Wikipedia:Peer review/Philosophical pessimism/archive1

Philosophical pessimism

Hi. I've listed this article for peer review because I aim to correct any imperfections that it may still have which could impede it from being considered a GA (good article).

Thanks, Alice793 (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

PJW comments

Hi Alice793, welcome to Wikipedia! You have chosen an ambitious article upon which to cut your teeth. I did the same with Hegel, however, and — thanks in no small part to a very patient GA reviewer — I'm still around. Below are some notes focused mostly on GA criteria. Please just ask if my suggestions are unclear or are/seem wrong or misguided.

Comments:

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article, granting coverage to topics that is roughly proportional to the coverage they receive in the article itself (which should be following the secondary/tertiary literature). An article of this length would typically have a lead of three or four paragraphs.

This is the only part of the article most visitors read. Get the most important stuff up there in the most accessible language possible. (If the article spends a lot of time on something that obviously does not belong here, that's good evidence it should not be covered so much in the body of the article.)

• The article presents many views with individual attribution, which is usually good. Still, it would be helpful to readers who are not already scholars of the field to provide descriptors upon first mention (e.g., historian of philosophy, cultural critic, 19th-century essayist).
• It would also help a lot to identify and follow some overview sources per WP:TERTIARY in order to establish WP:DUEWEIGHT. This can be very challenging for large philosophical topics, but it definitely will come up in a GAN.

It needs to be clear that what is being covered is not just what most interests the contributing editors.

This kind of article does require individual editorial judgment, but it needs to be based on some kind of secondary/tertiary sources documented in the article.

For instance, the one scholar I know that is cited in the "Definitions" section is one of the best publishing in English on the German philosophy of this period. But everyone is just equally juxtaposed against everyone else. (In no way does my not knowing their work mean they are not also at the top of their fields.) It would just read much stronger if presented in terms of recognized schools of thought supported by reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, readers are liable to dismiss the section as just a hodgepodge collection of opinions.

• On Wikipedia boldface is reserved to indicate something is the target of a redirect. I don't personally love this, but you should probably just stick to italics for emphasis.
• I would also note that "Themes" also looks like it could be WP:OR. At least one strong source (or ideally up to three) would nip such suspicion at the bud.
• The "Development..." section feels underdeveloped to me. But I do appreciate the inclusion of non-Western sources.
• The dominant figure of the article is Schopenhauer. I have not doubt this can be defended, but it would strengthen the article to do so explicitly.
• I don't understand why the article includes a section on animals.
• "Criticisms" sections are allowed in articles on philosophical topics. Best practice, however, is still to integrate criticisms into the relevant sections in the body of the article. If this is not possible, that probably means either that the body is missing something or that the criticism is insignificant.
• The "Literature" list lacks inclusion criteria and supporting sources. Those that belong should be incorporated into the article, and the rest should be deleted. (Also, though, the absence of Lucky Per is conspicuous. Maybe check it out if you are not already familiar. I was not sympathetic philosophically, but I could not stop turning the pages even long past the time I should have been in bed.)

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to have to reread the article to respond to some of these matters, but here are a few quick answers/clarifications. I hope it's okay that I just interpolate my responses into your text below. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

1. "An article of this length would typically have a lead of three or four paragraphs".

I have changed the lead section to include four paragraphs. What do you think about them?

The second paragraph includes a few terms that will be unfamiliar to most readers. No one should have to click on a Wikilink to understand the lead. Overall, though, it reads very well. When the article is stable, I will check it again. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"The second paragraph includes a few terms that will be unfamiliar to most readers"

Do you refer to Benatar's asymmetry argument?

On the third paragraph, could the same be said regarding Schopenhauer's concept of the Will?

If, by explaining these philosophical concepts in detail, the paragraphs for the lead section would become too long, then maybe having the Wikilinks is acceptable? Alice793 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was mostly referring to the asymmetry argument, and the point does extend to Will. Possibly the latter is important enough to retain in the lead, but, if so, it should be defined a little bit more—for S.'s usage is hardly standard. (Also, in this case, the article Wikilinked is a total mess—is there possibly a better target?)

To your last question, in the lead it's probably better to oversimplify than to rely on Wikilinks. At what point simplification becomes falsification, though, is a judgment call. For this topic, though — however expansive — I would try to write a lead that stands on its own and would be intelligible to someone in middle school. Patrick (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I just updated the lead section to explain David Benatar's asymmetry argument and Schopenhauer's Will.

Is the lead section too long, now? And, if so, how would you suggest me to trim it? Alice793 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: the user Fantastiera just updated the lead section in such a way that we now have three paragraphs (as you recommended) and without philosophical jargon (as per your recommendation that the lead section should "stand on its own" and be "intelligible to someone in middle school").

What do you think? Alice793 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Update 2: do you believe that a paragraph on suicide should be restored on the lead section? Namely, this paragraph:

"Regarding suicide, some pessimists view it as a potential escape from the sufferings of life. Arthur Schopenhauer believed that while suicide ends individual existence, it does not eliminate the Will, which is the single essence or substance underlying all of existence and thus the deeper or metaphysical cause of our suffering. In contrast, Philipp Mainländer argued that there is a multiplicity of Wills within reality, such that suicide does provide redemption from life by annihilating each being's individual Will."

Would using the philosophical jargon "Will" confuse laypeople? I believe that both questioning the ethics of procreation and the ethics of continuing life are philosophical issues that naturally arise from a philosophically pessimistic worldview -- such that a paragraph addressing suicide likely merits inclusion (just as a paragraph addressing antinatalism is relevant). Alice793 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It may be good idea to discuss writing a proper lead section on the main article's Talk page Fantastiera (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

2. "The 'Development...' section feels underdeveloped to me. But I do appreciate the inclusion of non-Western sources."

The development section is purposefully short because the larger article (history of philosophical pessimism) already goes into much more detail regarding the development of this school of thought.

It didn't read to me as having hit the point to require a WP:SPINOFF article. But my first impression here might be wrong. I should also acknowledge that for philosophical reasons (you don't understand what something is if you don't understand how it came to be!), I place more weight on historical development than some other editors. As long as the sourcing is good, I doubt it will be a problem for GAN. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"It didn't read to me as having hit the point to require a WP:SPINOFF article."

Did you take a look at the historical article for philosophical pessimism?

The original article for the current (topical) article regarding philosophical pessimism was, in fact, originally the historical article itself (such that the topical article we have now did not originally exist).

But we decided to split the articles because, as you can see, the historical article is massive in its scope (and the topical article, as it is currently, is also very big in size, such that potentially merging the two together would bring way too much content for one single article). Alice793 (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the separate history article is way too long. I'd still consider, though, whether a little more history might improve this article. I wouldn't expect it to be an issue at GAR, but it's just a general suggestion. Patrick (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you specify any further details that you think should be added to the development section? As I see it, the current development section presents a reasonable and concise summary of the main article (history of philosophical pessimism). Alice793 (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

3. "I would also note that "Themes" also looks like it could be WP:OR."

The "themes section" is merely summarizing the views presented in "definitions". But depending on your guidance regarding which authors should or should not be included in the definitions section, we could potentially do away with the "themes" section (or not). What would you recommend?

I will try come back to this when I reread the article. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

4. "The dominant figure of the article is Schopenhauer. I have not doubt this can be defended, but it would strengthen the article to do so explicitly."

The historical article already defines Schopenhauer explicitly as the dominant figure in philosophical pessimism; and the topical article does so as well (in the "19th-century Germany" section and in the "20th and 21st centuries" section).

I'm sure this one is my bad! --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

5. "I don't understand why the article includes a section on animals."

The article includes a section on animals because philosophical pessimism often addresses the sufferings embedded not only within human existence itself but also sentient existence as a whole. For example, Benatar, Leopardi, and Schopenhauer all mention the suffering of non-human animals within their pessimistic philosophies (the references are already all there in the article).

Good answer! But I do think it needs more work to meet GA criteria. The way it is currently organized, individual philosophers are being cited as authorities on themselves. This will be flagged as OR in a GAN review. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We do have, currently, two secondary sources for Leopardi and Hartmann's views regarding animals. Update: we also have one for Schopenhauer now: "Hassan, Patrick (2023). Nietzsche's Struggle against Pessimism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1009380270.", page 36. Alice793 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

6. "The "Literature" list lacks inclusion criteria and supporting sources."

I grant this. It would seem, at present, that the literature section is "original research" -- and could thus be removed. What do you think?

I hate such lists and remove them where I find them whenever I work on an article. They attract lots of unhelpful additions by drive-by editors and (I do not imagine) are consulted by many readers. Some editors, though, seem to like them and are much more forgiving about inclusion criteria. If you're attached to it, you can always just wait to see if the GA reviewer (or anyone else) objects. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point.

But see, even Schopenhauer himself (who is considered as the "Father of Pessimism") never used such the term "pessimism" term to describe his philosophy.

In the same vein, there are many works of fiction that delve on much of the same topics that philosophical pessimists do (they're all there in article) -- such that they could arguably merit inclusion.

Take a look at this short story, for instance, which I recently created an article for: Lazarus (short story). Alice793 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You're unlikely to change my mind about this. Just to be clear though, you do realize that you don't have to, right? As a peer reviewer I have no special veto power, and I do not assign any kind of a mark at the end of the process. You are entirely free to quietly/politely disregard my suggestions if your considered view is that they would not improve the article. I would have been quite irritated if my comments had been ignored or written off with a simple "thanks", but it will not hurt my feelings if some of them are disregarded. That's normal, and the final say goes to the editor(s) doing the hard work of improving the article. Patrick (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Patrick. So, just to be clear, if it were up to you, you would remove the section on literature due to it lacking secondary sources and thus potentially being considered original research.

Is that correct? Alice793 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, without clear inclusion criteria supported by secondary sources, it is OR. Also, Wikipedia guidelines also recommend replacing lists with encyclopedic prose whenever possible. A good compromise might be to discuss just the most important works that have support in secondary sources. Patrick (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I created What to do with 'Bibliography' to discuss what to do with "Bibliography" section with other editors. Fantastiera (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

7. "For instance, the one scholar I know that is cited in the "Definitions" section is one of the best publishing in English on the German philosophy of this period. But everyone is just equally juxtaposed against everyone else. (In no way does my not knowing their work mean they are not also at the top of their fields.) It would just read much stronger if presented in terms of recognized schools of thought supported by reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, readers are liable to dismiss the section as just a hodgepodge collection of opinions."

I imagine you are implicitly talking about Frederick C. Beiser when you mention "the one scholar I know" -- is that correct? How do you think the "definitions" section should be structured, then? What authors should or should not be mentioned?

Yes, I did mean Beiser. Sorry for being unintentionally mysterious about it. I should also say that I have not read his pessimism book, and also that I am in no way an independent expert on the topic of this article.

Ideally you would want a high-quality overview source that you could use to speak authoritatively in Wikivoice. If disagreement among scholars makes this impossible, is there some way to at least organize or sort competing views? Otherwise it might read as just a collection of the opinions of people most readers have never heard of.

At minimum, I would add descriptors such as "historian of philosophy F. Beiser" and so forth. It would also help to clarify if some people are Schopenhauer's contemporaries, but others are alive today and actively engaged in teaching and scholarship. Also, is the person being cited a philosopher, a literary critic, a poet, or ...? As a reader, I'm always grateful for such context. Full title, institutional affiliation, and awards, however, are in most cases too much. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Could some of these approaches to "Definitions" work?

A) Gather the common theme from the "best authors", and write up a definition, properly cited. Then add some info detailing that some scholars define "pessimism" in slightly different ways (don't elaborate) but also provide citations for that.

I would go with something along these lines. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The user Fantastiera just updated the definitions section based on that specific approach.

What is your opinion on the current lead section? Alice793 (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

B) Quote the best definitions, and then cite them. Afterwards, we add some info that some scholars define "pessimism" in slightly different ways (don't elaborate) while also providing citations for that.

