Relations (philosophy) has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 12, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
I'm considering making some changes to this article and maybe preparing it for a GA nomination. But this would still be a long way since the article currently has various problems. For one, it lacks many key topics. It should discuss arity and direction. Many types of relations are either not mentioned or only mentioned very briefly, like logical and causal relations, spatial and temporal relations, and necessary and contingent relations. They deserve a proper discussion. Types based on formal properties, like reflexive relations and symmetric relations should also be explained. The article should further give a more detailed explanation of many of the metaphysical problems associated with relations, like reductionism and eliminativism, specifically Bradley's regress argument should be mentioned.
There are also some issues with what is already there. Most of the history section is based on primary sources. Primary sources can't support the various interpretative claims in this section and they can't demonstrate that the views are important enough to be mentioned at all. I've had a look at a few overview sources and none of them presents a comprehensive history of this concept so I'm not sure that our article should. The more common approach is to discuss the topic based on different themes, in which case the current content of the history section would have to be reorganized. But I have to do some more research and maybe I find something better in the process. Apart from that there is also a citation needed tag and several other passages lack citations. It will take me a while to go through the sources and prepare a draft. Feedback on these ideas and other suggestions are also welcome. Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Phlsph7 ( talk · contribs) 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer: 750h+ ( talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
realists, relations have mind-independent existence.add the article "a" before "mind-independent
the first-born sibling stands in the relation of being older to their other siblings.change "to" to "than".
two distinct relations instead of seeing them as one and the sameremove "one and"
Determinable relations are not clearly specifiedremove "clearly"
to the relata and it is impossible for the two relata to exist without==> "and the two relata cannot exist without"
Two statements are contraries if it is not possible that both are true but it is possible that both are falseI think is unnecessarily wordy
A special case of non-symmetric relations are asymmetric relations"are" ==> "is"
An example is the relation being a parent of:I don't think "of" is needed
The location problem consists in the question of where relations are located."in" ==> "of"
A closely connected issue concerns the manner in which relations depend"the matter in which" ==> how
that they are located in the object which bears them and on which they depend} change the second "which" to "that"
He claims that in order to be related to them"in order to" ==> "to"
Objections to eliminativism in general are often based on the idearemove "in general"; "often" already explains that
to reconceptualize the nature of relations and the need of relations to describe reality on its most basic level."need of relations" ==> "need for relations"
The view that view that relations are reducibleThe way this sentence is phrased is a bit confusing
validity of reasoning in regard to relations==> "validity of reasoning regarding relations"
I really appreciate you taking care of this long overdue review and providing all the actionable suggestions. Phlsph7 ( talk) 07:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
References
Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC).
Relations (philosophy) has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 12, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
I'm considering making some changes to this article and maybe preparing it for a GA nomination. But this would still be a long way since the article currently has various problems. For one, it lacks many key topics. It should discuss arity and direction. Many types of relations are either not mentioned or only mentioned very briefly, like logical and causal relations, spatial and temporal relations, and necessary and contingent relations. They deserve a proper discussion. Types based on formal properties, like reflexive relations and symmetric relations should also be explained. The article should further give a more detailed explanation of many of the metaphysical problems associated with relations, like reductionism and eliminativism, specifically Bradley's regress argument should be mentioned.
There are also some issues with what is already there. Most of the history section is based on primary sources. Primary sources can't support the various interpretative claims in this section and they can't demonstrate that the views are important enough to be mentioned at all. I've had a look at a few overview sources and none of them presents a comprehensive history of this concept so I'm not sure that our article should. The more common approach is to discuss the topic based on different themes, in which case the current content of the history section would have to be reorganized. But I have to do some more research and maybe I find something better in the process. Apart from that there is also a citation needed tag and several other passages lack citations. It will take me a while to go through the sources and prepare a draft. Feedback on these ideas and other suggestions are also welcome. Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Phlsph7 ( talk · contribs) 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer: 750h+ ( talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
realists, relations have mind-independent existence.add the article "a" before "mind-independent
the first-born sibling stands in the relation of being older to their other siblings.change "to" to "than".
two distinct relations instead of seeing them as one and the sameremove "one and"
Determinable relations are not clearly specifiedremove "clearly"
to the relata and it is impossible for the two relata to exist without==> "and the two relata cannot exist without"
Two statements are contraries if it is not possible that both are true but it is possible that both are falseI think is unnecessarily wordy
A special case of non-symmetric relations are asymmetric relations"are" ==> "is"
An example is the relation being a parent of:I don't think "of" is needed
The location problem consists in the question of where relations are located."in" ==> "of"
A closely connected issue concerns the manner in which relations depend"the matter in which" ==> how
that they are located in the object which bears them and on which they depend} change the second "which" to "that"
He claims that in order to be related to them"in order to" ==> "to"
Objections to eliminativism in general are often based on the idearemove "in general"; "often" already explains that
to reconceptualize the nature of relations and the need of relations to describe reality on its most basic level."need of relations" ==> "need for relations"
The view that view that relations are reducibleThe way this sentence is phrased is a bit confusing
validity of reasoning in regard to relations==> "validity of reasoning regarding relations"
I really appreciate you taking care of this long overdue review and providing all the actionable suggestions. Phlsph7 ( talk) 07:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
References
Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC).