Talk:Relations (philosophy)
 | Relations (philosophy) is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by Phlsph7 (talk) at 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: Ways how entities stand to each other |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Ibid[edit]
I am currently working on repairing the WP:IBID issue on this page and Ref 36 confuses me. Which reference is the quote supposed to refer to? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress[edit]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Relation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Changes to the article[edit]
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)
- Short update: I've been working on a draft to implement the points above, see User:Phlsph7/Relation. It's still in an early stage but shows roughly the direction in which this is going. It provides a more general overview of what relations are and what characteristic features they have. I also added the discussion of many types of relations that were absent before. The draft further includes a section on the problematic ontological status of relations, which is one of the main topics in metaphysical discussions of relations. I managed to find some secondary sources to retain a history section. However, a lot of the text had to be rewritten to be based on secondary sources and avoid original research by interpreting primary sources.
- There are still many things to do. Some sections are composed of notes rather than a coherent text. The ones that have coherent text have not yet been copy-edited. So far, there is no lead section. Many wikilinks are missing and there are no images yet. I plan to address those issues in the next few days and I'm also open for further feedback. It may still be a little before this is ready for mainspace. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I went ahead and published the draft. I tried to include most of the ideas from the previous version in this one. Some only survived in summarized form and a few did not fit in. Please let me know if you think that some essential information was removed in the process so we can explore options for its inclusion in the updated version. Other feedback on further improvements is also welcome. There remain a few minor issues that I plan to address in the next few days. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Relations (philosophy)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Phlsph7: I'll review this. Sorry about the eight month long wait you've had to undergo. I'll begin soon. 750h+ 06:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
1. Well-written[edit]
- lead
realists, relations have mind-independent existence.
add the article "a" before "mind-independent
- definition and features
the first-born sibling stands in the relation of being older to their other siblings.
change "to" to "than".- I added the "than" but kept the "to" (the being-older-than relation from first-born to the siblings)
two distinct relations instead of seeing them as one and the same
remove "one and"Determinable relations are not clearly specified
remove "clearly"
- types
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 false
I think is unnecessarily wordyA 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
- ontological status
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" ==> howthat 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 idea
remove "in general"; "often" already explains that
- history
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 reducible
The way this sentence is phrased is a bit confusingvalidity of reasoning in regard to relations
==> "validity of reasoning regarding relations"
2. Verifiable with no original research 
[edit]
- Sources, as always, look good, with most being books and dictionaries. Spot check performed on 3, 14, 51, 88, 138 and 140. Earwig finds a violation unlikely, with a 27.5% similarity to a SEP source. Source review and spot check pass. 750h+ 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad [edit]
- I know nothing about this topic so I cannot judge, but because of the articles you've written Phlsph, I'll pass this nonetheless. 750h+ 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Neutral [edit]
- Understandable to a good audience, with some facilitative examples. No. 1 also helped. Pass. 750h+ 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Stable [edit]
- Hasn't been edited in a while, so I doubt we're going to see a significant amount of editing soon. Pass. 750h+ 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
6. Illustrated [edit]
- Nine appropriately licensed images in the article, each of which have WP:ALT text and are well-positioned. Pass. 750h+ 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
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)