User talk:Phlsph7

old archive: User_talk:Phlsph7/Archive_1

Your good article nomination of the article Agnosticism has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi. I notice you have the Truth article nominated for GA (as well as some others). I just nominated Dam for GA, and I'm looking for someone to swap reviews with. Are you interested in swapping GA reviews? I could do Truth, or any other of your GA nominations. I know some editors don't like swapping GA reviews, but it is not prohibited, provided that the reviews are thorough and proper ... which is what we both want, of course. I think you and I swapped a pair of PR reviews in 2025. Schedule: I'm hoping to have the reviews done within 7 to 10 days after starting, so I can move forward towards a FA nomination. Thanks for considering it! Noleander (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Noleander and thanks for the offer. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly familiar with the topic of dams or with articles on civil engineering, so I may not be the best reviewer candidate. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

No worries. Good luck with your nominations! Noleander (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello Core Contest participants! There is less than one week left until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), so it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!

Now is a good time to set some final goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

This is to let you know that Cognition has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 July 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Cognitions are mental processes that deal with knowledge. They are a pervasive part of mental life, encompassing psychological activities that acquire, store, retrieve, transform, or apply information. This is a level-4 vital article with over 400,000 page views last year."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Semiotics is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Freedom4U -- Freedom4U (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Truth is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ScrubbedFalcon -- ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Thank you for the thank you! I am unfortunately going through a bit of a hard season during this time, though I will do my best to give the article a thorough reading and add comments sometime in the near future :) ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi The Green Star Collector and sorry to hear about the difficulties you are facing. Thanks for taking a look at the article, I'm looking forward to your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Normativity has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Z. Patterson -- Z. Patterson (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Premise is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Z. Patterson -- Z. Patterson (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Normativity is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I would have brought this up on the article's talk page, but you are the main (if not sole) contributor and you are the only one opposing the edit.

Could you explain what exactly is the problem with this edit here (and the one previous to it)? For starters, I believe that the description in the image caption is very vague, for example, what exactly is "pragmatic governance"? This is why I viewed "founder of modernity" as a very specific claim, and one supported by a source of NM specialists (and a quote in the reference). For the latter claim about the "ends justifying the means", that is a sentiment which all scholars of Machiavelli note is a sentiment that, textually, he never uttered. One does not even need academics to know this, as it is something anyone can figure out by reading the primary sources. Considering that the scholars in the original edit are not specialists in the topic, and also that scholars are not perfect and it is possible that they can sometimes be lazy and not do simple due diligence, I view that my edit should, at the very least, be considered instead of just discarded via a quick edit summary. I assure you that I have more sources that support my reasoning than what is already offered. Care to wager? Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 17:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Plasticwonder and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. The image is placed right next to the discussion of realism, so the image caption should discuss in what sense Machiavelli is a realist rather than present Machiavelli-related information that is irrelevant to the text. Maybe we can find something more concrete that fits these requirements. What about Realism is closely associated with Niccolò Machiavelli's emphasis on power politics and the pragmatic pursuit of self-interest.

As I understand it, the expression "The end justifies the means" is a paraphrase of Machiavelli that is sometimes mistakenly presented as quote from Machiavelli. Our current text does not attribute it to Machiavelli as quote. It just uses this principle to describe Machiavelli's philosophy. I think that part is correct. For example this book has a full chapter on this aspect of Machiavelli's The Prince, titled "The end justifies the means: end-orientation and the discourses of power".

Concerning your suggestion, the expression "the founder of modernity" is too general and I don't think that it is widely used in this overly broad sense outside the context of political philosophy. The expression "the founder of modern political philosophy" is more commonly associated with Machiavelli, but it is also associated with Hobbes (e.g. see and ), so we have to qualify it in some form and can't simply state it in wikivoice. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

You know, I never thought of it from your perspective, and this makes total sense. Thank you for your gracious reply! Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 14:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Premise has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Z. Patterson -- Z. Patterson (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Premise has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Z. Patterson -- Z. Patterson (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I was goïng to check out your FAC for well-beÏng and, well, I was too late! Congrats on the promotion! sina pali e lipu pi pona mute a. toby ^{in solidarity} 04:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks! I'm glad that it worked out in the end. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Normativity has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is to let you know that Well-being has been scheduled as today's featured article for 25 August 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is to let you know that Dualism has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 August 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

