature glorified the idea of adventure and the virtues of valour, largesse, and courtesy. This created an ideal of the perfect knight. Chivalry was a way of life, a social and moral model that evolved into a myth. The texts in bold represent copyvio.
  • The chivalric romantic ideals of excellence, martial glory, and carnal—even adulterous—love conflicted with the spiritual views of the Church. Texts in italics are unverified, in bold represent close paraphrasing/copyvio.
  • Writers lauded those who fought for the Church; others were excommunicated. Writers? The text in italics is not verified by the cited source.
  • By the 11th century, the Church developed liturgical blessings sanctifying new knights. The text in italics is not verified by the cited source.
  • In 1100, kings depicted themselves as knights to indicate their power. 1. Texts in italics are not verified by the cited source. 2. Where did they depict themselves? 3. I think this sentence contradicts the section's third sentence: "11th and 12th century texts depict a class of knights that were closer in status to peasants...".
  • Reference 43 is obviously wrong. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you list scholarly works verifying tha the the military orders can be mentioned in the background to the crusading movement?
  • The section about the military orders lacks any inner coherence.
  • The crusaders' propensity to follow the customs of their western European homelands meant that there were very few innovations adopted from the culture of the Crusader states. Three notable exceptions to this were the military orders, warfare, and fortifications. Is this a good introduction for the military orders? Why were the military orders established?
  • The Knights Hospitaller were founded in Jerusalem before the First Crusade but added a martial element to their ongoing medical functions to become a much larger military order. The cited source (Asbridge) does not verify the statement.
  • In this way, knighthood entered the previously monastic and ecclesiastical sphere. 1. The texts in bold represent copyvio. 2. Prawer's PoV about the Hospitallers' role as pioneers of the military orders is quite marginal. Other authors cited in the article make it clear that the Knights Templar were the first military order (Asbridge pp. 168-169, Barber p. 135, Tyerman [2019] pp. 151-155). 3. If the Knights Hospitaller were indeed established before the First Crusade, what is the connection between the origin of the military orders and the Crusader states?
  • Military orders – like the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar – provided Latin Christendom's first professional armies, to support the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the other crusader states. The cited author (Asbridge) does not verify the stament.
  • These orders became supranational organizations with papal support, leading to rich donations of land and revenue across Europe. The text in bold represent both close paraphrasing/copyvio and original research. (Asbridge does not associate the development of the military orders into supranational organizations with papal support.)
  • In time, the orders developed into autonomous powers. 1. When? 2. Asbridge is more specific.
  • After the fall of Acre,... Some explanation?
  • Section "Common people" mainly presents facts from the period when the crusading movement flourished. Why are these facts presented as belonging to the background to the crusading movement?
  • Women also formed part of the armies. Were all women who joined the crusading armies commoners as the section's title suggests?
  • Historians have increasingly researched the motivations of the poor who joined the early crusades in large numbers and engaged in popular unsanctioned events during the 13th and 14th centuries. Text in italics belongs to historiography.
  • ...amongst the poor, Christianity and crusading were aggressive. Texts in bold are not verified.
  • An emphasis on popular preaching, developed in the 12th century, generated a wealth of useful resources. 1. The text in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Does the statement imply that the Church started to urge commoners to join the crusades? If not, why the commoners were targeted by preachers?
  • The most popular example began in 1268,... The text in bold contradicts the cited source.
  • The popular but short-lived outbreaks of crusading enthusiasm after Acre fell to Egypt were largely driven by eschatological perceptions of crusading amongst the poor rather than the advanced, professionalized plans advocated by theorists. The sentence is not verified.
  • Pilgrimage was not a mass activity. Copyvio and original research. (The cited source specifically writes of pilgrimages to Jerusalem.)
  • In this way, what was known as the remotest place in 1099... The text in bold is not verified.
  • The literate classes were hostile to this particular unauthorized crusade but mytho-historicized it so effectively that it is one of the most evocative verbal artefacts from the Middle Ages that remained in European and American imagination. The texts in italics are not verified. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Humbert of Romans?
  • Chroniclers used the ethno-cultural terms "barbarians" or barbarae nationes, which were inherited from the Greeks of antiquity, for "others" or "aliens", which were thus differentiated from the self-descriptive term "Latins" that the crusaders used for themselves. The texts in italics does not present the views of the cited author, Jubb. 1. Jubb specifically writes of the chronicles of the First Crusade. 2. She specifically writes that the Greeks used the term for 'others' "alien to their urban civilisation". 3. She does not say that "Latins" is a self-descriptive term used by the crusaders for themselves.
  • Jubb's work is not properly listed among the sources: isbn and pages are needed, and the doi points to another study from the same book.
  • Although there are no specific references to crusading in the 11th century chanson de geste Chanson de Roland, the author, for propaganda purposes, represented Muslims as monsters and idolators. The text in italics is not presented as a fact but as a possibility in the cited source.
  • Visual cues were used to represent Muslims as evil, dehumanized, and monstrous aliens with black complexions and diabolical physiognomies. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio. 2. The sentence does not summarize the main message of the cited author (Jubb). She says that a "black/white dichotomy" was used in medieval literature, especially in popular works, but it symbolised "religious and cultural difference, as much as race". She mentions "diabolical physiognomies" only when writing of the Song of Roland.
  • This portrayal remained in western literature long after the territorial conflict of the crusades had faded into history. 1. The sentence is closely paraphrased. 2. The cited author (Jubb) specifically writes of the medieval period following the age of the crusades.
  • The term "Saracen" designated a religious community rather than a racial group, while the word "Muslim" is absent from the chronicles. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Which religious community?
  • The conflict was seen as a Manichean contest between good and evil. 1. The text in italics is not verified by Jubb. 2. Who saw "the conflict" as a Manichean contest?
  • Historians have been shocked by the inaccuracy and hostility involved in such representations, which included crude insults to Mohammad, caricatures of Islamic rituals, and the representation of Muslims as libidinous gluttons, blood-thirsty savages, and semi-human. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing.
  • Historian Jean Flori argues that to self-justify Christianity's move from pacifism to warfare, their enemies needed to be ideologically destroyed. 1. The article does not refer to Christian pacifism in previous sentences. 2. Flori's work should be cited or at least mentioned in a footnote.
  • Poets often relied on the patronage of leading crusaders, so they extolled the values of the nobility, the feudal status quo, chivalry, martial prowess, and the idea of the Holy Land being God's territory usurped and despoiled. 1. The text in italics contradicts the cited author (Routledge) who does not make connection between patronage and statements in the second part of the sentence. 2. Text in bold is not verified (actually, Routledge writes of the restoration of status quo ante.)
  • The reformist Church's identity-interest complex framed Islam as a particular form of heresy. The text in bold represents copyvio.
  • Muslim rule in formerly Christian territory was an "unjust" confiscation of Christian property, and this persecution of Christians required repayment. 1. The text in italics is closely paraphrased. 2. The text is bold is not verified by the cited author (Latham), since he does not define the persecution of Christians as the unjust confiscation of Christian property.
  • Islamic polities' own identity-interest complexes led them to be equally violently opposed to the restoration of Christian rule. Copyvio.

FM

[edit]
Thanks FunkMonk, but no this is a different article. Crusades is still there and never made it to FA due to all the usual WP reasons and contains the MILHIST. Crusading movement is about the ideologies and instituitions and has no MILHIST. There is some overlap naturally and some attributed text has been moved from the former to this one. I tend to think of it as a Venn diagram. Norfolkbigfish Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some WP:duplink that may not be necessary, which can be highlighted with this script:[11]
—although I only found one e.g. Madden. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give approximate date for the last image caption?
Not sure what you mean here, or how to do it. If you can advise happy to action.
I think they mean add a date to the "Fragment of a haggada from the Cairo genizah" caption (i.e. when is this haggada copy is from). I'd also recommend a second line in the caption for the lead image of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Having just its name and a picture doesn't make it clear to an unformed reader of what its connection to the crusades is. Aza24 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—how about this :-)? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last caption looks good, not sure about the lead one. The building's significance is explained properly in a general sense—but I'm not seeing an explicit connection to the crusades. I would say the image still has to justify its existence. I see that it was reconstructed during the crusades? Maybe something along that sentiment is more relevant Aza24 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, thanks for addressing my badgering. Aza24 (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all @Aza24, didn't take it as badgering—more as helpful guidance. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking more the age of the page shown in the last image, but it looks like an improvement. As for the rest of this review, I don't feel qualified enough on the subject to review further until the issues raised by the earlier reviewers are resolved, but ping me if that happens. FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129

[edit]
Hi @FAC coordinators: . May I suggest the withdrawal of this article from the review process? It has basically now receiving a peer review—to the level of detail that should have been resolved prior to nomination—but which in itself still seems not to be getting properly addressed. So, two problems:
1) It is being peer reviewed whilst also a FA candidate, and
2) The results of this peer review do not seem to be getting addressed.
This is on top of the myriad problems—many small in themselves, but quantitative—raised over other reviews. ——Serial Number 54129 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On edit: Looking above, I see that one of these issues is close paraphrasing; this takes us away from small issues that can be—and generally are—dealt with at FAC to outright policy violation. That's pretty non-negotiable in my book. ——Serial Number 54129 12:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat inclined to agree; the unfortunate decision to escalate an oppose to ANI means, I think, that there will always be a shadow hanging over this nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANI? Really? For a FAC? Blimey. ——Serial Number 54129 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, while the article itself is around 10,000 words long, this page is currently standing at >11,500. ——Serial Number 54129 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I think around half of those are quotes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than half and I am responsible for it. Copyvio, close paraphrasing and original research in a sentence can hardly be demonstrated without copying whole sentences and marking their problematic parts. Borsoka (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nothing wrong with extra length where it's required. ——Serial Number 54129 13:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am content that this is withdrawn but not for the reason given. This article has gone through two peer reviews, a successful GAN and was also granted A-Class status by the MILHIST project. It did not need a peer review, that was the choice of Borsoka. That is not to say it would have passed, there are clearly some issues here that have previously come to light or been resolved. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Thanks for the ping, SN. Without commenting on the ANI and the conflict history between the nominator and Borsoka, the latter's oppose regarding copyvio is indeed valid and so is Jens's. I decided to verify some of the copyvio/close-paraphrasing issues and they are indeed as problematic as Borsoka has noted (although it certainly would help to show a comparison of the source and article to better illustrate the copyvio problem). Such issues violate Wikipedia policy. I recommend that these issues should immediately be looked into and rectified, but FAC is not the place for that. With that in mind, I'm archiving this nomination. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2024 [12].

Edict of Expulsion

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jim Killock (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1290 edict of expulsion that led to the departure of the Jews from England, and the reasons why it was issued; and the consequences and importance of the edict since then. It would be good for it to be featured as it is an important facet of English and Jewish social history, with an international significance. Jim Killock (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

I'll take a look at this one over the weekend...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Edward told the sheriffs of all counties he wanted" => "Edward told the sheriffs of all counties that he wanted"
  • "then adopted in England at the Synod of Oxford in 1222." - this doesn't work grammatically with the rest of the sentence. I would separate it into a separate sentence
  • "King Henry III backed allegations" - link him
  • "this was however an unrealistic expectation" - this either needs to be a separate sentence of else the comma before it needs to be a semi-colon
  • "Edward also attempted" - who's Edward? This is the first mention in the body of him
  • "Edward broke his collarbone in an 80 foot fall" => "Edward broke his collarbone in an 80-foot fall"
  • "Wardens at the Cinque Ports were to told" => "Wardens at the Cinque Ports were told"
  • "Perhaps more dangerous than the risk of piracy was the condition of the sea in Autumn" - autumn doesn't need a capital A
  • "the most valuable of which was houses in London" - while probably grammatically correct, this reads a little oddly, so I would suggest maybe "the most valuable of which consisted of houses in London"
  • "Some of the property was given away to courtiers, the church and family" - whose family?
  • "Sales were mostly completed by spring 1291, and around £2,000 was raised. £100 of this was used to glaze windows and decorate the tomb of Henry III in Westminster Abbey" => "Sales were mostly completed by spring 1291, and around £2,000 was raised, £100 of which was used to glaze windows and decorate the tomb of Henry III in Westminster Abbey"
  • Check for overlinking. Queen Eleanor is certainly linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • "it appears to be a deliberate attempt to associate himself and Eleanor with the cult." - this should be its own sentence
  • "for instance in the canonization evidence" => "for instance in the canonisation evidence" (British English spelling)
  • There's quite a bit of sandwiching going on with images, especially in the significance section. Maybe lose a couple of images
  • If kept, the Edward I image caption needs a full stop
  • Note c - "See Hillaby & Hillaby 2013, pp. 364–5" - this could just be a reference in the same format as all the others
  • Note d needs a full stop
  • Note f - "See Morris 2009, p. 226" - same as with note c
  • Same with notes j and h
  • Note l does not need a full stop
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great - those look very sensible. I'll work through them probably tomorrow. Jim Killock (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much @ChrisTheDude. Those are all done, bar removing an image. I've cut the image captions down, but left them for now, until I've had a think. On overlinking I checked Edward I, Queen Eleanor and Little St Hugh as the most likely candidates for overlinking with several mentions.Jim Killock (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
What you did is exactly what I had in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:captions and WP:duplinks is what we have. The latter says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a major section." That's of course vague, but personally I just link a term in the first caption it occurs, and consider the captions a separate text from the article body, just like the intro section is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jim Killock (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm not exactly an expert on this subject, I'm wary to continue the review until the issues below are resolved, also so I don't tread the same ground. I'll return if Gog gives it a go. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, thank you, that makes sense. I've addressed everything specific raised bar one cite I need to add; I've also given the copy another once over for anything I can spot myself. Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

