Talk:Premise/GA1

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

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk ·contribs ) 08:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Reviewer: Z.Patterson (talk ·contribs ) 01:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I will be reviewing the article. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Subject is clearly notable, based on what I find in searches. Article has no copyright violations. No recent edit warring occurred. Images are either in the public domain or are licensed under Creative Commons, thus having appropriate licenses. Images are also appropriately used. Therefore, so far, the following criteria are met.

• Neutral : it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
• Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
  • media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
  • media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

A more detailed review will be forthcoming. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello Z. Patterson and thanks for reviewing this nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Phlsph7: I have some points to address.

• The Dictionary of Philosophical Logic lists premisse as an alternative spelling.^[1] Would you mind including that in the lead's footnote?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• When I attempt to go to the PDF version of Logical Reasoning by Bradley Dowden, I get a 404 error. Can you provide a different link or remove it?

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Can you quote premises that appear in sources that the article cites?

  Most of the examples are from sources, some verbatim and others modified. For example, the Luis example is verbatim from Copi, Cohen & Flage 2016 and the example "she is not at home since she has gone to the shop" is a variation of Dowden 2020 ("She’s not here, since she’s gone to the supermarket"). Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• If an argument is in quotations, I would think you would not end the quotation with a period if the sentence continues. For example, the following sentence: For instance, the argument "This song will either be an enormous success or an utter failure. It will not be an enormous success. Therefore, it will be an utter failure." has two premises: one states that there are only two options, and the other rules out one option, leaving the other option as the only candidate. Another example is For instance, the argument "This song will either be an enormous success or an utter failure. It will not be an enormous success. Therefore, it will be an utter failure." has two premises: one states that there are only two options, and the other rules out one option, leaving the other option as the only candidate.

  I'm not sure about the right approach here since examples spanning several sentences look odd if there are periods in the middle but not the end. I implemented the suggestion, have a look if you think this is an improvement. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• In the first paragraph in the Role in arguments section, I do not see a mention of empirical sciences in the source cited.

  From Smith 2020, p. 2: The premisses of arguments can be about all sorts of topics: their truth is usually no business of the logician. If we are arguing about historical matters, then it is the historian who is the expert about the truth of our premisses; if we are arguing about some question in physics, then the physicist is the one who might know whether our premisses are true; and so on. I slightly reformulated the passage to reflect the source text more closely. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• The quote, "the sun will rise tomorrow because it has risen every day in the past", does not appear in the text cited. I suggest turning this into a paraphrase.

  Done. Generally speaking, the inverted commas here are used separate arguments from the regular text describing them, so they do not mean that a source is quoted. We could use apostrophes instead of inverted commas, but I don't think that this is standard. This is also how reliable sources use inverted commas. For example, Hurley 2016 uses them in For example, if the premise "One unripe apple that had been found earlier was removed" were added... without implying that any particular person is being quoted here. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• I suggest rewording this sentence: This pattern appears in the argument "All ravens I observed are black. Therefore, all ravens are black." You may reword it as the following or something similar: This pattern appears in the argument that if every raven observed is black, "All ravens are black". The quote "All ravens are black"^[2] appears in one of the sources this sentence sites, but not the quote, "All ravens I observed are black. Therefore, all ravens are black."

  I implemented a slight variation. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• I do not see a mention of itchy rashes leading doctors to conclude chickenpox developed in any of the three sources the third paragraph of the Non-deductive reasoning subsection. Please provide an example from one of the three sources that this cites, or provide a fourth source.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Are you able to directly quote Section 2.2 of the following source: Bartha, Paul (2024). "Analogy and Analogical Reasoning". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 23 May 2026.

  The whole section is too long to quote here. However, it is available online at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/ . Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• I see no mention about the premises about rats, humans, and birth control in any of the sources I could access that cite the paragraph these premises appear in.

  From Salmon 2013: For example, analogical reasoning from the observed effects of the birth-control hormone on rats (which are physiologically similar to humans) has been used to conclude that birth-control pills may affect human brain development ... In the argument that concludes that birth-control pills may affect human brain development, the properties F, G, H, and so on—although unspecified in the premisses—are the physiological properties that humans (objects of type X) and rats (objects of type Y) have been observed to share. Rats are used in medical experiments because they possess these properties. That the further property Z of brain development is affected by the birthcontrol hormone has been observed for rats and is inferred to hold for humans as well.

• Can Footnote j be paraphrased instead of quoted? I wonder if we can say, "For instance, asking whether someone stopped smoking cannabis assumes that the respondent previously smoked cannabis".

  I implemented a slight variation. I found the previous version more accessible, but this works also. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• I do not have a copy of the following book or access to this book through the Wikipedia Library, Google Books, or Internet Archive: Hurley, Patrick J. (2016). Logic: The Essentials. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-305-07092-9. If I try to access it on Internet Archive, I get a "Borrow Unavailable" button. Therefore, I cannot confirm if the quotes in the article that cite this book come from this book. Can you check if the quotes appear, or if they do not appear, change them to quotes that appear in the book, or paraphrase them?

  I don't think that we use any direct quotes from Hurley 2016. For example, the soldier example is from Hurley 2016 p. 190 with some minimal changes: "All soldiers are patriots. No traitors are patriots. Therefore, no traitors are soldiers." The howitzer example is a simplified version of "The U.S. military has fewer battleships, M1 rifles, and horse-drawn howitzers today than it did in 1940. Therefore, the U.S. military is a less effective fighting force today than it was in 1940." Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• In the last paragraph in Fallacies section, could you input a direct quote from the following source: Walton, Douglas N. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0-8173-0798-1. I see that the last sentence of this is "Therefore feathers are contrary to darkness."^[3] Be sure to put a citation right after the quote or at the end of the sentence this quote appears in.

  As above, the inverted commas are used to separate the argument from the text describing it and not to indicate a direct quotation. The text from the source is "Light is contrary to darkness. Feathers are light. Therefore feathers are contrary to darkness." Our version is a slight reformulation to make it more accessible. I could add the original quote to the source, but I don't think that this is particularly important or helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• I cannot find this quote in either source the paragraph this quote appears in cites: "If a party breaks a contract, they are liable for damages. The defendant broke a contract. Therefore, they are liable for damages." Are you able to try to input a direct quote from either source or paraphrase what you find in either source?

  Again, this is presented as an argument, not quote. The original quote is much longer: If one party has a contracted to carry out an act for another party, but has then failed to do it, she is liable to the other party for breach of contract. The defendant contracted to carry out a certain act for the plaintiff, but then failed to do it. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff for breach of contract. I think for our purposes of showcasing the basic idea, the simplified version does a better job and it is supported by the sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Otherwise, I find that the article meets the following criteria.

• Well-written. The article certainly meets this criterion.
  • the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
  • it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
• Sources used are exemplary for a GAN.
  • it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
  • reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
  • it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
• Broad in its coverage. The article is certainly broad.
  • it addresses the main aspects of the topic
  • it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
• Neutral : it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each, as stated previously.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute, as stated previously.
• Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio, as stated previously.
  • media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content, as stated previously.
  • media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions, as stated previously.

I will give you seven days to address these points.

References

Z. Patterson (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for the comments. My responses are above, I hope I got everything. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Phlsph7: There also appears to be no original research. I am passing this article. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC) Reply