— Amakuru (talk) and TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Just wonderful work. I spend years scribbling about minor people and objects but you write the aticles that a thousand clever children will pour over in decades to come. Thank you. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi No Swan So Fine and thanks for the feedback! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi there, I don't want you to be caught off-guard as I have resubmitted the article to GAN. I have to taken your review comments and put in a couple hours worth of work to get it better suited. I know there will likely be some small issues, but there shouldn't be anything glaringly bad to fail it immediately now. If there are, definitely let me know. Cheers! Conyo14 (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Conyo14: Thanks for the changes, the sourcing looks better now. Good luck with the renomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I would generally advise against starting a review before the nominator has done their QPQ. TSventon (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@TSventon: Thanks for the input. I haven't run into this type of problem before, but that's probably a good idea to be on the safe side. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The winners of the 2026 Core Contest are announced 🎉. A huge turnout that resulted in one of our trickiest deliberation sessions. The judges (Aza24 , Femke and Casliber ) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners!

• First place (and a prize of 120ドル) goes to Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk ·contribs ) for his dual efforts on Flatbread and Tortilla! One, formerly an unsourced list-like article, and the other, once a poorly sourced and spotty overview, both now number 250+ citations from an impressively academic source pool. We particularly commend the efforts to globalize content, treat the topics comprehensively and thoughtfully select illustrations. Both articles (one now a GA) are of a uniquely high quality amid the often underserved food topics on Wikipedia. Bravo!
• Second place (and a prize of 100ドル) goes to Phlsph7 (talk ·contribs ), a Core Contest regular who has once again shown a mastery of big topics, with his dual efforts on Agnosticism and Premise—both now GAs (one, with a review by our first place winner!). With immensely thorough sourcing improvements, alongside carefully nuanced text on these often misunderstood topics, both articles are a pleasure to read.
• Third place (and a prize of 80ドル) goes to MCE89 (talk ·contribs ), whose improvements to the Heard Island and McDonald Islands article have led to a triumphant FA declaration. The incredible balance of detail between human, geographical and flora-fauna elements is a great achievement, and sets a high standard for future island articles.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. – Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Congratulations! BorgQueen (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello. Thank you for taking part in this year's Core Contest and congratulations on your win. Could you please write to me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk to coordinate your prize. I may have your address from last year, just making sure it is is till the same. Best wishes, Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Semiotics has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Freedom4U -- Freedom4U (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

13:40, 2 July 2026 diff hist +292 Reality →History: consistent reference style 13:34, 2 July 2026 diff hist +348 Reality →Sources: add source 13:33, 2 July 2026 diff hist −416 Reality →Sources: remove duplicate source 13:33, 2 July 2026 diff hist −179 Reality →Sources: remove duplicate source 13:31, 2 July 2026 diff hist +850 Reality →Sources: add sources

Please refrain from taking multiple edits when one would suffice.

No but seriously, jk and thanks for updating the article "Truth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39801-28 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for the feedback on the article Truth. Regarding minor edits, see WP:MINOR. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Truth has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ScrubbedFalcon -- ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, back in 2011 I attended a WikiConference in Bristol, UK. User:Johnbod spoke about how Wikipedia was great for topics with a small, well-defined literature but was not doing well for abstract concepts. Having a Philosophy PhD and writing about theoretical psychology, I struck a similar note in my talk; I said that articles like Perception or Happiness will never be good because Wikipedians will never agree on the boundaries of the relevant literature. I hope this context explains why I am delighted to be proved wrong and why I'm completely in awe of what you have achieved and are achieving with articles like Normativity, Cognition, Truth, and the others listed on your userpage.