I am not far in and am picking up a lot of things which should have largely been sorted before FAC. I can see that it has had two relatively recent visits to PR and I am aware that the waiting list at GoCER - it badly needs a copy edit - is three months, so there is a limit to what you can do. I think not going with a FAC mentor - the bit in bold in the second paragraph of the FAC instructions - is unfortunate, but I can guess that they are thin on the ground in practice. Nevertheless, IMO the article is not yet ready for FAC. It needs a fair bit of work, which FAC is not equipped to provide. I am, therefore, leaning oppose. I shall sleep on it and then probably pick a random paragraph or two from further down the article tomorrow to see if I have so far just had a run of bad luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these so far, I will find time to fix them ASAP. They are really useful.
On process, I asked for a FAC mentor, but I was advised by User:Dudley Miles that this was not needed and I should just get the text peer reviewed; he then gave me very helpful comments there. I'm new to this but my experience of Peer Review has been that it is slow to get much helpful response. GA was much more helpful. (And of course, I have done PRs myself for others to ensure that I am giving as well as asking.) I think Dudley's very helpful review was the first time out of three or so goes I have had to get anything substantial from it. Of course it may be that I am just being a bit impatient in these cases and rather than a few weeks, I should be waiting longer for responses, but I get the impression that people looking seem to regard the job as done once one person has responded.
Extended content
Now dealt with: On the two factual matters (Jews as "property") this is well cited and mentioned also in Edward I of England in the same manner ("The Jews were the King's personal property, and he was free to tax them at will."); the same point was raised and discussion took place at its FAR. The reasons are complex, rather hazy and rarely expanded upon except in discussions of the theological background; as church opinion against Jews hardened, it was regarded that they were in permanent slavery for their sins of obstinacy in the face of the message of Christ's salvation, doomed to permanent servitude as punishment while they refused to convert. From another perspective, as Jews were outside of the Church and "Christian" society, the King had to take direct responsibility for them. From a third, the Crown after Crusader violence in 1190 tended to push this line in part to define the relationship as protection in return for unlimited taxation. However the position seems to be more theology and legal theory than practical reality and daily experience, excepting that the Crown would periodically mass arrest Jews to extract taxation in return for their release, for instance. As with many things in this article, information on this can be added but there is a question how much is needed to understand the expulsion itself; ie sufficient context vs a full history; points like this tend to be skipped in most other short accounts beyond the bare statement of the situation.
On the "The expulsion had a lasting negative impact" - the impact cited extensively was that it helped make the English national identity actively anti-Semitic. The sources don't necessarily explicitly say that anti-Semitism in the national identity was a "negative" impact, it is more taken as read: they say that anti-Semitism was and is negative, and that the impact was to include it into English identity. So I have taken out "negative", in case this implies a NNPOV, but you may wish to re-read this to see if it may read as if this "impact" could in fact have been a good one, or that WP takes a "neutral" view on racial prejudice. If I am honest that paragraph now does read in rather a cold and clinical manner, and might be read as if Edward's actions could be seen as a cause for celebration. Jim Killock (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update that I made some light copyediting to the main text. The copy is where help is most likely to be needed IMHO, the source formatting now being hopefully sorted and source checking regarding scope and accuracy ought to be pretty decent although of course I do not rule out quibbles. Jim Killock (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional tidy-ups made to
  • include OL refs throughout books where they exist;
  • add sources from those in reading list to reinforce the refs in the body;
  • remove further reading section as now redundant;
  • remove duplicate and irrelevant links in external links section.
Jim Killock (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Gog and I'm not sure "English identity" is the right word to use. My understanding is that most historians date the formation of national identity to the 18th and 19th centuries. How does this apply to the average serf who might not have even known about the expulsion happening? (t · c) buidhe 05:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm assuming this agreement relates to the dropping of "negative" from "lasting negative impact on English identity"). It is a fair question re; identity; I will check what the texts say. In short, tho, it is discussed in these kind of terms; culture is experienced and projected through many activities, and even serfs were certainly made aware of key religious topics, of which, the "dangers" and "perfidy" of Jews was frequently one, before and after the expulsion. What alternatives could we consider? "English culture"? Open to suggestions. Jim Killock (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shapiro: p45 has "between 1290 and 1656 the English came to see their country defined in part by the fact that Jews had been banished from it" and talks of "impulses in English culture" p46
  • Strickland talks of "the Anglo-Jewish dimension of the the current debate on the formation of English national identity during the Edwardian period" (p420)
  • Glassman talks of "the image of the Jew in the mind of the English people" (preface) and says "anti-Jewish sentiment was deeply ingrained in the fabric of English life throughout the next several centuries" (chapter one end)
We can settle on "culture" as a less controversial and more widely used term. I've changed to that. It does somewhat obscure the point that "we are this because we are not" but it avoids debates about whether a national identity did or did not exist, or what it consisted of. Jim Killock (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title/capitalization

[edit]

Probably not the feedback you were expecting, but the first thing I noticed is that the capitalization of the title seems to be wrong: on Google Scholar [13] it seems to be 50/50 or even lean in favor of no capitalization in running text, so per WP:NCCAPS the title should be "edict of expulsion" or "edict of expulsion (1290)". This should wait until the FAC is closed to avoid administrative burden. (t · c) buidhe 08:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no strong opinion on this; I'll go with whatever the norm / consensus is. I note some of the differences relates to whether it is "the specific" EoE or "an" eoe, ie whether it is a "proper name" per the WP policy; some is stylistic preference I guess. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other comment I have is regarding the notes. In general, if the content is essential enough to belong in the article at all, it shouldn't be hidden in a note; whereas, if it does not contribute to reader understanding of the subject, it should not be included at all.
    • An example of a note that I don't think is done correctly is the one for archa. Especially in mobile devices, it is not always possible to access the note and so a reader may be left confused by this term (the only wiki link is in the note, not the text). Instead, I would give a brief explanation in text on first mention and remove the note. Alternatively, it seems to be a notable topic so it might also be helpful to stub it and put in a blue link.
      Is there policy guidance on this as I'm getting it a bit wrong? I've understood notes to be "background, which might help clarify if the reader is in doubt about what is being asserted, where the detail isn't essential for an understanding of the topic at hand", but let me know if that is wrong. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've moved the main explanation of archa into the text and left the background in a note; this could be deleted if preferred. I'll have a think about a stub, but WP has got very difficult about doing short articles in recent years, even when referenced, I'm not sure I want to engage with that; I suspect many would feel it is a borderline on "notability". --Jim Killock (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another example is the footnote saying the text was lost. This also seems better to incorporate into the article text.
      Done --Jim Killock (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the first footnote, I don't understand what point this is trying to get across, so I would just cut it. (t · c) buidhe 08:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      People have a hard time with the idea that England might have been the first place to make a permanent expulsion of the Jews and editors frequently query or contest it; there is some greyness in that expulsions took place but were not permanent; the note is trying to explain that this permanence was not least the contemporary perception found in Jewish sources. Will try to make the note more understandable, but not the end of the world if it is cut. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Edited but feel free to check. Jim Killock (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The permanent expulsion of Jews from England and tactics employed before it, such as attempts at forced conversion, are widely seen as setting a significant precedent, foreshadowing the 1492 expulsion in Spain, for example" rewrite, too many commas in this sentence. Foreshadowing is a literary device, so it's not a word I would use when referring to historical events. Was Ferdinand inspired by this expulsion? Or else, what is the supposed historical connection between these two events? It's quite vague.
Will go back and check the texts. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edited: the texts I have cite the events as an "example" or "model" for later permanent French and Spanish expulsions or forced conversions. I've used "example", what Spanish or other sources say on the point I don't know. It seems a fair enough point tho. Jim Killock (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Have linked to this and the UK-specific article. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However English antisemitism persisted as an outlook into the twentieth century, leaving a legacy of neglect of this topic in general history books as late as the 1980s" needs a rephrase. I would write instead, "According to historian Colin Richmond, the topic was neglected in general history books as late as the 1980s due to lingering antisemitism in English society". Wikipedia can't really say what is an appropriate amount of coverage; that seems like an opinion based statement. Furthermore, your sentence almost makes it seem like there is no antisemitism in the UK in the 21st century. (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this all seems sensible and very helpful, will work on these. Jim Killock (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
@JimKillock: Round objects to the BL; they claim copyright over everything they hold even though they created little of it. In these cases, the PD scan template is your friend; I am known to use it liberally  :) ——Serial Number 54129 18:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yuk to that, especially as UK law is now clear they are in the wrong; however, the issue is that it was only published in 1986, so for WP the copyright may apply. I note for such works published 1989 to present, they are in copyright until 2039 in the UK. I don't quite understand what this means for previously unpublished works that were published before 1989 as in this case. Obviously life plus 70 wouldn't apply. Jim Killock (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yuk indeed! Apologies, I was talking about the Dugdale version, which as you say, is well and truly PD. ——Serial Number 54129 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
gotcha, thanks! Jim Killock (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So BL have replied to say it's OK and the original is public domain. I'm not sure if there is a process at WP to retain records of these kinds of conversation but I can forward the emails if I know where they should go. Jim Killock (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: this has been open for more than seven weeks now and has picked up one support and has an unresolved oppose. It does not look like there will be a consensus for promotion anytime soon so I'm archiving this. Perhaps seek the help of a mentor who specializes in this area of topic to have it better prepared for a possible renomination. In any case, the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 April 2024 [14].

Knowledge

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge is one of those everyday phenomena that seems relatively straightforward to grasp but is very difficult to precisely define. It is the main topic of epistemology and plays a key role in many fields, including the sciences. Thanks a lot to Thebiguglyalien for their detailed GA review, to Z1720, GuineaPigC77, and Tom B for their peer reviews, and to Biogeographist for all the improvement ideas and talk-page discussions. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Generalissima

[edit]

Reserving a spot to review this later! Generalissima (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh dang it I have been slow to get back to this. Dearest apologies! I will try my hardest to do a prose review over the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima 750h+ (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

This looks an impressive article, but as I am to abstract concepts what walruses are to needlework I can't venture to comment on its balance or comprehensiveness. I have only three comments on the prose:

Good luck with the FAC, and I hope someone better equipped than I am to comment meaningfully shows up soon. – Tim riley talk 15:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a leap to venture into this difficult territory and for the helpful comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would really love to add my support for promoting the article to FA, which I am fairly sure it deserves, and I shall watch this page to see if editors more competent than I on such topics give it the thumbs-up, in which case I'll be happy to add my support. Bonne chance! Tim riley talk 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]
Pass Sohom (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review and for taking care of the source link. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens

[edit]

This is an excellently written article. I like the many examples that really help with understanding. Only a few nitpicks, and questions that came to me while reading the article:

  • Introspection allows people to learn about their internal mental states and processes. Other sources of knowledge include memory, rational intuition, inference, and testimony. – What about the knowledge how to ride a bicycle? Where does this knowledge come from? Is it perception?
    Experience is required to learn how to ride a bicycle but I'm not sure about the details. I would assume that various different sources are involved with perception probably playing a key part in that experience to get familiar with all the sensory information involved in the process. Generally speaking, knowledge-how can depend on various sources, including testimony. For example, if someone gives you an accurate description of how to walk from A to B then you know how to walk from A to B based on that testimony. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is knowledge restricted to humans? Can plants have knowledge? Is genetic information knowledge? Can we say that anything that is able to learn has knowledge?
    That depends on whom you ask and how they define knowledge. The example with the ant knowing how to walk in the subsection "Non-propositional" is taken from Pritchard 2013. This source also suggests that some sophisticated creatures other than humans may have propositional knowledge. I don't think the term "know" is usually applied to plants. For example, saying that a plant "knows how to grow" sounds strange. The overview sources that I'm aware of give very little attention to animal knowledge and do not mention plant knowledge. Genetic information could be responsible for some forms of a priori knowledge, for example, by structuring our brains in a way that we automatically know basic arithmetic truths. I'm not sure about whether being able to learn implies knowledge. Computer programs and websites can learn things about users by gathering information. Is storing this information in a databank sufficient to say that they know things? The answer to that question probably depends mostly on how one defines learn and know. Some epistemologists hold that there is innate knowledge, that is, knowledge that is inborn and does not need to be learned. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, in some way trees can learn from mistakes, so I would say they "know" things [15]; that's where I am coming from. I am not asking to add that to the article, of course. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that knowledge is a justified belief, and that knowing how to ride a bicycle is knowledge. What exactly is the belief when riding a bicycle?
    There are different views on the details. According to one view, the belief concerns the procedure of riding a bicycle, i.e., the different steps involved in the process. But not everyone accepts the traditional characterization of knowledge as justified belief and it is controversial to what extent this characterization fits knowledge-how. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, an ant knows how to walk – I am not sure about this example. It is like saying that humans know how to breath – but this is a reflex and not learned, so it it really knowledge?
    The example is taken from Pritchard 2013 and a similar example involving ants is found in Pavese 2022. I added a footnote to include this concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some types of knowledge-how do not require a highly developed mind, in contrast to propositional knowledge, and are more common in the animal kingdom. – Why restricting this to the animal kingdom and not life in general?
    I answered this in part in the earlier response: this is how the academic sources deal with the issue and it also seems to reflect how ordinary language mostly uses the term know. A more interesting answer might be that knowledge is related to mind or higher cognition and that animals have it while plants don't. But it is controversial where mind starts and ends so we would have to be careful about including this type of claim in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • to understand the claim in which the term is expressed – I don't understand this wording. Wouldn't just "to understand the claim" enough? What is the "in which the term is expressed" adding?
    You are right, the original formulation was unclear so I reformulated it. If we wanted to have a shorter version, your suggestion would also work. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PJW

[edit]

To begin, it must be acknowledged that this is an article of extraordinary generality. Knowledge as such cannot be adequately covered in a monograph, much less an encyclopedia article. This, as far as I can see, makes it almost impossible to assess with respect to FAC criterion 1.b on comprehensiveness—and also, at least for me, with respect to 2.b on appropriate structure. If there exist any policies or previous discussions directly relevant on this point, it would be appropriate to link out to them here.

That said, I nevertheless have serious reservations about supporting this promotion. These reservations are, on my reading, a consequence of the intrinsic difficulty of covering such a broad topic for a general audience. But I am not sure how best to treat this. An obvious possibility would to commit, instead, to summary style. This, however, would be a massive project for which no one is volunteering—and which would outright obviate this entire discussion. So, let not the best (should it be even that!) be the enemy of the better.

Hello PatrickJWelsh and thanks for your detailed comments. I've pushed back on several of them and we'll have to explore where the middle ground lies. You are right that the topic of knowledge is vast, which makes comprehensiveness a key challenge. As I understand it, the FA criteria should not be applied to the topic in general, like its intrinsic difficulty, but to the article. The main reason is that, as Wikipedia editors, we can't do much about the topic itself. We can only try to properly cover it. This is also implied by the FA instructions: Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HI @Phlsph7, thanks for your point-by-point responses! I welcome the push-back. I've responded to some in turn, and there is at least one more that I intend to address. I also have a few other notes on "In various disciplines" to contribute to this process.
I should add that I understand and support the policy point you cite. My standard of comprehensiveness for an article like this is probably unreasonably high (my own emphasis here on myself). I would request other editors assess my comments accordingly.
Although I doubt that I will support promotion, I do not oppose it. If this were not a good article, that would be immediately apparent to me, and I would not be shy in actively speaking out against promotion. My comments are presented for the consideration of others and, most importantly, as a possible impetus to further improvements. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comment 1: It is too long. (And I would submit that I probably have a longer attention span than most readers.) If it is possible without compromising the content, this article would benefit from an aggressive round of cuts.