Probably not. This might call into question whether the article has a sufficiently unified topic. It would also invite additions from well-meaning editors who might not actually know the literature. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Where: best authors or best books:

Cited much more than the others. We can check citations on Google Scholar.

This would be great if you want to, but it's well beyond what is required. If it's published by an academic press or a peer-reviewed journal, a source should be assumed to be of high quality. I have not inspected the bibliography, but only one entry (Gajardo, Paolo. (2023)) is flagged red by the script I have installed for this. I can look at it more carefully later. (The script is far from perfect. It's just useful to have stuff cited to blogs, for instance, to appear highlighted in red as almost certainly unreliable.) --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A few more quick comments on the bibliography:

• The Gajardo source looks fine. I have no idea why it was flagged by the script algorithm. Springer's stuff is massively overpriced, but their quality control, to the best of my knowledge, is sound.
• Except in special circumstances you should not cite a dissertation. It is generally expected that the parts meriting publication will be published in article or book form within a year or two of the defense. These are what should be cited, if they exist; if they don't, the claims therein are probably not reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia.
• Segev, Mor (2020) looks like the sort of volume I mean when I talk about "overview sources". Most major academic presses also have series of "Companion/Handbook to...", "Very Short Introduction to...", and so forth. It would be worth checking if you haven't already. They can be very helpful in structuring an article and defending that structure if challenged.
• Cambridge Scholars Press is at least borderline predatory and not generally reliable. I would inspect the CV of Cabrera, Julio (2019) in order to assess that particular volume.
• It's often entirely appropriate to cite primary sources—a direct quote, for instance, or to indicate the most relevant passage of a claim also supported by a secondary source. I haven't looked carefully enough to assess whether this is a problem here, but I do see a lot of citations to Schopenhauer, who in this article is probably WP:PRIMARY—to be used only with care.

Patrick (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You can see Julio Cabrera's CV here. Alice793 (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to assess much of this since I do know almost nothing about the prestige of presses and universities/departments outside of the Anglophone world (and Germany, little bit). The CV looks very impressive, though, and should pass muster. It's puzzling to me that he would go with Cambridge Scholars, but that is in no way automatically disqualifying. If you cite to this for anything highly controversial, I would try to also find a second source. In general, though, it should be fine. Patrick (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Prefer books over papers.

Doesn't matter. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Prefer general monographs over books about a single pessimistic philosopher.

Yes to establish DUEWEIGHT and PROPORTION. Once that is established, however, more specialized literature is often preferable to overview sources. For GAR, however, your sources should not be subjected to scrutiny at this level. Just be sure they are published by reputable presses and that you're not leaning on any single one of them too heavily. --Patrick (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Alice793 (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Just a few more comments:

• You may want to review WP:ARTICLESIZE. The body of the article currently displays as 9,767 words, and this does not include bulleted text. There is no hard and fast rule, but the guideline suggests that anything over 8,000 quite possibly ought to be trimmed. The page documenting the guideline offers some suggestions for how to do this without deleting good content. Another suggestion that I don't think is mentioned is to move to footnotes material that is to important not to exclude, but that is perhaps more technical or too detailed for many readers.
• According to the MOS, articles should be wikilinked only on first mention. For larger articles like this one, I would adhere to the spirit of the manual rather than the letter (see WP:IAR). After all, readers cannot be assumed to read straight through from beginning to end. But right now, for instance, there are at least nine links to the Schopenhauer article, which seems excessive. GA criteria, however, do not require that you adhere to all of the MOS. Just use your judgment.
• I'm not following the article edit-by-edit, but if you tag me when the article becomes stable, I'll give it another read focused mostly on whether the article is well summarized by the lead. I'll also flag anything that I think might be an issue for the GAN.
• Assuming you do make the nomination – which you seem very much on track to do — I recommend linking to this review in the nomination. It is also possible to jointly nominate an article if someone else wants to sign on. These things should help you to secure a reviewer in a reasonable amount time. Articles sometimes sit in the queue for months, and many editors will probably find a long philosophy article rather daunting. So let everyone know it's been discussed and has already undergone some vetting.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)