So, the question (which has multiple aspects): Is there a process you use with overhauling an article on such a topic? Do you ever have difficulty balancing philosophical, empirical, and even religious/spiritual literatures? When I rewrote Confirmation bias, what helped me was a recent textbook chapter and a review paper. Those two sources provided an organising structure that helped me find and summarise other sources. Do you work similarly from a guiding source, or a particular kind of literature review? How do you identify "the literature" on a topic like Mind or Truth, and apportion the weight of different literatures? Thanks in advance for any response, MartinPoulter (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi MartinPoulter and thanks a lot for the feedback! I agree that Wikipedia is better suited for smaller and well-defined topics. The problem with broad topics is that so much information is relevant in some sense that it becomes difficult to decide what to include and how to organize it. For this problem, WP:PROPORTION and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE are among the main principles.

Regarding the method for overhauling an article, a lot of preparatory work goes into understanding the topic before I make any changes to the article. I usually start by compiling a long reading list, focusing on overview sources that aim to cover the topic at large rather than specialized subareas. In the case of mind, I look for books with titles similar to encyclopedia of the mind, companion to the mind, handbook of philosophy of mind, what is the mind, the nature of mind, the mind: an introduction, as well as encyclopedia articles titled mind. If the topic spans several fields, such as psychology and philosophy, one has to make sure that all major disciplines are represented in the reading list.

Next, I go through them to see how they present the topic and divide it into subtopics. Given the number of sources and the length of some of them, it's not possible to read everything cover to cover during preliminary planning. Many of the longer works have helpful general introductions, section introductions, or conclusion sections that summarize the most important points. If one already has a good familiarity with the topic, one can get a broad picture of the field by reading the articles and the most important parts of longer works, and by comparing tables of contents. While doing this, I try to figure out what the main points are, how to subdivide and condense them into a few main sections, and how to deal with disagreements among the sources. Once I have the basic section structure and a sense of what belongs in each section, I outline my proposal and the problems of the current article on the article talk page and I usually implement the changes section by section. The overview sources often don't have enough information for each individual section, so I typically need to consult additional sources specifically dedicated to the section topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

—TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Morogris, thanks for the barnstar and the kind words! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I've seen how much time and devotion it takes from users like you and Noleander to take a vital article through FAC, and yet I found myself reflecting on this after attending a seminar where the speaker, along with our teachers, remarked that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and therefore should not be trusted. If only they were aware of the internal processes and the amount of time—and back-and-forth—involved in FACs.

Moments like these do make me question the worth of the work we put in here. I look forward to your thoughts. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi MSincccc, if the speaker and teachers mean with "should not be trusted" that you should not cite Wikipedia when writing academic texts, then this is probably a good idea. Wikipedia plays a different role in the knowledge ecosystem: it is more an accessible gateway to knowledge than a final scholarly authority. One reason why effort to improve article quality matters is that many people read Wikipedia articles: even articles on minor topics have significantly more readers than the average academic paper. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Truth is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ErnestKrause -- ErnestKrause (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think I did enough work on British, French, and German philosophy articles that they deserve the "C" rating, and the same for the American philosophy article to deserve the "B" rating. While not finished and "FA" level, if you get a chance, I would appreciate your opinions on any of them. Especially if I have forgotten anyone in two continents for 2000 years.

Also, after my review of your premise article, I have a light reading recommendation. I don't blame you if you don't have the same interest in crime as I do, as it's full of tabloid hysteria and violence, but, if that can be put aside, solving a crime from the armchair seems to me quite an underrated instance of applied philosophy. In my humble opinion, the blog Solving Jon Benet does what it says. I fear the blog's author has passed on. Cake (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi MisterCake, it's nice to see the progress on those articles. If you are looking for more things to do, they all have many uncited paragraphs, so you could add citations. They all also have relatively short lead sections, which could be expanded to better provide better summaries.