The article has a readable prose size of 8152 words. According to the rules of thumb explained at WP:SIZERULE, starting for articles with over 8000 words, they May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size.. If you feel strongly about this rule of thumb, I could try to shave of those 152 words. But this length is not uncommon for articles on topics with this kind of scope and an aggressive round of cuts would impact comprehensiveness negatively. So I think there is a strong case for why the length of the article itself is not a problem. I had a look but I didn't feel that any of the sections should be spun off into a new child article so it seems to me that the article follows WP:Summary style. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not of concern to other referees, y'all should please just disregard this comment. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comment 2: I am concerned that it is overly biased towards the concerns of philosophical epistemology. Point 2.1: some of the details in this area seem unlikely to be of general interest. And, more importantly, – point 2.2: — Is there not also an underrepresented literature on this topic grounded in the cognitive sciences? My own background is in philosophy, but we do not have a monopoly on what counts as knowledge, as this article might be taken to imply.

I wouldn't say "biased" but I agree that the epistemological perspective plays a central role in the article. The main reason is that epistemology is the main field of inquiry studying knowledge, similar to how biology is the main field of inquiry studying life. The article includes perspectives from many other fields, like history, religion, anthropology, and sociology. But the inquiry into the characteristics of knowledge is not the key concern of these fields. The cognitive sciences study cognitive processes, information, and the like, but, as far as I'm aware, the specific topic of knowledge in contrast to these related concepts is not a central research topic in this field. It would be possible to include a short explanation of Goldman's epistemics but my impression is that research under this label has not received that much attention so far. Some topics relevant to the cognitive sciences are discussed in the subsection "In various disciplines#Others". I'm open to more topic suggestions in regard to the cognitive sciences if you have expertize in this area. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My objection here – and it is my central objection – is that this article reads to me too much like an excellent article written from the highly relevant, but nevertheless quite specific, perspective of Anglo-American analytic epistemology.
It is my strong impression that there is a lot of empirical work being done by scientists who take themselves to be studying knowledge (for instance, its acquisition and reliability) that is not adequately represented by this – once again, in so many respects, excellent – article.
The source of this "strong impression", however, is many years of listening to long-form interviews and reading the sorts of publication that profile such scientists. That is to say that I cannot point you in the direction of anything that would be useful, should I even be correct in my assessment that this is, indeed, a genuine shortcoming with respect to the FAC criterion of comprehensiveness. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this just occurs to me. I am here because of a second request for participation on the WikiProject Philosophy noticeboard. Have you checked whether there are any active boards in the relevant empirical sciences? If so, have you posted there as well? Someone attesting (see that!) even just to being an undergrad research assistant, or something like that, signing off on the comprehensiveness of the article would considerably assuage my concerns. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being slow to comprehend but I'm struggling with how to make sense of your central objection. You say that the article lacks comprehensiveness but it's not clear what concrete topics this concerns besides the vague suggestion that they belong to the cognitive sciences.
In trying to better understand your concern, I did some digging and I had a look at the 8-volume APA Encyclopedia of Psychology: it does not have an entry on the topic Knowledge. I also had a look at the 4-volume Wiley Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science: it does not contain an article on the topic Knowledge but it does contain an article on the topic Knowledge representation, which focuses on the field of artificial intelligence. In our article, this is discussed in the 3rd paragraph of the subsection "In various disciplines#Others". Do you feel that this long paragraph is not sufficient to deal with the topic? Would the situation be improved by adding a second paragraph on that topic? (By the way, I now posted an FA notice to WikiProject Cognitive science.) Phlsph7 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comment 3: A major topic that this article does not address is the limits of knowledge. Because the nominating editor knows my own philosophical background and interests, I should say that I would support, at most, a short paragraph on Kant. Gödel's incompleteness theorems, however, as well as theories of quantum indeterminacy, present serious challenges to some of the most basic assumptions about the possibilities of knowledge. This is a matter of interest to a general audience that deserves to be addressed under its own heading.

The sections "Sources", "Philosophical skepticism", and "Religion" address various limits of knowledge but there is surely more to be said on this topic. As I understand it, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are about the relation between completeness and provability in formal systems of logic and belong to the field of metalogic. Given some additional assumptions, maybe some interesting conclusion about the characteristics of knowledge can be drawn from them but the theorems themselves are not about knowledge. The reliable overview sources on knowledge that I'm aware of don't discuss how quantum indeterminacy limits the possibility of knowledge. If you know of a high-quality source that present these issues as topics of vital importance to knowledge in general then I would be happy to include them. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comment 4: The disciplinary sections filed under "Others" introduces massive issues entirely unaddressed by the article. Our computers "know" more than would ever even be possible for a human to know. This complaint predates even the Internet and, in this context, should be acknowledged—even if we are not in any position to draw any kind of conclusions. Technological advances and media coverage have been been exponentially exploding in even just the past few years. What computers can or do "know" – especially when it is beyond human possibility – is a topic that seems to me deserves to be acknowledged in this article.

Do computer "know" anything? This depends very much on your definition of knowledge. The claim that they store knowledge is less controversial, similar to how books store knowledge, as discussed in the subsection "In various disciplines#Others". The historical topic of the influence of the development of computers and the Internet on knowledge is covered in the last paragraph of the section "History". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point here is just that I would have liked to see the article more directly address the opening interrogative of your response. My own intuitions are strongly opposed to this, but I do find them challenged by recent innovations in AI. I am afraid, however, that my primary source on this is regularly listening to the NYT Hard Fork podcast. So I do not have any good sources to which I can point you on this issue. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume this question belongs to the field of the philosophy of artificial intelligence. I don't think it's one of the key questions in this field but there are various related questions, for example, whether machines can have a mind and/or consciousness. I could try to do some digging here but the fact that digging is required gives me the impression that this is not a central topic. The overview sources on knowledge that I'm aware of do not address this specific problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specific comment i: Self-knowledge and its limits seem to me to deserve more detailed treatment than they are given as one "Type" among the "Others" and also, in more detail, as a general "Source". In contemporary philosophy, Nietzsche and Freud are probably the dominant figures on this point. It is, however, in no way an original insight on their behalves; they just happen to be prominent for pressing back against the excesses of the Enlightenment in recent history. Plato knew this, Augustine knew this, and it is abundantly supported by recent empirical research in psychology: we are not the authorities on ourselves that we so often take ourselves to be. And this seems to me to be the kind of thing that is likely to be of interest to the average reader of Wikipedia.

The term self-knowledge is used in various different senses. If we take self-knowledge as knowledge of the self then you can get self-knowledge from various sources. They even include testimony, for example, when someone tells you something about your character that you did not know before. As far as I'm aware, self-knowledge is not generally treated as a source of knowledge besides the other sources already mentioned in the section "Sources" but rather as a type of knowledge. For example, Steup & Neta 2020 discusses the sources of knowledge mentioned in our section "Sources" and does not mention "self-knowledge". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The work I had in mind writing this comment is Timothy Wilson's 2002 Strangers to Ourselves.
More generally, while I consider it obvious that our (seemingly privileged) claims to knowledge of ourselves are massively fallible, I have found, just in the ordinary course of conversation, that there are highly intelligent people who do not recognize this.
Maybe it is outside the scope of the article to say anything more about this, but it still seems relevant to me. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the book looks interesting and I'll see what can be used. However, there is the danger of overemphasizing the importance of this topic. For example, right at the beginning of the preface, the book states that ...self-knowledge has not been a mainstream topic in academic psychology. There are few college courses on self-knowledge and few books devoted to the topic.... I don't think a much more detailed treatment of this topic is justified in our article. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a way to use Wilson's book in short footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment also ties into the concerns of another reviewer about know-how vs. knowledge-that, which I agree might be expanded with benefit to the article. We are strangers to ourselves, yet unthinkingly we rely upon proprioceptive self-knowledge, which rarely fails us—except when it fails us reliably due to head trauma. The kind of knowledge, however you describe it, that allows us to move through the world – so often, so effortlessly – seems to me to deserve more attention. Many in the phenomenological tradition of philosophy argue that propositional knowledge is parasitic on this more basic sort of pre-understanding upon the basis of which we are able to move through the world in a way that makes possible the sort of knowledge with which this article is primarily occupied. Not at all suggesting article-wide revisions in support of this point, which is not universally accepted, just that the article would benefit from better coverage in some appropriate section.

Do you have a specific source in mind in regard to the importance of the role of proprioceptive self-knowledge? I'm not opposed to covering this in more detail as long as we avoid giving too much emphasis to the phenomenological perspective. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do! Shaun Gallagher's How the Body Shapes the Mind. I've not read it since it came out in 2005, but "proprioception" has multiple entries in the index. So probably it should be possible to add this without reading the whole thing? If you want to look at it but can't find a copy, email me and I'll see what I can do. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, I already have access to the book. I'll have a look through it but, form a first look, I don't think that self-knowledge is a central topic in it. According to this google book search, the term only comes up 3 times. All these matches are from the bibliography rather then the text of the book itself. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specific comment ii: Almost nothing in the section "Philosophical skepticism" is anything that anyone, per even just this article, takes seriously—or even pretends to take seriously in the seminar room. If my other related suggestions are found to have merit, I suggest that anything here that cannot be incorporated into a discussion of legitimate limits to knowledge should be removed entirely.

I have more notes, but this is more than enough for now. Please, anyone reading this, do not be shy about pressing back or expressing any other sort of view, supportive, contrary, or otherwise.

Cheers, all best, et cetera —

Philosophical skepticism is a central topic in the literature on knowledge and many overview sources on knowledge cover it in detail. Removing the section entirely would hurt comprehensiveness. Its influence is not so much from philosophers who explicity defended philosophical skepticism but from everyone else who felt the need to defend their own non-skeptical position against its central arguments. This is explained right at the beginning of the section. If you feel that the discussion is too detailed then I'm open to removing some details. Which claims would you remove or trim? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chipping in to deal with "Knowledge as such cannot be adequately covered in a monograph, much less an encyclopedia article". That's certainly not true. It's a topic covered in most encyclopaedias, including from the first editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there, @SchroCat! I went to the version of Britannica currently online to see how its entry reads. I was expecting that this would allow me to go on the record saying that it was riddled with problems and that I would have opposed its promotion, were it to have been nominated here (although I was also very ready to be surprised!). However, it seems the editors reversed course: there no longer appears to be any such article. (Also, apparently Britannica is so unreliable that links to search queries there have been blacklisted.) Is "knowledge" just the wrong search term? I don't think it's relevant in either direction, but, if they had something and then proactively removed it, that would seem to support my general contention that it is stupidly difficult to write anything encyclopedic on a topic as general as knowledge. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The online version of the EB is a joke that should be ignored. Use a library and the printed word - see here.
    I reject your view completely (even though you are now saying "intelligence", on which is it also possible to write an encyclopaedic article (Please don't change your comment after someone has replied to it - see WP:TALK#REVISE for the better course)). Not only is it possible to write an encyclopaedic article on any subject, the printed version of the EB did it a couple of centuries ago, and I'll certainly stick to their opinion on the subject. I think the best advice you can take right now is to focus any comments onto the FA criteria. That is what this nomination is being judged on, not any single individual's personal beliefs about whether a subject matter is valid. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, and yikes! If I had realized anyone had responded to my comment, I would not have edited it. Sorry.
    If, per your username, you have any sort of expert knowledge pertaining to quantum indeterminacy, that would be very welcome above.
    To your general concern, all of my comments here are predicated on the general assumption of assessment by other editors according to any and all relevant policies. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would submit that the fact this appears as a central topic in the relevant literature is evidence that the literature under consideration is too narrowly field-specific. Do we seriously need to be addressing imaginary demons or The Matrix?
I strongly suspect that any argument that relies upon this sort of extreme skepticism (to arrive at any conclusion beyond that such skepticism is self-defeating) is probably a rubbish argument. If you have an example to the contrary, I would review it with interest, independently of what might be the best version of this article.
If you want to keep this as its own section, I would be happy to make cuts myself in a piecemeal way so that you could easily revert any with which you disagree. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the dream argument and the brain in a vat thought experiment are widely cited and discussed, they are not restricted to some esoteric fringe circles. If the point is to shorten the section, then one option would be to remove one of them (or maybe put it as footnote rather than as part of the main text). If you edit this section, please be careful to not impose your personal view on which argument is a rubbish argument. The better approach might be to first get familiar with the relevant sources, like the ones cited, and then make adjustment to better reflect those sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilink on the dream argument supports its inclusion. I was too quick to associate this extremely general sort of skepticism just with Descartes. The brain-in-a-vat stuff, however, I still think ought to go—just on the basis of "what does this add?" Plus there is a huge literature of far more compelling skeptical arguments, ancient and contemporary, that could be included instead. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation
[edit]

I'm going to be more brief here because otherwise I am afraid I will not get to it at all. The new header is just because the above is already long—and it still awaits my own further response. Most of these comments are specific to "In various disciplines". I continue with my numbering system just on the chance it might be helpful for discussion.

Specific comment iii: I agree that science is taken to be an exemplary source of knowledge (and for excellent reasons!). I must confess, however, that I find the treatment here quite unsatisfying. It is indeed often worthwhile to really take apart basic concepts, and in this context it is entirely appropriate. But all we get here is three paragraphs that read as if addressed to a highly literate person who somehow has no concept of experimental science. And then the article just moves on to the next topic of history (very nice work on that one, by the way). How is this not its own higher-level section with sub-sections on, for instance, the natural and social sciences?

Most people, I believe, think that most of the best knowledge comes from science. The philosophy of science (as you of course know, perhaps even better than me) is its own field. It is considered separate from epistemology, not because it is not extremely relevant to the study of knowledge, but because it is so important and enormous and because it also touches other major branches of philosophy. (And this is even just setting aside the question of the relevance to this article of the work of scientists themselves.)

I agree, there is a lot to be said about science and there are many ways how this section could be expanded. The difficulty here is just to get the balance right while not trying to fit too much into the article. I could imagine making it a main section, maybe not with subsections, but adding one paragraph each on natural and social sciences. I'll wait a little to see if other people have an opinion on that before I get started. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the subsection "Science" to make it a main section. I added a discussion of the natural and the social sciences. I also managed to mention Gadamer's outlook on truth/knowledge beyond the scientific method as discussed in his Truth and Method, which I assume is one of the concerns you had about including a hermeneutic perspective. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comment 5: This is another one that is just genuinely hard, but which I need to raise even though I do not have a solution. My question is, Who is this written for? Apparently almost 2,000 people visit this article every day. Yet, unlike with other articles I've worked on, I do not have a sense of who they are or what they are looking for. This makes it quite difficult to comment upon—and I can only imagine how much more difficult it must have made it to write. Unfortunately, it also makes it sometimes hard to read.

For instance, we are told (with three supporting sources!) that "Knowledge contrasts with ignorance", which is just a massive "duh!", and then we are provided with an admirably concise and informative paragraph on the etymology of "knowledge" that is pitched at a completely different reader.

Everything is clearly written and fully grammatical, but the article seems to me to not know where it is rhetorically in a way that sometimes makes it hard to read. I suspect that this is the main reason that it feels too long to me—even as I am at the same time requesting the addition of a considerable amount of material. The "Science" section is an example of this.

I'm not sure who the typical reader is. Chances are that there is no one typical reader and people from all walks of life somehow find their way to the article. I usually write less with a specific reader in mind and focus more on certain criteria that the article should fulfill. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I apologize, by the way, for my in places ungenerous characterization of your hard work on this article. However, you nominated it for promotion to FA-"the best Wikipedia has to offer" status, and you requested input from everyone on the WikiProject Philosophy board. So I am not pulling punches. As you know, I think your work is incredible, and I would not be commenting here at all if I did not think you could roll with those punches, or if I thought that it would discourage you from continuing to contribute to this project and other areas of Wikipedia. If you think that I am running up against the boundaries of civility, please tell me.)

We may not always be of the same opinion and it may take us a while to get on the same page but I appreciate your in-depth and candid feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specific comment iv: Is there any reason to discuss specific religions in a general article on knowledge? It is great that the person writing this has this background, but I would cut the last two paragraphs.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, religion is still an important part of the lives of many people and discussing the role of knowledge at least in the main religions helps make the text more concrete. I don't think the last 2 paragraphs are absolutely necessary but I also don't think that this subsection is overly long. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Round two
[edit]

I gave the article another read this morning and have a few more notes to share. Again, some are specific and probably easy to address, whereas others would require further research and would lengthen the article. I'll look again at your responses above, but, as much as I can, I will pursue my main points here at the bottom instead. If at any point something that I have neglected would benefit from my direct response, please just call it to my attention directly. (I find it very difficult to keep track of all the different threads in this unstructured format...)

  • The section lead of "Definitions" acknowledges several not necessarily incompatible definitions. Its subsections, however, focus upon one specific debate about just one of those definitions. My ideal article would expand in a similar manner upon some of the non-propositional definitions (or, actually, it would redirect out to child articles to this effect). The structural issue, however, could be addressed just by readjusting the levels of section headings.
    This focus is intentional since there is just so much more discussion of these definitions. This is reflected, for example, in the fact that there is a whole area of epistemology, the analysis of knowledge, dedicated to this topic. I'm not aware of many in-depth debates about how to define knowledge-how. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much like the article's presentation of the Gettier problem, which is highly relevant and of likely interest to even the majority of readers who have never heard of it. The second two paragraphs on responses, however, get too much into the weeds for readers who have not, in fact, heard of it until just having read the first two paragraphs. I suspect you might here lose a lot of the very few readers who actually began the article with the intention of reading the whole thing through. Consider cutting back?
    I tried to simplify that part, I hope I didn't overdo it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The a priori—a posteriori distinction is presented as if a matter of uncontroversial fact when, in fact, it has been directly challenged by philosophers as diverse as Hegel and Quine. There should be at least a sentence or qualifying clause to acknowledge this.
    As I understand it, Quine's main challenge was directed at the analytic-synthetic distinction. Are you sure that he also challenged the a prior-a posteriori distinction? There is a close connection between the two distinctions but there are also some differences. As a naturalist, Quine may hold that there is no a priori knowledge but I don't think he denies the very distinction. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was probably confused about Quine, who I have not read since undergrad, and I withdraw this objection. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is metaknowledge really its own type of knowledge at all? Much less deserving mention in this context?
    I don't think that there are strict criteria on what counts as a "type" of knowledge. In one sense, knowledge about cats is a type of knowledge. It's difficult to say whether metaknowledge is important enough to be mentioned. One of the cited articles is exclusively on this topic and metaknowledge is important in formal epistemology. Since we only have 3 sentences, I would tend to leave them as they are. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel strongly about it, but I don't think you want to lean to heavily on there's a whole article devoted to this highly specific, but still relevant issue! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see more on situated knowledge. I suspect that I am not alone in finding it intrinsically interesting. This would also help to correct against what I perceive as a perhaps undo emphasis upon propositional knowledge. Further, I find the article's specific association of this kind of knowledge with feminism and postmodernism to be extremely weird. Is this not phenomenology 101? Probably also pretty basic to developmental psychology? (More on the political dimension to follow.)
    Do you have specific claims or ideas associated with situated knowledge that you think should be mentioned? It's an important term in some feminist circles, specifically surrounding the work of Donna Haraway, and more could be said on that. The terms situated cognition and embodied cognition are associated with phenomenology but I'm not sure about situated knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking about the issues denoted by the phenomenological terms, although I would also be happy to see Haraway covered. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article to me seems to understate the unreliability of memory in even perfectly healthy and "normal" individuals. For instance, I believe there is good empirical evidence that we unwittingly fabricate memories upon the basis of photos or stories we have heard about ourselves—especially in childhood or the otherwise more distant past, and also that we become increasingly confident in them the more times we recount them. This can be an issue of considerable importance in legal contexts, among, I am sure, many others.
    I added a short mention of confabulation. I don't want to overemphasize this point since memory is usually considered a reliable source despite its lapses. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That probably makes sense for an epistemology article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need the paragraph on knowledge management? Or, at minimum, could it be cut back? Unless it's directly building towards something, no one needs to be told that knowledge we wish to be retained should be stored in a reliable medium, of which there are several.
    I shortened the passage in question. It might be good to keep the paragraph to ensure a variety of views from different disciplines. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with this. It's probably what some people are here looking for, which makes its lack of philosophical interest (at least, to me) irrelevant. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much it in terms of minor edits. I exempt only a few quibbles with the lead that are best left until the body is, at least per this process, provisionally settled.

I'm going to follow up with a second post under this header on potentially larger issues, but I'm not sure I'll finish it tonight. (I call these issues "larger" just because, if they have merit, it would probably take a lot of work to address them. But they might not have merit!)

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm probably not going to be able to get to this for a few days. Since I promised "potentially larger issues", however, I owe it to you to at least say what they are—even if I don't have time to make my case.
Basically, I think that an appropriately general philosophical article about knowledge needs full sections addressing the concerns of hermeneutics and those of critical theory (and various area studies: think, e.g., "feminist epistemology"). The SEP article[16] is a solid source on the first. Not sure about the second.
If you have access to Habermas's Knowledge and Human Interests, take a look at section V of the Appendix (pp. 308–11). He distinguishes three types of knowledge according to three basic human interests. This article focuses almost entirely on the first (hence my earlier allegation of bias towards the concerns of Anglo-American analytic epistemology). Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From his SEP article[17]: "According to Habermas, there are three knowledge-constitutive interests. The empirical and natural sciences are governed by the cognitive interest in the technical control of objectified processes. The historical-hermeneutical sciences are shaped by a practical interest in orienting action and reaching understanding, while self-reflection (and Erkenntniskritik) are determined by a cognitive interest in emancipation and in Mündigkeit—autonomy and responsibility (1968b [1971a: 313–314])." Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm also interested in these fields and I know that you are closely associated with them. However, based on the high-quality overview sources that I'm aware of, they seem to be minor topics in regard to the subject of knowledge in general and dedicating a full section to each of them would be a violation of WP:PROPORTION. For example, I checked several sources (the IEP article on knowledge, the Oxford short introduction, and the SEP article on epistemology): none of them contains a section dedicated to these fields. I also searched for the terms "hermeneutics", "critical theory", "Habermas", and "feminism" (and their related forms): I got no hits in any of these sources, except for 2 mentions of feminist epistemology in the SEP article. I could look at more sources, like the article in the Routledge Encyclopedia article, but I assume the result would be similar. I'll see where it makes sense to mention these topics without going into a detailed discussion.
You seem to suggest that the article is biased because it "focuses almost entirely on" how "The empirical and natural sciences are governed by the cognitive interest in the technical control of objectified processes". I read through our main sections but I had a very hard time making sense of this objection. The only subsection explicitly focused on science is the subsection called "Science", which you thought should be expanded. Do you think that this potential bias of most of the article is obvious or is this the kind of bias that only becomes visible to readers who adopt a very particular interpretative perspective? Does this alleged bias affect only our article or does it affect most of the high-quality overview sources as well, like the ones mentioned above? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again,
Apologies in advance for the curmudgeonly tone. I've come down with something and am writing through a headache, as I also was yesterday.
I'm sorry to hear that you are unwell and I hope you get better soon. Apologies for adding to your malady by causing you exasperation. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the well-wishes. It was definitely just a cold virus, from which I am now recovered. If I seemed to in any way be blaming you, that most certainly was not my intent. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where I spoke of "bias" I should have spoke of an artificially "narrow" or "limited" perspective. Most certainly I am not accusing you of advancing any kind of agenda. My objection is just that I don't see how this passes the comprehensiveness criterion.
  • I did not mean to suggest that you were pushing some kind of instrumental conception of knowledge, as you understandably took my invocation of Habermas to suggest. My intention was only to point to kinds of knowledge (the second two) that respond to what are perhaps quite fundamental human interests (and so of likely interest to readers!), but that this article treats at most in passing.
    I was thinking about including something about Habermas's theory of knowledge-constitutive interests in the article. But as I started doing the research, I got more and more the impression that this may not be a good idea. According to [18] and [19], this theory mainly belongs to his early philosophy. It was criticized from various angles and Habermas himself did not defend it and saw it instead as illicitly relying on assumptions in the philosophy of consciousness and Kantian transcendentalism. Maybe you know something that I don't but, to me, this does not seem to be a good topic for this type of overview article. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be appropriate, but I do not think that it is necessary. My point was just that the article ignores two fields of philosophical inquiry into dimensions of knowledge barely addressed in the current version. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you don't realize how exasperating it is to be told, in response to a content-based objection (e.g., self-knowledge, which I still think deserves its own section), to please just go review the high-quality sources and report back on those terms. If there is a problem with the content, that is a problem with the sourcing. Displacing the problem to sources only creates an unreasonably high barrier to participation. Are we all supposed to do literature reviews? Even if we were to do this, how would we demonstrate that we have? Stacking up citations against one another? Comparing author CVs? I think this should only be invoked as a last resort when a conversation is just obviously unproductive, but a decision still must be made. (Although I am not, of course, in any position to decide if that is not in fact here the case!)
Again, however, so far from alleging that you intend to short-circuit discussion, I gladly volunteer that I in fact commend your collaborative spirit and willingness to make sometimes serious revisions to your own quite recent hard work, which is just out-and-out hard for anyone do to. Just, please, be aware.
  • Since, however, you have pointed me to three specific overview sources (from the impressively long list of high-quality sources supporting this article), I can in fact respond on these terms. My central objection is that this article on the general topic of knowledge is written too much from the specific discipline of analytic epistemology. In defense, you directed me to three articles with four authors, all of whom are epistemologists trained in the analytic tradition and three of whom launched their (genuinely impressive) academic careers from the same highly ranked PhD program. I do not think too much should be read into the latter happenstance; nevertheless, this exacerbates rather than ameliorates my concern.
So, to your question of whether my complaint here extends to those sources, the answer is almost certainly yes. ("Almost" certainly only because I have not properly reviewed them and am operating on the entirely confident assumption that you present them accurately. Otherwise, just "yes".)
  • To your quite reasonable question, I do not think that this article would appear biased to readers who do not already have what I would default to regarding as an unjustifiable bias in favor of "Continental" philosophy. But to the extent that it just reflects back, for instance, the IEP article, I am concerned that a lot of readers will check out on the grounds that philosophy seems unnecessarily technical, self-absorbed, or irrelevant. Because I am operating on the assumption that folks who want an article on epistemology will find themselves at that page; folks who find themselves here want something more general.
  • Some of the philosophical issues that I have found to be best addressed in the literature on hermeneutics and critical theory include, just for example, the following:
    • To what extent is knowledge just a matter of interpretation?
    • If it's interpretation – as it almost certainly is, at least when it comes to individual (psychological) or collective (sociological) self-knowledge – does this not lead to epistemological relativism? If so (although I think not), what are the implications?
    • Is there such a thing as a "view from nowhere", even in the natural sciences?
    • Since the answer to the immediately above is almost certainly "no", at least in the social/human sciences, what are the social/ethical/political implications of that? How much of what we think is natural is actually a matter of historically contingent power-relations, and how can we tell the difference?
Obviously the article is not going to answer these questions, but they are just as directly related to knowledge – and they are of at least as much general interest — as, for instance, the Gettier problem.
  • I have not reviewed the edits, but I am quite glad to see you have expanded the article's treatment of the philosophy of science in response to feedback here. In this context, I would definitely place that above "How is there no Foucault!?" (per the immediately above) in terms of overall importance.
  • The reason that I call attention to these two sub-disciplines (hermeneutics and critical theory), which I perceive as omitted, is indeed my own interest in them, together with my considered view that they address a lot of stuff that is important and of general interest. They pertain directly to knowledge and – unlike with the empirical stuff that I really think has got to be out there and that I think would boost the article, but upon which point I can cite only my own individual conviction that "how could they not exist?" – I actually know the literature here. So if the question is, "has this been covered by reliable secondary sources?", I can not just confidently say "yes", but I can also cite sources that I believe to be representative and potentially of use in improving the article. On self-knowledge, for instance, I would rely heavily on the work of Charles Taylor. But there is also a SEP article[20] entirely devoted to this topic that does not even mention him (although he does somehow appear anyway in the bibliography).
  • Earlier you leaned on an analogy between the field of biology and the topic of life, and the field of epistemology and the topic of knowledge. The life article, however, is quite broad and it is, in my decidedly non-expert opinion, a legit GA article—in no small part because it relies heavily on summary style to keep it at a readable length, and because it does not restrict itself to just what appears in introductory-level handbooks on biology. Speaking as someone fully aware that he has done basically zero work on this article, that is a lot more what my ideal version of it would look like.
Stepping back, I want to acknowledge that I have cycled back to where I started. Also, I am veering away from the content of the article into matters of general editorial philosophy. For these reasons, I am going to do my best to refrain from further editorial interventions. I am satisfied that I have quite abundantly had my say—to be assessed on its merits. I will, however, most gladly continue to respond to any direct requests for clarification or comment.
Oh, and also, since I am at least half-way checking out, I cannot resist adding that – as you, @Phlsph7, should very well know! –: Without at least a dash of Hegel, this article will never be absolute!
(But no, more seriously, my actual expert opinion is that mention of Kant is easily justified, but the article does not need Hegel.)
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have explained better how mentioning the high-quality overview sources is related to the Wikipedia policies to avoid some of the exasperation on your side. My intention was not to steer attention away from the content of the article but to justify the selection of this content. According to WP:PROPORTION, An article should ... treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject and according to WP:TERTIARY, Reliable tertiary sources ... may help evaluate due weight. The point about looking to reliable sources is built into these policies so I'm not sure if there is a good way to avoid that. This requirement has the advantage that we don't have to rely on our personal interests and individual convictions for crucial decisions on what should be covered. Two of the three sources I mentioned are directly available online and if you have questions about the other one then I'm happy to help.
As I see it, a Wikipedia article on subject X should provide an accessible summary of the academic discourse or the reliable sources on subject X. If topic Y gets a of lot of coverage in the academic discourse on subject X then the article should address topic Y in detail. If not then the article should not address it in detail. The point of my argument was to show that the latter point is the case for the topics you suggested. That means we don't need to worry about whether the majority of the high-quality overview sources are biased against topic Y. The encyclopedias and the book from the Oxford book series I mentioned are not explicitly associated with a particular school of philosophy. So we should not assume that they introduce some kind of bias. It's not our responsibility to fix what we think is wrong with the academic discourse as a whole. I guess you could call that an inherent limitation on the side of Wikipedia.
Thanks for breaking down the important points of what you think should be included from hermeneutics and critical theory. I managed to mention some of them without creating new main sections. Given the growing length of this discussion and the change in mood, I'm not sure that we will get to a point where we see eye to eye on these issues anytime soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I understand the policy you describe. It served us well here, for instance, and I've since used it here. The problem that I see with applying it to this article, however, is that it is not clear that there is any high-level authority on knowledge. Or, if it really is the discipline of analytic epistemology, then we need to merge the articles. I've read both quite carefully in just the past few days, and the amount of direct overlap is massive. This is, in effect, the objection with which I began, and which was echoed by Shapeyness and Biogeographist, who I believe both also acknowledged the huge amount of work that would be required to address it. I was honestly surprised you didn't withdraw the nomination at that time. Nevertheless, I do consider the process so far a success in the most important respect: it has improved the article. But I still don't see how it can pass FAC criterion 1.b (is comprehensive) or 1.c. (built on representative survey of the relevant literature).
Other referees need to weigh in on this however. It was not my intention to so dominate this review process. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two minor items in closing:

  • If you are going to mention other languages having multiple words for knowledge (which I fully support), you should explain the distinctions they trace that are obscured in the English "knowledge"; otherwise I don't see how they inform the discussion and so should be simply deleted.
    I'm not sure that there is an easy explanation and correct usage may be context dependent. The source mentions the difference but does not explain it. This was already mentioned below by Biogeographist. If you feel the claim should be removed then I would ping them. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of hermeneutics in Structure should clarify that the hermeneutic circle is virtuous, and this approach claims to show that knowledge does not need a metaphysical foundation. I'm pretty sure that is supported by the fourth source you provide, but I'd be happy to find another if it is not. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I implemented the second part. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the SEP can assume knowledge of Latin and French (although I think they shouldn't); Wikipedia, however, cannot. I'm happy to ping @Biogeographist, but I think they were sufficiently clear above. If these terms are to be mentioned, they should be defined in English. No one is going to accuse you of synth for just referencing a dual-language dictionary.
The primary point, however, as I take it (although perhaps because it is an explicit endorsement of my own point) is that Barry Allen's purpose in the cited source is precisely to widen the scope of discussion of knowledge beyond epistemology, as PatrickJWelsh discussed above, starting with the different kinds of (what we call) knowledge that were named in ancient Greece.
Two of the four Greek terms from Allen's article have fallen by the wayside. I would be happy to see them restored (wherever we land on the Latin and French).
Also, the Barry Allen [21] entry [22] provides tertiary cover/justification for engaging with the secondary philosophical literature along some of the lines I have suggested above: feminism, Habermas, Foucault, and – although I didn't mention it – the role of language.
Allen's conclusion that "the only kind of knowledge there is" is "a human capacity for superlative artifactual performance" is obviously his own theory, rather than a report on the academic consensus. It's an attractive theory, however, and I'd also be happy to see this or something like it given some attention in the article.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PatrickJWelsh: Thanks for the ping. I made sure that Allen's view is covered at Definitions of knowledge § Other definitions, which is a subsection of Definitions of knowledge § Responses and alternative definitions. Allen's view is far enough from the mainstream that I don't think it needs to be mentioned in this article. The last sentence of the section Knowledge § Definitions is: "There is still very little consensus in the academic discourse as to which of the proposed modifications or reconceptualizations is correct, and there are various alternative definitions of knowledge", with a link to that section with the views of Allen and others. I liked mentioning the Greek words, for reasons I gave elsewhere on this page, but I can live without them. At least there's a reference to Allen's article. Biogeographist (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a preference for the sentence on the ancient Greek terms so I used it to replace the sentence on the Latin and French terms. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another minor item I just noticed: I think the article should acknowledge that Kuhn's incommensurability thesis has been widely criticized and that his latter work has been interpreted as backing away from some of its more radical implications. This is supported at §6 here.[23]
Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote to address this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion:
  • Should the section on science include a paragraph on medical knowledge? This is probably the specialized knowledge of the most interest to the general public. This would also be an opportunity to make a point about the sometimes false claims to universality in an uncomplicated way: medicine has history of conducting its studies on white male subjects, who are wrongly assumed to be generic human beings. This sometimes has adverse effects on the care of non-white, non-male patients. You could find sources for this in either of the first two volumes of IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics [24], among many other places. You could instead add a sentence about this after the mention of Foucault if you don't think a medicine paragraph is worth adding.
Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the information is indeed interesting, it seems to me a little too specific to include in this overview article. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would strongly prefer an entire section be devoted to the societal/social justice implications of what officially counts as knowledge and its sometimes adverse implications. But since you rejected that request, this seemed like at least a small way to help make this important point by way of a specific example. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll make an effort to see what can be done about your suggestion of discussing the exclusion of non-white, non-male patients as subjects of medical research in the section "Sociology". I took some time to have a look at the first paper of the journal you mentioned. Its main focus seems to be feminist bioethics. I was unable to find much that could be used to directly support a connection between the example you mentioned and the sociology of knowledge. I assume you saw something there that I missed so I look forward to learning which passage you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a specific passage in mind, and IJFAB is just one of many perfectly good secondary sources that make this general point, which I submit is relevant to the sociological dimension of knowledge in that it is an instance of a pattern of study-design that produces "bad knowledge" (i.e., error presented as scientifically verified fact) as a result of including only subjects of a non-representative segment of society. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you are right, I can't add this to the article as an example of the sociology of knowledge based on your personal conclusion without a source. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also disagreement about whether knowledge is a rare phenomenon that requires high standards or a common phenomenon found in many everyday situations. — You're already set up for a subsection on pragmatism!
    See my response at #Shapeyness. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declarative knowledge can be expressed using declarative sentences stored in books. – Perhaps more simply, "Declarative knowledge can be stored in books."?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One difficulty for a priori knowledge is to explain how it is possible and some empiricists deny that there is a priori knowledge. – Maybe: "It is difficult to explain how a priori knowledge is possible. Some empiricists even deny it exists." (Or else at least a comma between the two independent clauses.)
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individuals may lack a deeper understanding of their character and feelings and attaining self-knowledge is one step in the psychoanalysis. – no definite article, and maybe better to use the more general psychotherapy? (Also: I would still like to see way more than a footnote on this.)
    Done. I left "psychoanalysis" since this is what the source says and it's not clear whether this is true for psychotherapy in general. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is often used in feminism and postmodernism to argue that many forms of knowledge are not absolute but depend on the concrete historical, cultural, and linguistic context. If the source defines "postmodernism", that should be included. Otherwise I would consider cutting on the grounds of its being basically meaningless, but still somehow slightly pejorative.
    The source is the APA Dictionary of Psychology and provides a link to its entry on postmodernism. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now I'm genuinely curious. What is the psychological definition of "postmodernism"? I'm only asking for a footnote here. (For, in my experience, as someone who has actively sought clarification, this term becomes only more blurry and problematic the more you dig. If no specific meaning can be specified, it should not be used—however sloppy otherwise good sources may be.)
    I'm not sure whether this is particularly relevant since our article does not cite the entry "Postmodernism" of the APA Dictionary of Psychology. But if that satisfies your curiosity, I'm happy to help: the entry is found here. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's a somewhat disappointingly boilerplate entry. I'd hoped for something from a specifically psychological point of view. Oh well!
    In any case, however, the fact that the article does not currently cite the "postmodernism" entry is besides the point. If you think it's sufficiently clear and that the Wikilink is provides anything further that might be needed, then please say so. Otherwise, just add the missing source.
    Also, separate point: I still think it is weird to pair feminism with postmodernism in this way, and the fact that a tertiary source on psychology did so is, in my view, quite a weak justification. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Testimony can happen in numerous ways, like regular speech, a letter, a newspaper, or an online blog. — cut "online", maybe also change blog to podcast or vlog? (or just cut)
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people may lack the cognitive ability to understand highly abstract mathematical truths — this is not merely an issue of limited cognitive capacity: Gödel's first incompleteness theorem proves that in a consistent formal system containing a certain amount of arithmetic there must exist some true sentence not provable (and so, I would submit, not understood) in that system. Maybe worth at least a footnote or something? (I'm looking, here, at Stewart Shapiro's Thinking about Mathematics, pp. 165–66.)
    Do you have a suggestions of how this footnote should be worded and sourced? I'm not sure how to relate the connection between the metalogical properties of completeness and provability in certain types of formal systems of logic to the limits of knowledge in a way that is both accessible, concise, and directly supported by reliable sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Duncan Pritchard, this applies to forms of knowledge linked to wisdom. — descriptor and wikilink on Duncan Pritchard
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • found in Plato's Meno – I've seen it both ways, but I believe Plato's dialogues are usually given italics as titles
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They argue that knowledge has additional value due to its association with virtue. This is based on the idea that cognitive success in the form of the manifestation of virtues is inherently valuable independent of whether the resulting states are instrumentally useful. – I'm not seeing the argument. If this is more than just an assertion, a little bit more would be nice. Otherwise maybe don't call it an argument?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A common critique of scientism, made by philosophers such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Feyerabend, is that the fixed requirement of following the scientific method is too rigid and results in a misleading picture of reality by excluding various relevant phenomena from the scope of knowledge – I haven't looked at the sources, but it is odd to associate Gadamer in particular with critics of scientism; he would have opposed it (and maybe did), but this is not what he is known for. Also, he and Feyerabend are an unlikely couple, based just on my very limited knowledge of the latter. If this mention is just a concession to me, please go ahead and take him out.
    From Mahadevan 2007, p. 91: Hans-Georg Gadamer propounds hermeneutics as an alternative to the hegemony of scientism/technology. Gadamer and Feyerabend have their criticism of scientism and the scientific method in common. Our sentence does not state that their philosophy in general is similar. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't state it, but does suggest it. I have not surveyed the work of either philosopher. If you have good reason to believe that this is not just a high-quality source in general, but a high-quality source with respect to these two thinkers, then definitely leave as is. If, however, it is maybe a tertiary source with respect to this specific point, then perhaps consider nixing the mention of Gadamer (whose work I know and admire, but on whom I am by no means an expert).
  • are commonly rejected by religious skeptics and atheists – "by people who are either religious skeptics or atheists" — or something like that. Otherwise it's tautological. (I would just cut except for the possible value of the wikilinks.)
    I think it's a good idea to have those wikilinks in the text. Your suggestion makes the text longer but I don't see what it adds that is not already there. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a view is reflected in a famous saying by Immanuel Kant where he claims that he "had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." – It's a famous quote, but this context muddles the role the claim plays in his philosophical program. Leave it if you want, but I would cut.
    It is used in the source in this context. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not questioning your fidelity to your cited sources. I am asking whether it is really your considered position that the benefits of citing Kant in this way are worth the costs of inviting misinterpretation of his intended meaning by placing the quote in this foreign context. What to include from a source is an editorial decision to which you, as I understand the process, invite challenge by nominated the article to FA status. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • societies tend to interpret knowledge claims found – Doesn't "knowledge claims" need a hyphen?
    I don't think so. See, for example, [25] and [26].
  • A related issue concerns the link between knowledge and power, in particular, the extent to which knowledge is power. The philosopher Michel Foucault explored this issue and examined how knowledge and the institutions responsible for it control people through what he termed biopower by shaping societal norms, values, and regulatory mechanisms in fields like psychiatry, medicine, and the penal system. — What Bacon meant by "Scientia potentia est" is very different from Foucault's project at any stage of his career. It would be entirely appropriate to mention Bacon at any number of places up above, but here it is out-of-place. I would cut the first sentence and change the second to read instead, "The philosopher Michel Foucault explored the interconnection of knowledge and power in his studies of how knowledge and the institutions responsible for it control people through..."

Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our passage does not state that there is a link between Bacon and Foucault. Foucault is not the only one to investigate the relation between knowledge and power. Bacon is only one of the philosophers covered in the linked article. But if you feel strongly about this, we could removed the wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the same word to refer to two extremely different concepts without in some way signaling this can hardly result in anything other than misunderstanding. It's very possible that you know Bacon better than me, but this claim seems to me to belong in any of the sections Science, Value, or History rather than in Sociology. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the wikilink and added a sources discussing how knowledge is power for Foucault. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summation
[edit]

At this stage, I am mostly (if not completely) satisfied that the article does everything that it accepts as within its scope at the FA level. I am entirely unsatisfied, however, with respect to what I take to be the arbitrary and artificial restriction of this scope to (for the most part) the concerns of analytic epistemology. To elaborate:

  • In a response yesterday, with reference to R. J. Bernstein's presentation of pragmatism, I made the case that analytic philosophy cannot be accepted as the philosophical authority on knowledge; there is another family of theories that must also be covered. I believe, at minimum, that this requires its own subsection as a definition.
  • I think that, in addition to a section addressing my concerns in the prior bullet, the Definitions section should have as its first subsection something about the "knowledge-how" to, for instance, walk and converse in a natural language. Way more people (basically everyone who has had a baby) care way more about this than they do about anything professional philosophers have to say about anything. I am sure that developmental psychologists, pediatricians, and other researchers in this area use a different terminology than philosophers, but this should still be included with relevant wikilinks if for no other reason than this sort of knowledge is the precondition for all of the other more sophisticated sorts of knowledge discussed in the body of the article.
  • I am embarrassed to have missed this until now, but how is there no discussion of knowledge of what is right, what is moral, what is just, how best to live, et cetera? Someone writing an overview of analytic epistemology can excuse themselves from addressing such issues on the ground that these issues are better discussed under the separate heading of metaethics. A general article on knowledge, however, cannot take recourse to such an artificial excuse.
  • I continue to believe that individual self-knowledge deserves its own section. Even if this is not reflected in the indices of non-philosophical sources in the terms a philosopher would prefer, this is a huge issue in the psychotheraputic project. A section on this would also provide an opportunity to briefly discuss knowledge of others. It is a not uncommon theme in modern and contemporary literature and film that a protagonist discovers that they don't "really" know their spouse, or that they never "truly" knew a deceased friend or relative. So this could also be a nice occasion to mention the knowledge afforded by narrative art (even though I do not believe that this should be required for FA status).
  • I still think that a FA on knowledge needs a section on the various ways that apparently neutral or objective knowledge is sometimes anything but. I concede, however, that I have not made a knock-down case for the inclusion of anything specific. I'm not going to make any non-minor edits to the article while it is under FAC review. If, however, you would like me to edit what little is included about Foucault, I would be happy to do so—subject (of course!) to reversion, should anything be deemed for any reason not an improvement to the article.

In my first post to this discussion, I expressed considerable reservations (or, if you prefer, outright confusion) over what might constitute a "comprehensive" treatment of such a general issue. It has come to my attention, however, that there is an emerging consensus to replace this language with what is already policy elsewhere in terms of being unlikely to benefit from further additions.

I believe, however, that this article would benefit a great deal from the attention of editors approaching it from the perspectives of developmental psychology, speech or physical therapy, or pedagogy—among, I am sure, many other relevant disciplines. This is actually what I would most like to see.

Since, as far as I can tell, an expression of support for FA status is an endorsement of the completeness of the article, I regret that I must oppose its promotion for the reasons listed immediately above. I do apologize for taking an official stance on this when I initially said that I would not. At that time, however, I did not expect that I would spend as much time with this article as I since have. (Also, in my view, the nomination should have been withdrawn or otherwise suspended in response to much earlier objections. As I have directly said.)

Should the FA coordinator deem my objections to be in excess of the guidelines, I will withdraw it from consideration and, depending upon instruction, perhaps even change it to support. Or, should other editors reviewing have reason to reject my arguments, I am entirely happy to be overridden by a considered consensus against. I will probably move some of my objections to the talk page for the consideration of future editors, but I will not contest any promotion that proceeds along normal channels.

What is here is very good, and the nominating editor deserves nothing but the support and appreciation of the community—even if, as I contend, nominating this article to FA status was premature.

Cheers,
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 00:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the effort you have poured into this review and I'm happy that you changed your mind about the FA criteria. This article includes perspectives from many fields and traditions and does not restrict itself to any one. I didn't fully implement several of your suggestions because because I was unable to verify that they were supported by high-quality sources both concerning specific claims and the relative prominence of topics in the academic discourse which you want to see as main sections. I tried to stick to how high-quality sources present the subject rather than rely on personal conclusions. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Phlsph7,
You are most welcome! I am genuinely sorry to be requesting such large changes so late in the process and, in the end (at least so far!), to have to oppose the nomination.
As an aside, I would submit for your consideration that you might be a bit too quick to categorize considered objections as "personal" opinions or conclusions. I do not see how it is problematically personal or subjective to point to a large tradition of thought that explicitly addresses the topic of the article, and which also has a sizable secondary academic literature accepting the premise that it does. Otherwise the premise of the theoretical part of this article would also be just a personal opinion, to be accordingly disregarded, i.e., that a tradition of thought overwhelmingly limited to departments of philosophy in the English-speaking world in the period subsequent to WWII is somehow the philosophical authority on what counts as knowledge.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness

[edit]

Hi Phlsph7, sorry took me a while to get to this! I have to say, I have a similar worry to PatrickJWelsh above - the article does seem very philosophy-centric. It's hard to know where to go from here in terms of reviewing because (i) this is a very vague complaint (even worse, knowledge is such a broad concept that it's perhaps not explicitly covered as a central concern in many fields, so it's hard to know which other disciplines to point to as counterweights to the heavy focus on epistemology), but (ii) it would feel dishonest from my point of view to continue on with a normal review knowing that I had this reservation in the back of my mind. These are quite general ideas, but I'll try to give as solid suggestions as possible:

  • Shift weight away from philosophy by merging sections / cutting down content, while expanding on some of the themes from the In various disciplines section to create new top-level sections (new content could draw from e.g. sociology / anthropology / psychology / cognitive science / pedagogy and education / history)
  • Provide more of an interdisciplinary perspective throughout each section of the article (where possible!) so there is not such a strict cutoff between philosophy (which makes up the main body of the article) and everything else (which is left to the end) - this may require re-focusing some of the sections

I'm interested in what others think because if there is a general consensus against this (because epistemology is the main topic studying knowledge so it should have a special place in the article for example) then I'm happy to drop this and continue on with a more in-depth, granular review. Not sure this is the best place to discuss, could possibly take to the article talk page if there is a lot of discussion on this. Sorry, I know this has the potential to delay / complicate the nomination, but thought it's better to voice it here so an explicit consensus can at least be pointed to in future. Shapeyness (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should probably have put into words why I think the article being "philosophy-centric" is a problem! The two main issues I have are that this prevents the article from giving a truly balanced coverage on the topic (problematic for criteria 1b and 1d) and that it means this article has a lot of overlap with what I think an ideal epistemology article would look like (which creates more possibilities for there to be contradictory or unmatching coverage across articles and falls short of the goal of a single source of truth, see WP:CONTENTFORK). Shapeyness (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Shapeyness and thanks for doing this review. I've already responded to this concern above. One of the points is that epistemology is the main discipline studying knowledge. In order not to repeat everything here, it would be helpful if you could take a look at the discussion there.
I tried to find an overview source that is not directly associated with philosophy to assess your point. For example, the Oxford series A Very Short Introduction is a general series not specifically focused on philosophy. The book Knowledge: A Very Short Introduction seems to discuss the topic mostly from a philosophical perspective and focuses on issues like skepticism, rationalism and empiricism, internalism and externalism, and the analysis of knowledge. It acknowledges epistemology as the main discipline studying knowledge. It does not mention fields like anthropology and sociology.
Concerning your two reasons why it is a problem:
  • Giving a truly balanced coverage does not mean that every discipline gets the same weight. I think it means following WP:PROPORTION: An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, giving the anthropology of knowledge the same weight as epistemology would be a violation of this principle. If we wanted to add a main section for every discipline that discusses knowledge somewhere then we would need to add main sections for all kinds of fields, maybe even including architecture, geography, biology, quantum physics, and linguistics.
  • The relation between epistemology and knowledge is similar to the relation between biology and life, psychology and mind, and anthropology and human. There is bound to be some overlap in all these cases but I don't think there is a serious argument for WP:CONTENTFORK#Unacceptable types of content forks for any of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, I'm not opposed to including more information from other fields as long as we don't overdo it. One approach that could work as a middle ground would be to identify which additional information should be included and I could try to expand the sections in question. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies Phlsph7! I am still not 100% convinced, but it's probably not helpful to go back and forth here. More useful would be either (i) establish a solid consensus for status quo in which case no broader changes needed, or (ii) for me to give some more specific suggestions to discuss about this. I'm quite busy atm but will try to look over some sources and suggest possible changes soon. Shapeyness (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, we are in agreement that epistemology is the main field studying knowledge and that other fields to which knowledge is relevant should be included. The disagreement is in the details about how much weight the different fields should receive. I've tried to link my arguments to reliable sources but arguing about relative weight is not a trivial enterprise. Given that the issue about which fields and how much weight is still rather vague, it will probably be difficult to establish consensus one way or another. My suggestion in the conversation with Jens below about giving more prominence to knowledge representation might be one step in the direction you are envisioning. I'll keep your concern in mind as I work on the article and I look forward to your more specific suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok a few quick unrelated pieces. Shapeyness (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Knowledge is closely related to intelligence, but intelligence is more about the ability to acquire, process, and apply information, while knowledge concerns information and skills that a person already possesses. Knowledge contrasts with ignorance, which is linked to a lack of understanding, education, and true beliefs. Are these necessary for the definitions section? Perhaps move to See also
    I moved ignorance to the see also section. Some people prefer to have links in the article rather than the see also section so let's see if someone complains. I left the part about intelligence since this was explicitly requested in the peer review. I can ping the reviewer if you feel strongly about this to get their view. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The English word includes various meanings that some other languages distinguish using several words. For example, Latin uses the words cognitio and scientia for "knowledge" while French uses the words connaitre and savoir for "to know". In ancient Greek, four important terms for knowledge were used: epistēmē (unchanging theoretical knowledge), technē (expert technical knowledge), mētis (strategic knowledge), and gnōsis (personal intellectual knowledge). Are all these examples needed? Maybe replace part of this with more detail on etymology (if available)
    Before I do something, I'll ping @Biogeographist: since there was a disagreement earlier about whether to include this part. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't watching this discussion before the ping from Phlsph7 (thanks), so I haven't read everything above. I'm the one who added this sentence, and I reinserted it after it was removed once. The info is from a tertiary source, Allen, Barry (2005). "Knowledge". In Horowitz, Maryanne Cline (ed.). New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Vol. 3. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 1199–1204. ISBN 978-0-684-31377-1. OCLC 55800981. Archived from the original on 22 August 2017. My interest in this sentence is not primarily etymological. I'm not interested in etymological trivia, but in what these different words can tell us about the nature of knowledge. My primary reason for thinking that this info is important is similar to concerns voiced above: PatrickJWelsh's I am concerned that [the article] is overly biased towards the concerns of philosophical epistemology and this article reads to me too much like an excellent article written from the highly relevant, but nevertheless quite specific, perspective of Anglo-American analytic epistemology, and Shapeyness's I have to say, I have a similar worry to PatrickJWelsh above – the article does seem very philosophy-centric. Barry Allen's purpose in the cited source is precisely to widen the scope of discussion of knowledge beyond epistemology, as PatrickJWelsh discussed above, starting with the different kinds of (what we call) knowledge that were named in ancient Greece. Now, it may be that without the extended philosophical discussion present in the cited source, this sentence comes across as irrelevant trivia. If that is what everyone else thinks, then I have no defense. But if anyone agrees that there is value in giving a nod to these ancient conceptions of knowledge, then there may be a way of editing the sentence to make it more clearly relevant. Biogeographist (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks biogeographist, the main issue I have is that there are lots of examples here without analysis / commentary - I would prefer to replace some of the examples with either more information on etymological history or analysis on the significance of different languages having multiple words corresponding to different types of knowledge. Shapeyness (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The most concise way to indicate the greater significance of the terms may be to connect them to related discussions later in Knowledge § Types. Allen said: "Where ancient philosophy distinguished a scientific epistēmē from the technē of art and craft, twentieth-century analysts discovered a "semantic" or "conceptual" distinction between knowing how and knowing that." Thus, the sentence in question could be followed by another sentence such as: "The distinction between epistēmē and technē has been called analogous to the distinction made by modern philosophers between knowledge-that and knowledge-how" (with reference to Allen). Likewise, connaitre and savoir may correspond in some contexts to some distinction between types of knowledge, but we would need a source for that claim since it's not in the SEP article by Steup & Neta. Biogeographist (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first added the sentence in question (and the sentence preceding it) in Special:Diff/1092863946, I added it at the start of Knowledge § Types, not at its present location, and I conceived of it as historical and multilingual background about types of knowledge, and also as a broader-scope replacement for the more restricted statement that had previously introduced that section: "Propositional knowledge is the paradigmatic type of knowledge and most academic discussions of knowledge focus exclusively on it." Biogeographist (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to implement a compromise by moving part of the discussion of the Greek terms to the section types. The point of the examples remaining in the section "Definitions" is mainly to illustrate that knowledge is a wide term in the English language so I don't think more analysis is required for that part. Feel free to revert if you have the impression that this does not help solve the disagreement. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main discipline studying knowledge is called epistemology or theory of knowledge should it be "the theory of knowledge"?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some social sciences understand knowledge as a broad social phenomenon that is similar to culture. I think this would make more sense as part of the second paragraph
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Methodological differences also cause disagreements... This paragraph is getting into the weeds a bit for a general overview, I would suggest cutting it out
    I shortened it and merged it into the preceding paragraph. Please have a look whether this is sufficient or whether more cutting is required. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Phlsph7, that looks good. Can you point me to where the sources say some (infallibilists) think knowledge is a rare phenomenon? Descartes certainly thought knowledge was infallible, but my understanding was that he thought common everyday knowledge could be built up from indubitable foundations. In general, I'm not sure there is a connection between infallibilism and rarity of knowledge (apart from increased likelihood of radical scepticism, but that is quite a rare position even paired with infallibilism I believe). Shapeyness (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From Hetherington 2022a, § 6. Standards for Knowing: The spectre of a sceptical conclusion is the most obvious philosophical concern about requiring knowledge to satisfy an infallibilist standard. If knowledge is like that, then how often will anyone succeed in actually having some knowledge? Rarely, if ever (is the usual reply). To me, the connection seems to be quite intuitive. For example, make a list of all the things you know. Then make a list of all the things you know infallibly. Now compare the lists. For me, the claim "the Eiffel tower is in Paris" is on the first list and not the second, just like the great majority of other things I know. I've seen this connection in several sources so I could do some more digging if there are serious concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I adjusted the caption since the source does not explicitly ascribe the part about the rarity to Descartes. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, maybe it's worth removing the image now Descartes isn't explicitly mentioned in the prose there? Shapeyness (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Phlsph7 FYI, just realised you used the template tq above - I'm not sure about the technical details why but it is mentioned not to use that at the top of WP:FAC. I use {{green}} if that is useful. Shapeyness (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reminder. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to get back to some of my broader points later on. For now, I think it would help to condense down the sections "Justified true belief" and "Gettier problem and alternatives" as much as possible. For example, the paragraph on internalism/externalism is once again getting into the weeds and is more about justification than knowledge - I think this is part of why I think the article reads like an epistemology article sometimes, it seems as if it feels the need to expand on areas that are not as directly important to knowledge itself. In terms of the Gettier problem and alternatives section, I think there are areas where this can be simplified down further and some redundancies can be removed without losing too much substance. Let me know if any more detailed comments would be useful on that. Shapeyness (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing this out, I simplified this paragraph and merged into into the preceding paragraph. I cut some information but I didn't want to remove the explanation altogether since this is discussed in many sources. You are probably right that those two subsections are more technical than the rest. We can't skip this topic but I'm open to more ideas on how to simplify the presentation. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I simplified part the subsection "Gettier problem and alternatives" in response Patrick's comment above. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Phlsph7, I think this can be condensed down a little more still.
    • For example, a person who is convinced that a coin flip will land heads usually does not know that even if their belief turns out to be true Unrelated to cutting down, I think this needs rewording for clarity, perhaps simply by replacing "is convinced that" with "guesses that"
      Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think the extra detail on justification is unneeded and prevents a nice flow into Gettier - it seems natural to me to move directly from "justification is in the definition of knowledge to prevent cases of epistemic luck" to "Gettier showed justification doesn't prevent cases of epistemic luck". This also keeps the focus on the concept of knowledge itself throughout the whole section. But I won't push on this one. However, perhaps these two subsections can be combined into one "Analysis of knowledge" as this explicitly tells the reader that this is all these parts are concerned about (and prevents the discussion from being sliced in half).
      I merge the two subsections. I shortened the explanation of justification. I didn't want to remove it altogether since this point is often presented as important and I hope a single sentence on it is acceptable. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think most of the potential for pruning are the last two paragraphs, which I think can be slimmed down and combined - I would focus on cutting down on preparatory sentences and leaving it just to concise, substantive claims that stand on their own.
    —Shapeyness (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to bring it down to one paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. (Alarm bells went off for me as soon as I saw an acronym introduced to such a general article. But this is an acknowledged pet peeve, and there was only one acronym; so I kept my mouth shut—so to speak.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the acronym. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, finding it hard to find time to properly look through sources etc. so I'll just continue on through the article as it's currently written for now (instead of broader, more large-scale comments). Few bits below. Shapeyness (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I would be interested to hear your take on how the article's comprehensiveness measures up to the presentation of the topic in high-quality overview sources, please don't feel obliged to that and your more specific comments are also helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gettier problem is motivated by the idea that some justified true beliefs do not amount to knowledge I think this is the wrong way round - the Gettier problem provides motivation / justification for the idea that some justified true beliefs do not amount to knowledge
    I reworded it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... since they can be paraphrased using a that-clause Maybe an explanatory footnote spelling this out more (Knowing that X,Y people are coming, knowing that they are coming because...) would be useful - it is probably very obvious to everyone who will read this but can't hurt
    Good idea. I slightly changed the example given in the source. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and general laws, like that the color of leaves of some trees changes in autumn Not really sure if anyone would call this an example of an empirical law - maybe reword as "generalities"/"general rules" or replace the example
    I used generalities since this is the term used in the source. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • is exclusive to relatively sophisticated creatures, such as humans I thought that this was a hotly debated issue in philosophy of mind/philosophy of psychology - aren't there quite a few philosophers who think many animals have the ability to have beliefs (and thus knowledge), although obviously still a minority?
    That is a difficult issue and depends on various factors, include the question of whether beliefs are representations. My hope was to avoid these problems by using the vague term "relatively sophisticated creatures", which is taken directly from the source and does not automatically exclude animals. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, by eating chocolate, one becomes acquainted with the taste of chocolate what do you think of this rewording?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knowledge by acquaintance plays a central role in Bertrand Russell's epistemology Ok, but why are we getting into this here?
    Mainly because he is at the center of many discussion on knowledge by acquaintance. For example the SEP article has its first section dedicated to him. We could shorten or remove that part of you see it differently. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, can we mention that he originated the concept? Just an easy way to highlight why his viewpoint is important to the reader. Also not sure if the reference to particulars vs universals is useful here. Shapeyness (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathematical knowledge ... belongs to a priori knowledge Maybe "is traditionally taken to be" instead
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some conscious phenomena are excluded from the relevant experience, like rational insight into the solution of a mathematical problem This might need another sentence to explain, just like the "all bachelors are unmarried" example does.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One difficulty for a priori knowledge is to explain how it is possible It might be worth adding a brief mention in this paragraph that some philosophers deny the existence of a priori knowledge (or later on when rationalism/empiricism is brought up)
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plato and Descartes both need links here
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Others subsection doesn't flow very well but I'm not sure what to suggest - I might come back to that later.
    The difficulty here is that we should cover these different types to be comprehensive but I'm not aware of many essential connections between them that could be used to tell a connected story. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the discussion of direct/indirect realism, this is important to epistemology, but I'm not sure it's worth delving into in this article, it is a bit of a distraction into metaphysics and philosophy of mind - also, it's my impression that the idea that this has any relevance to the reliability of sense perception is a bit outdated (and isn't mentioned in the cited article as far as I can see), but I might be wrong about that
    I managed to shorten it to one sentence. I didn't want to remove it altogether since this is a disagreement about what people perceive. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to come back to this one, but I'm struggling to see the relevance to a broad overview article. There may be disagreement about whether external objects are perceived directly or indirectly, but how does this help to illuminate the subject of knowledge to the reader? Shapeyness (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the sentence and added instead a discussion of psychological aspects. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses so far. A few more comments below. Shapeyness (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is also disagreement about whether knowledge is a rare phenomenon that requires absolute certainty This idea is repeated quite soon again Another view states that beliefs have to be infallible to amount to knowledge ... It is then repeated again in the limits section. I would remove at least one of these and ideally keep it to just a single occurrence (removing one and placing another in a footnote would also work).
    I removed the critical comment in the subsection "Analysis of knowledge". I kept the other two since they make the claim from different angles (knowledge being rare vs cognitive capacities being fallible). Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Analysis of knowledge section still has Another view states that beliefs have to be infallible to amount to knowledge. Shapeyness (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reformulated the earlier sentence to mention high standards instead of absolute certainty, which is the more general term and the infallibility mentioned later would be just one type of high standards. Let me know if you think otherwise then I'll remove the remaining sentence in the subsection "Analysis of knowledge". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, there is some repetition between 'A priori and a posteriori' and the sources of knowledge section.
    I removed the part about the different explanations of pure reason from the section "Sources of knowledge". I kept the part about the mental faculty of rational intuition to establish the link which not all readers may be aware of. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still seems a bit repetitive, would this reframing be acceptable Some rationalists argue for rational intuition as a further source of knowledge that does not rely on observation and introspection. They hold for example that some beliefs, like the mathematical belief that 2 + 2 = 4, are justified through pure reason alone. Shapeyness (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A weaker form of philosophical skepticism advocates the suspension of judgment as a form of attaining tranquility while remaining humble and open-minded Is Pyrrhonian scepticism (which I assume this is referring to) weaker than academic scepticism? Both call into question all knowledge.
    That's correct, I changed the wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, is "weaker" right here? Shapeyness (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's weaker in the sense that it does not generally claim that knowledge is impossible. But I guess you could argue that it's position is different rather then weaker. I reformulated the expression. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three most common theories are foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism. I don't think this is true. I might be wrong but my guess would be that there are more philosophers accept a mixed position such as foundherentism, or other more complicated positions, than philosophers who accept infinitism.
    Our sources on this one are Klein 1998, Steup & Neta 2020, and Lehrer 2015. Klein has a separate section called "Foundationalism and coherentism", in which infinitism is also discussed. Steup & Neta 2020 have a section on the structure of knowledge, which has only subsections on foundationalism and coherentism but also discuss infinitism. Neither Klein 1998 nor Steup & Neta 2020 mention foundherentism. I could also look through Lehrer 2015 if there are further doubts. I reformulated the passage though I'm not sure that this is necessary. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I don't think foundherentism should be included, or even that infinitism should be excluded. I just think infinitism should not be described as one of the most common theories. Indeed Klein states Foundationalism and coherentism have both been developed and defended, and there are well-known objections to each view. In contrast, the prima facie objections to infinitism have seemed so overwhelming that it has not been investigated carefully. Infinitism really has not had much literature produced on it outside of a few defenders as far as I know. Shapeyness (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reworded - hopefully that is ok. Shapeyness (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right about infinitism not being on par with the other two. Your suggestion works fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epistemologists who agree about the existence of basic reasons may disagree about which reasons constitute basic reasons This is redundant as differing views have already been discussed
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read many sources on this but do you think it is worth giving a little more discussion to the idea that knowledge has intrinsic value (major views, arguments for/against, something like that) - only a little bit extra so it doesn't become unwieldly?
    Good idea, I added a short passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great that's just the right level I think Shapeyness (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The value of knowledge is relevant to the field of education... This feels slightly shoehorned in, but I think it is valuable to keep this here - are there any other fields/areas where the value of knowledge is important? Perhaps this is an opportunity to increase the coverage of disciplines outside philosophy with a short-ish paragraph (although let me know if there aren't the sources for it)
    I'm working on something. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One very simple change which could help make the article seem less like "philosophy, then everything else covered in a single section at the end" would be to make the history section a top-level section (even if it is not expanded at all)
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I think I've got through the main sections now, I will look through the Others section next and then try to make suggestions on comprehensiveness. I like the science section, it already feels more multidisciplinary and has all the details from philosophy of science I would expect. I would also maybe include info on the sociology of scientific knowledge, which is an important development itself stemming from history & philosophy of science. Shapeyness (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I'm open to including more information regarding the sociology of scientific knowledge. However, we also have a subsection on the sociology of knowledge below so I'll wait for your comments before I get started. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry meant to get back to this sooner - a few more comments below. Shapeyness (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sociology of scientific knowledge would work in the science section or the sociology section I guess
    Done. I added a short paragraph to the subsection "Sociology". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the science section should be called "Scientific knowledge"?
    I personally don't feels strongly about this either way but I fear that someone may complaint that a section called "Scientific knowledge" should be moved to the section "Types" as a subsection. This would go against the request in another review to have it as a main section. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need to cover every "X knowledge" - I would consider moving common / general knowledge to see also
    In the GA review, it was request that the coverage of common knowledge and general knowledge be expanded. Should we ping the reviewer to get their view? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some cases, it is possible to convert tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge into one another. seems slightly redundant to me
    I removed the claim. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible that some of the other types of knowledge here could possibly be moved to other sections as well - the bit on spirituality would fit in to the religion section and situated knowledge could fall under sociology of knowledge
    There are different ways to organize the topics into different sections and they usually have their advantages and disadvantages. Moving the part about higher knowledge to the subsection "Religion" might cause an unbalance by giving more emphasis to some religious traditions than to others. Regarding situated knowledge, I would have to check the sources whether this is seen as a major topic in the sociology of knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If merely moving the text from one place to another would cause balance concerns, doesn't that indicate that there is already a due weight problem? Shapeyness (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily since due weight depends not just on what is said but also on where it is said. For example, moving the paragraph on skepticism in the section "Limits" to the lead as the second paragraph would cause undue weight even though nothing was added to or removed from the article. One of the advantages of mentioning the contrast between higher and lower knowledge in the types section is to underscore the diversity of relevant fields. Do you think the paragraph should be removed? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • states that knowing something implies the second-order knowledge that one knows it Not very clear, would probably be better worded as "states that it is impossible for someone to know something without knowing that they know it". This then removes the need for the clarifying sentence afterwards.
    I implemented your suggestion and moved the example to a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is pretty much no mention of transferal/reproduction of knowledge in the form of teaching or anything about pedagogy - this seems like quite a major gap.
    • I agree that this is a major gap.
      The transfer of knowledge is covered in several sections, including the sections "Sources" (as testimony) and "History", the subsection "Anthropology", and the paragraph on knowledge management in the subsection "Others". But you are right that while they cover the transfer of knowledge from a variety of perspectives, they do not provide a systematical explanation of the pedagogical perspective since the history section only contains a few remarks on that. I'll see what I can do about that. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "APA Dictionary of Psychology: Situated Knowledge" - should APA Dictionary of Psychology be the work and Situated Knowledge be the entry here
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ashraf 2023 - Archway Publishing appears to be a self-publishing company, is that right?
    I think you are right. I was initially under the impression that it should be fine since it is associated with Simon & Schuster but that alone is not sufficient. I replaced the source. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attie-Picker needs publisher info
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bosančić 2018 contains publisher location, other books don't
    I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bouquet 1962 - why CUP archive and not Cambridge University Press? Also this is a relatively old source, is it being used to source something not covered by anything else?
    I replaced it with a newer source. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chaudhary 2017 - is this missing a chapter title?
    The chapter titles were given in the short citations. I moved them into the main citation template. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delahunty & Dignen 2012 - "OUP Oxford" change to "Oxford University Press"
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dodd, Zambetti & Deneve - is this a high quality source for philosophy of science? (semi-relatedly, should there be a footnote mentioning that the existince of a unified and distinctly scientific method for gaining knowledge is controversial?)
    Elsevier is a high-quality academic publisher and the chapter targets specifically the "scientific method" and not the philosophy of science in general. Given that it is published in a book that primarily covers a field of clinical research, it would probably be not sufficient on its own, but there are two more sources that are directly associated with the philosophical perspective. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this source acting as a citation for anything not covered by the other sources, or just used as an additional supporting source? Shapeyness (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite representative of the mainstream story of what the scientific method is. It's a longer version of the following from the SEP source: Often, ‘the scientific method’ is presented in textbooks and educational web pages as a fixed four or five step procedure starting from observations and description of a phenomenon and progressing over formulation of a hypothesis which explains the phenomenon, designing and conducting experiments to test the hypothesis, analyzing the results, and ending with drawing a conclusion. If there are serious concerns then it could be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatfield 1998 is missing an ISBN
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lanzer 2018 - is this a high quality source for history and philosophy of science?
    It seems the source was missing the second author, Tim Thornton, who is a professor of philosophy. It's published by Springer Nature, an academic publisher. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magee & Popper - what is the purpose of this source?
    It's a supporting source about knowledge stored in libraries. It was added by Biogeographist. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mahadevan 2007 - citation error as page number is in the wrong place
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • McGeer 2001 - does this need a publisher?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meirmans et al. - change "August 2019" to just "2019"
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mishra 2021 - is K. K. Publications reliable? Just checking as I've never heard of it. The same goes for Vost 2016 and Sophia Institute Press. And also for Wilson & Cattell 2005 and Kogan Page Publishers.
    I'm not sure about Vost 2016 and Wilson & Cattell 2005. I removed Wilson & Cattell 2005 since the passage is supported by the remaining sources. I replaced Vost 2016 since this is probably faster than making an in-depth reliability-research.
    As for K. K. Publications: I added that one to cover a few non-Western publisher, which was criticized in some of my earlier nominations. The problem is that non-Western publishers are not as well-known so assessing their credentials can be more of a challenge. I'll ping @Jo-Jo Eumerus: since they may know more about this. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty hard to tell, really. This publisher seems to have several major publications, so I guess it's reliable, but it's hard to tell. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moore 1959 - this is quite an old source, are there more up-to-date sources that can be used?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olsson 2011 - Change "The Value of Knowledge: The Value of Knowledge" to "The Value of Knowledge"
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ronald, Barnett (1990) - first and last name are switched here, also should it just be "McGraw-Hill" rather than "McGraw-Hill Education (UK)"?
    Fixed. I changed the publisher to McGraw-Hill's subsidary "Open University Press". Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steinberg 1995 - is this a high quality reliable source, or are there better sources that could replace it?
    This source was used at the FA for Communication with no objections. This also ties into the problem mentioned earlier about covering non-Western publishers. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, wasn't sure what level the book was aimed at from the title, but looks like it is a university course textbook which is fine. Shapeyness (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hindu article - would it be better to use an academic source instead?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walton 2005 - why is there a long excerpt?
    I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilson 2002 - inconsistent capitalisation
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shapeyness: Just checking whether you feel that your review is close to the finishing line. If not, I may have to ask Gog to archive the nomination. They allowed it some extra time but we probably shouldn't push it too far. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phlsph7: Sorry, I don't think I'll have the time to go through any sources in depth before the FAC is over. In terms of all of the specific comments I've already made, I'm happy that they've all been addressed.
    Hopefully it's been clear that the only reason I have tried to aggressively push for cuts to content is to keep things focused and get the article as lean and light-weight as philosophy I don't think this article is quite as economical or succinct as that one, but I don't think it currently goes into excessive detail, so I'd say that it passes the FA criteria on length and prose.
    On the focus and comprehensiveness of the article, it seems like there are quite a lot of views about what the article should focus on. I don't think there is any one right answer to that question, and I disagree that it is locked down by coverage in summary sources. Generally summary sources will have different goals to us and many will have more of a specialist focus than a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia.
    Summary sources are a useful shorthand for assessing due weight, but can never be a substitute for assessing the literature at large. But with a topic as massive as knowledge, it is also pretty much impossible to even cover every area of study in the literature, never mind assess weight in the totality of high-quality reliable sources. For that reason, I think that the coverage of the article is (more than most other Wikipedia articles) a matter of editorial judgement and editor agreement.
    That being said—while I would be more comfortable if I saw a greater consensus on the current focus of the article (and would personally like a more interdisciplinary approach)—the article is certainly comprehensive with regards to analytic epistemology (I can't speak to continental philosophy as I don't know much about it). It also does throw in aspects of other fields and a few of the sections are now more interdisciplinary than they were when the FAC began.
    Therefore, I'm going to stay neutral but with the proviso that I would be happy to support the article in its current state if I had more confidence on wider consensus on the focus of the article. Sadly that is quite a hard thing to come to agreement on because it is quite a broad/vague question, but it is my only hangup at the moment, and hard to sharpen into a more specific question. Sorry it's not a support, but hopefully the comments have been useful nonetheless. Shapeyness (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all your in-depth comments and helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by others
[edit]
  • footnote c: "This view is rejected by relativism about truth, which argues that what is true depends on one's perspective and that there is no view from nowhere" without added context, probably best to remove reference to the view from nowhere
    Perhaps a link to view from nowhere, sad there isn't a standalone article dedicated to this. Shapeyness (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, there is an entry on The View from Nowhere, but it is not informative in its present state.
    Another point about this footnote: it suggests relativism is the only alternative to objectivism. However there are lots of truth claims that are intersubjectively true. For instance, claims about the law–which, moreover, introduces a gray area of conflicting interpretations among experts.
    Does the article need this note at all? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the reference to the view from nowhere. The footnote was initially added in response to a request by Patrick that the article should cover the problem of relativism and the view from nowhere. The current formulation leaves it open whether there are other views besides relativism that reject the objectivity of knowledge. It's probably true that relativism is the most prominent of these views. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further thought: this brought to mind Richard J. Bernstein's 1983 Beyond Objectivity and Relativism. Against these extremes, he contends, "The dominant temper of our age is fallibilistic" (p. 12). According to the IEP entry "Almost all contemporary epistemologists will say that they are fallibilists".[27] The term comes from Charles Sanders Peirce. (Bernstein gives a nice definition at pp. 36–37 of The Pragmatic Turn.) I think fallibilism might belong in the body of the article. A paragraph could be placed at the end of Structure. Or, what I would much prefer, a two or three paragraph subsection following Analysis of Knowledge in the Definitions section with a title maybe something along the lines of A Pragmatic Approach. The SEP article on Pragmatism has an entire section devoted to Pragmatist Epistemology.[28] This would considerably help to ameliorate my concern that the article sets too analytic of a tone from the beginning. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I added a paragraph on fallibilism and pragmatism to the section "Limits". There was a talkpage discussion with the conclusion that the article should not have subsections on the different schools in the history of epistemology. Having only a subsection for pragmatism and not for the others might be odd. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it your position (or, more to the point, the position of the article) that the section "Analysis of knowledge" presents anything more than an episode in the (actually very short) history of epistemology? For this is a position that has been actively contested by a hardly insignificant number of philosophers—to say nothing of folks working in empirical disciplines who could not care less about anything we philosophers have to say. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The talkpage discussion linked above is about schools of thought that defend a particular position. I don't think that the analysis of knowledge is considered a specific position in this sense. It's probably better characterized as a field of inquiry encompassing various positions, many of which are opposed to each other. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, this might be helpful. Because what I have been asking for with reference to specific schools of thought is actually something more general. That is to say, I am in agreement with you and Biogeographist, and I believe my objection still stands.
      Near the beginning of this process, I questioned the comprehensiveness of the article with an allegation of Anglo-American analytic bias. In response, you cited the eminently sensible policy that Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. In response to this, I may have over-corrected by presenting, as it were, a number of specific trees—without explaining how they all belong to one forest.
      Speaking quite broadly, one can distinguish two major traditions in Western philosophy. One has its roots in Plato (esp. the theory of forms) and emerges in the modern period as Cartesianism (among other things). The other has its roots in Aristotle and emerges in the modern period as Hegelianism (among other things). What I submit is that the justified-true-belief theory of knowledge and its problems are situated very much in the former, and that this article does not adequately cover the mainstream alternatives stemming from or otherwise developing the latter.
      If I were writing this article, I would address this issue by including a treatment of philosophical hermeneutics, but that is mostly just because this is just what I know. It could likewise be addressed (although with greater difficulty) by way of phenomenology. It's not why I brought him up, but it could also be addressed with reference to the work of Habermas. Although I don't know American pragmatism very well, I happen to be reading R. J. Bernstein's 2010 The Pragmatic Turn, and I am struck by how clearly and directly this tradition (at least on Bernstein's reading), not only confronts the shortcomings of the Platonic-Cartesian tradition, but also strives to provide a positive alternative position. (On Peirce's theory, for instance, falliablism is not a limit of knowledge, but a characteristic of knowledge, i.e., a part of its definition.)
      If you'll indulge a blockquote:

      Pragmatism begins with a radical critique of what Peirce called “the spirit of Cartesianism.” By this Peirce meant a framework of thinking that had come to dominate much of modern philosophy – where sharp dichotomies are drawn between what is mental and physical, as well as subject and object; where “genuine” knowledge presumably rests upon indubitable foundations; and where we can bracket all prejudices by methodical doubt. This way of thinking introduces a whole series of interrelated problems that preoccupied philosophers: the problem of the external world, the problem of our knowledge of other minds, and the problem of how to correctly represent reality. The pragmatic thinkers called into question the framework in which these traditional problems had been formulated. They rejected what Dewey called the “quest for certainty” and the “spectator theory of knowledge.” They sought to develop a comprehensive alternative to Cartesianism – a nonfoundational self-corrective conception of human inquiry based upon an understanding of how human agents are formed by, and actively participate in shaping, normative social practices. (pp. ix–x)

      Bernstein goes on to link this impulse to Heidegger and Wittgenstein, who he claims were independently responding to the same deficiencies in the Cartesian tradition. He also mentions Quine, Davidson, and Sellars (among others, elsewhere in the book) as pursing this project from within the analytic tradition, as well as various philosophers developing these sorts of insights in Germany.
      It doesn't matter to me how, or with reference to what specific schools or figures, this tradition is represented, but it does matter that it is given due coverage vis-à-vis the tradition of analytic epistemology, which currently dominates the first section of the article—in spite of being a quite technical inquiry into an artificially narrow conception of knowledge. For this second tradition is also, in your words, a field of inquiry encompassing various positions, many of which are opposed to each other. Or so I submit and am willing to defend with reference to additional sources as appropriate.
      (Not sure it's necessary here, but in disclosure, but I knew Dick Bernstein. He allowed me to audit one of his seminars at the NSSR, and he served as the external reader for my dissertation. In referencing his work here I do not intend to advocate for the inclusion of any of his specific theses.)
      Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for clarifying your position. While I have doubts about your reductive division of Western philosophy into exactly two traditions and your claim that our article is focused on infallibilism and foundationalism associated with Cartesianism, I understand that you would like to see pragmatism also represented in the section "Definitions" so I added a short characterization. The pragmatist critique of infallibilism is explicitly discussed in the section "Limits" and various critiques of foundationalism are found in the section "Structure", including the critique by hermeneutics you requested. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fly-by comment: It seems like the article of the German Wikipedia [29] makes the attempt of a very broad coverage of the topic. The quality looks good to me. It can be easily translated with browser plugin, and might provide some ideas. For example, it has a long section on "knowledge presentation", which it claims is a central term in pychology, artificial intelligence, linguistics and cognitive neurosciences. It has also a long section on limits of knowledge (similar to the reviewer above, I also would like to see at least a mention of quantum physics). Maybe this helps. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting find and the page may contain some useful ideas. We just have to be careful in regard to the language barrier and the accuracy of statements on Wikipedia articles. For example, the English sources mainly use knowledge representation as a technical term and may mean something different with knowledge presentation so we would have to check whether the same thing is meant. I'm open to mentioning quantum physics somewhere but I'm not sure what exactly you have in mind. I did I short google search but most of the results discuss knowledge about quantum physics, which I assume is not what you meant. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can think of for QM is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but tbh not sure if that's worth more than a mention (if that). There are other things related to the epistemology of physics and the wavefunction in particular, but those are almost certainly not useful for a high level overview like this. Shapeyness (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the comment of Patrick J. Welsh above on Quantum indeterminacy in the context of limits of knowledge.
Yes, knowledge "representation", my mistake. But this confuses me a bit: You explicitly restrict "knowledge representation" to the field of artificial intelligence. The German Wikipedia states the concept is actually much broader, and not limited to artificial intelligence. The article semantic network, for example (to which you link) has substantial content on linguistics. And wouldn't simple means of knowledge organization (e.g., classification such as taxonomy; things such as glossaries) also be some form of knowledge representation? Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, knowledge representation as a technical term is primarily associated with artificial intelligence. Since we currently only have one paragraph on it, I thought it best to focus on this aspect, which is also how the sources cited present it. As you stated, in a more general sense, anything that represents knowledge is knowledge representation. If we want to have a more interdisciplinary perspective, this would be one expansion idea. There a different formalisms for structuring a knowledge base used in automatic reasoning and semantic networks are one approach. Since semantic networks rely on natural language, there is an overlap with linguistics. I think they are also used in some psychological models. I would have to go through some more sources to figure out the details of how to best present the topic from this wider lens if we want to have this kind of expansion. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the paragraph on representation, maybe an introductory sentence might be good introducing the term in the broad sense, before going into the artificial intelligence? Not sure if it needs more than that. However, I still agree with Patrick that a section "Limits of knowledge" would be good. Again, see German Wikipedia article for ideas. I think the quantum mechanics bit is relevant here, too; in science, it was long assumed that the universe can be precisely modeled (and predicted) if we only have enough knowledge/data about it. But this does not seem to be the case. To me, this seems to be a point of general interest. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an introductory sentence to the paragraph on knowledge representation. As for limits of knowledge, there may be a way to address several concerns at the same time. My current idea is to convert the section "Philosophical skepticism" into a section on the limits of knowledge, which fits together since skepticism is one position about the limits of knowledge. This would imply that the text on skepticism is reduced, as Patrick requested, and the focus is shifted in the process. Quantum indeterminacy is one way how knowledge may be limited so it could be included there as well. I would like to hear what your thoughts are and I'll also ping @PatrickJWelsh:. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think owe a bunch of responses here (the price of my own long-windedness!), but let me just say that I support the proposal to give this topic its own section. @Jens Lallensack captures my intention in mentioning quantum indeterminacy. Also, I do not oppose covering skepticism, which I consider extremely relevant. I just oppose focusing too much on a version of it that is too silly for anyone to take seriously. What I'm asking here is just to cut back on dreams and sci-fi thought-experiments to put in maybe a paragraph on Hume or something—unless brains in vats goes someplace interesting, in which case, don't leave that part out!
I will do my best to catch up with the rest tomorrow.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack and PatrickJWelsh: I made a first attempt to implement this idea, please let me know if this is roughly what you had in mind. The section includes an explanation of Kant's position and addresses the problem of Quantum indeterminacy via the uncertainty principle, which is probably more familiar to the reader. At the same time, the discussion of radical skepticism is shortened and moved to the end. I put the vat-example in a footnote so it's still there for readers who would like to learn more on this. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment on the uncertainty principle part: which states that it is impossible to know the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time - true, but it's not just position and momentum, other pairs of properties such as energy and time are also subject to the principle. Uncertainty principle words it better: "there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known". Shapeyness (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I had thought that this more general principle was what the principle of complementarity was about but this is not my field of expertise. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks good. I like the inclusion of chaos theory. That hadn't occurred to me, but it fits nicely. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been running for a while now, with a lot of comment but little movement towards a consensus to promote. It more resembles a PR; which happens, especially with complex subjects. That said, I am inclined to archive it to let the various issues be sorted out off FAC, unless the reviewers to date feel that a consensus can swiftly be reached? @PatrickJWelsh, Jens Lallensack, Shapeyness, Generalissima, Tim riley, SchroCat, and Jens Lallensack: Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this FAC from the start, and would like to see the discussions pursued to the end, and so I hope we don't have to archive this FAC yet, if at all. Tim riley talk 21:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The decisive issue, as I see it, is whether analytic epistemology provides an appropriately comprehensive account of knowledge. To me, it seems quite obvious that it does not. I have tried to be more specific about this above.
If, however, there were to emerge a consensus against me on this point, I would not put up a fuss beyond (maybe) a brief restatement of what I have already said. In such event, the nomination could close out fairly swiftly. Absent such a consensus, however, I don't see a timely path to promotion.
It's just an incredibly difficult topic to cover at a level consistent with the FA criteria. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that the article meets the FA criteria. The discussions above improved it significantly, especially with the new section on "limits". But I am not sure if much more is needed; I do think that the current focus on epistemology makes sense, and the coverage of other fields is reasonably extensive. This does not mean that the article should not be expanded further to be more comprehensive. For example, the observation that "knowledge is power" (scientia potestas est) could be mentioned (e.g., biopower), and the discussion about "freedom of knowledge" (e.g., open content) does not seem to be mentioned, too? That being said, I personally believe that such potential gaps can be filled within this FAC, but I acknowledge that the other reviewers have a much stronger background on the topic than I do. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ideas, I added a short passage about knowledge and power to the subsection "Sociology" and I added a footnote on free information to the section "History". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are on day 42 of this nomination. As far as I can tell, there is one full support, one support on prose, a passed image review, two tending to full support conditional on how the other reviews go, one ongoing review, and one quasi-oppose (with two editors questioning whether the quasi-oppose is based on a misinterpretation of the FA criteria). My suggestion would be to wait for the ongoing review to finish before making a final call but I won't insist. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means let us give the discussion a little more rope. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the extension. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much progress towards a consensus so it might be best to archive this nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will action. I agree with Gog that this has become more of a peer review. I know you did try PR before FAC, but didn't attract much commentary there. It might be worth another go, involving the reviewers here and anyone else who shows up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2024&oldid=1220933126"