With this type of overview, it's easy to miss philosophers. Some candidates to consider:

• British philosophy: Alfred North Whitehead (is mentioned by name but probably deserves more content), Mary Wollstonecraft, Iris Murdoch, Elizabeth Anscombe, and R. G. Collingwood

  I'm not sure how to deal with Irish philosophers in this context

• French philosophy: Luce Irigaray
• German philosophy: Walter Benjamin, Max Weber, Ernst Cassirer, and Niklas Luhmann
• American philosophy: John Searle (is mentioned by name in a list but probably deserves more content), Susan Haack, and Christine Korsgaard

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you very much. You are right for example like the German article needs several more sources. And Anscombe, for just one example, is obligatory. I made an article for Irish philosophy, so we were on the same page there. I am not sure whether to classify it as British philosophy or its own thing (a similar problem arises with Austria and Germany). Berkeley, Boyle, and others are regularly a part of British philosophy. It is not only the Anglo-Irish. Every article I have seen on British philosophy starts with Eriugena. Yet, Ireland sans Northern Ireland is not Britain. What I may need to do is say British philosophy encompasses the British isles, rather than simply Great Britain. I am also debating with myself how, and whether, to include Benjamin Jowett for the British. And also, Erasmus for the German. Not to mention the further one goes back in time, the larger the number of subjects which were considered philosophy. Cake (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't think that Jowett and Erasmus are essential. I would stick to what the term philosophy means today. Otherwise, these articles may turn into general intellectual history. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think avoiding mere intellectual history is good advice I will try to keep in mind. However, Luther and Newton, while not strictly speaking philosophers, nonetheless having influential "isms" shows the worry. Perhaps the best example I have is the paragraph on Franklin in the American article. One surely has to mention the Society founder and 'America's first philosopher' overseas, but then one has to shed a kind of chronological snobbery and anachronism which would not count him as a philosopher, as is mentioned prior to those facts. So I tend to include natural philosophy and theology when it seems relevant. I managed to squeeze Jowett in, and I go back and forth on Erasmus. He and Cusa are the typical Northern Renaissance philosophers. Duerer's portrait of Erasmus is one way to show his influence was not confined to Holland. Indeed, supposedly, a Mennonite relative of mine on the way to America from Germany circa 1700 had with him on the boat a Bible and some Erasmus. He has a stronger case than Kierkegaard or Wittgenstein to be called a German philosopher, so it seems to me, yet they were already included. Cake (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think Luther and Newton can be included to the extent that they are relevant to philosophy. For example, Luther's Reformation and translation of the bible probably fall more in the field of general intellectual history. Instead, I would focus the discussion on Luther's philosophy of religion, such as the faith-alone doctrine and the criticism of reason to arrive at theological truths.

German philosophy can mean philosophy in the German language, so Wittgenstein should be fine. The inclusion of Kierkegaard is more controversial. Instead of having a separate subsection, it might be better to discuss him only in places where German philosophers were influenced by him or responded to him. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Nowhere near finished of course, but I think I have a "skeleton" of an article, or a filing cabinet where any new philosophers have a place to go, for American, British, French, and German philosophy. I also tried my best to do Irish philosophy. I sure hope the article isn't deleted per the talk page. My fear is it gets deleted, the information gets absorbed into the British philosophy article, and then that article becomes unwieldy and has to be split apart - but now there's precedent that it shouldn't be split apart into Irish philosophy. So we get something like "British philosophy before 1650" instead. The Scottish philosophy article seems to me legitimate, yet it seems even more difficult to trace than Ireland. Cake (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The most coherent treatment would be a unified article on British and Irish philosophy. However, I don't think that this combination is commonly used in reliable sources, so we shouldn't treat it as an established topic. If we just follow the sources, having separate articles for each is probably the better idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I have a 8-volume (really 4, 2 per book) Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy from the 1960s, which was basically the standard thing for students pre-SEP (Edward Zalta runs the SEP, Paul Edwards ran the Cambridge), and it has a several page long article on British philosophy (by Anthony Quinton) which also contains the Irish, Scottish, and so forth (Welsh? All I can think of is Russell). However, I think if we incorporate the wealth of knowledge from the internet and the past 60 years, and even just different scholars back in those days, those will (and have) quickly split off. A good example is the post Locke pro and anti deism section in the British and Irish pages. Burke and Toland are mentioned for the British, yes, but they are one among several, while they can be the focus of an Irish page. And it does not mention Skelton. I also gave the example of the ability to focus on Boyle vs. Bacon/Newton. So, I guess I respectfully disagree. I think the most coherent treatment is a British philosophy article which obliquely references the Irish and Scottish philosophical traditions, with those treated in their own articles. I am a "splitter" rather than a "lumper". I appreciate your comments on the Irish philosophy page, and hope I don't sway you one way or the other. I also left an interesting comment there about DeMorgan, and on the Scottish philosophy talk page I also got a bit of unexpected pushback. Cake (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I wish I knew more about Schelling (German) and Bergson (French) so I could make their sections more understandable. As an amateur wiki historian, I also wish I knew more about Llull and Ramus. Not sure why Llull is a Protestant influence, other than using his native tongue, it seems the usual medieval Neoplatonic mysticism. It influenced Ramus, who is both logician and protestant reformer, and is competing with the likes of Newton and Luther for needing to be mentioned even if the topic were the philosophy of Burkina Faso. Every country has a gap in its history filled by a Ramist. Cake (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Approaching 9,000 words with the German philosophy article. I hope the fact that it includes "Austrian philosophy" as well (and in the Middle Ages, Dutch philosophy too, basically the whole Holy Roman Empire), allows me some room up to say 10,000. Forgive me for not figuring it out myself, but is there some wikipedia guideline on a history article for when to put birth/death years (and hyphen) by a person's name? Cake (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Some information is found at MOS:DOB, but it's more about how to include dates then when. For history articles, it's usually relevant when something happened. Having the dates in parenthesis when a person is introduced for the first time is an easy and non-intrusive way to accomplish this. While 9000 words is probably defensible for an article like German philosophy, I wouldn't push it too far, see WP:SIZERULE. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Another option is to split off Austrian philosophy into its own article and make those sections smaller. It seems to me things like an upperbound of 9,000 words mean wiki is designed for 'splitters' instead of 'lumpers'. Brentano's school was in Austria Hungary, not Germany, and so includes Poles and such. However, there would be the issue of what to do with Wittgenstein. I haven't even covered Switzerland, and I don't intend to leave no room for future edits! Another idea is to remove middle names. That could save some space on a German philosophy article. Cake (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

If we understand German philosophy as philosophy in German, then it should be fine to include Brentano. An alternative approach would be to summarize more: cover the same topics but in less detail. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, of course, that is always the first option. But I felt I've been as brief as I can, even if it seems longwinded at parts. For example, I don't even talk about Wittgenstein's private language argument other than obliquely, as I can't imagine covering it in this article. I've also been liberal in my use of footnotes. For example, Solomon Maimon probably deserves a section, but I used a footnote instead. Hopefully I can keep it hovering around 9,250 as it is now, and then send it to the guild of copy editors and see if they can find any fat to trim.

On Brentano, I think he would have to be mentioned, but he could be mentioned much more briefly if there was an "Austrian philosophy" all its own. "Austrian philosophy" redirects to him on the German philosophy page. I was able to say more about him on the "analytic philosophy" article. Even if we support the Anschluss and include Austrians as just "East (Austria) Germans" Brentano's followers includes non Germans, such as Poles, and the rest of Austria-Hungary. Mach is also similarly Austrian. The trouble would be Wittgenstein's fame, I submit. If there were an Austrian philosophy article, it would be Mach, Brentano, and Wittgenstein (and the Vienna Circle). And indeed, one could cover them in the detail they deserve. Brentano's whole intentionality quote should be there. Wittgenstein's whole private language argument should be there. But I think the Germans want to claim him. At least, it seems to me. Maybe it would be my chance to talk about Otto Weininger.

Also, notice with the German philosophy article, going back to the founding of universities, and the prior medieval period, Prague, Austria, and Alsace, i. e. the Holy Roman Empire, are all considered part of German philosophy. There is also the issue of Switzerland. Geneva is French philosophy (see Voltaire, Rousseau), but Zürich is German (see umlaut). Alsace is Swiss, French, and German together (French since WW1, Alsatians tend to have a French first name and a German last name, said with a French accent e. g. "Jacques Pfessinger" said "fess awn jay" or something). So I hope all this justifies the extra 250 words I might need. There are names I haven't mentioned. Cake (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

congrats! Draco phyllum 01:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Phlsph7,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC , which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox ^{(talk |contributions)} 16:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Truth has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ErnestKrause -- ErnestKrause (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Truth is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Technocracy is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ThaesOfereode -- ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply