Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dualism/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 22:35 22 May 2026 [1] FACBot (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Dualism

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dualism is a family of views proposing a fundamental division into two separate principles or kinds. Dualist views span many domains and disciplines, including theories such as mind–body dualism about a sharp divide between mind and matter, ethical dualism about good and evil as antagonistic forces, and epistemological dualism about a fundamental gap between experience and reality. Thanks to BorgQueen for the suggestion to tackle this article, to Shapeyness for the GA review, and to Streded for the peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Here shall be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Dualism.svg - CC0
  • File:Mind-body dualism.svg - CC0
  • File:Ethical dualism.svg - CC0
  • File:Theological dualism.svg - CC0
  • File:Platonic dualism.svg - CC0
  • File:Epistemological dualism.svg - CC0
  • File:Kapila (cropped).png - Public Domain
  • File:Yin yang.svg - Public Domain
  • File:Frans Hals - Portret van René Descartes.jpg - Public Domain
  • All of the images have alt-text for accessibility, proper captioning, and are all relevant to the article.

Streded

[edit]

This is my first ever attempt to review a featured article candidate. I'm not sure how to format it, so I'll improvise. Streded (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Streded and thanks for giving FA reviewing a try! There is no fixed format here and different reviewers use different styles, so improvising in line with Wikipedia commonsense should be fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
[edit]
  • The article is well-written, as required in the WP:FACRITERIA.
  • The article seems comprehensive. As I noted in the peer review, there are aspects of the subject that the article doesn't cover, but to the best of my knowledge, no sources exist that cover them and this will probably stay that way for the foreseeable future.
  • The sources used indicate a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. I have yet to review whether the citations are well-placed and support the content that cites them. I'll try to do some spot checks later.
  • The article is neutral. It seems to present dualist and anti-dualist points of view fairly and proportionately for an an article about dualism. It mentions criticism of the concept itself as a precise analytical category. It features dualist thought from diverse cultures and philosophical traditions.
  • Aside from incremental improvement by the nominator, the article is stable.
  • I haven't noticed overly closed paraphrasing, but I haven't checked this thoroughly.
  • The first paragraph of the lead section summarizes the first section. The second paragraph summarizes sections 2–7. The third paragraph summarizes the eighth and final section. All summaries seem fair.
  • The structure seems good.
  • I see no issue with Arconning's review of the images.
  • The article doesn't seem to go into excessive detail, but I haven't checked this thoroughly. Also, it covers the term "dualism" to some extent in addition to the subject itself. I think this is mostly fine, since you'd expect to see coverage of the term in a "Definition" section, and the criticism regarding the vagueness of the term also concerns the concept itself. Still, I hope that the focus on terms as opposed to concepts can be decreased.
Spot checks
[edit]
  • § History, third paragraph:
    • Replace "Yingyang" with "yinyang".
      Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replace "arose" with more specific wording, since Wang doesn't suggest that the yinyang school existed at any time outside the 1st millennium BCE.
      I changed it to "flourished" but I'm not sure if that's what you meant. Unfortunately, we have to remain vague concerning the timeframe since sources are themselves not certain about it. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      This addresses the problem I had, but now it's more positive than the source actually supports. How about "was active"? Streded (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's a peacock term in this context, but "was active" works also, so I changed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Having encountered this in another article, I understand now. From now on, whenever you use the word "flourished" in this sense, please link to floruit (although I personally prefer "was active"). Streded (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider noting the relationship between the dualism of yin and yang and the dualism of being and non-being, using Ko's statement that [t]he ultimate dimension of non-being transcends the contradictory phenomenon of yin and yang.
      Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it true that non-being remains unaffected by phenomena according to Wang Bi? Ko says that his major concern is how to keep the realm of non-being unfettered from changes in the phenomenal world. The foundational nature of non-being implies that non-being shouldn't be affected by anything, but the statement from Ko is very confusing.
      It probably depends on whether you can interpret the term "unfettered" in a different way. However, this part is not essential, so I replaced it with your suggestion about about transcending yin and yang. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I like this change. What confused me was "his major concern is how to keep". It seems to suggest that Wang Bi endeavored to protect the realm of non-being from changes in the phenomenal world. I know this is a nonsensical interpretation, but that's how it reads to me. Streded (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • After digging into it, I'm certain that the yingyang school that Wang describes is actually the School of Naturalists. Wang's book Yinyang: The Way of Heaven and Earth in Chinese Thought and Culture makes it clear. Please pipelink yinyang school of thought to School of Naturalists. Also, Needham's Science and Civilisation in China, volume 2, chapter 13, sections (c) and (e) is a great source about this school of thought and the origin of the yin-yang dualism. I recommend reading it if you ever have the time. Streded (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the wikilink. I'll look into the book when I have the time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Streded, just checking whether you are satisfied with the responses so far and whether you have more suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have no issue or suggestion regarding the article, and see no reason it shouldn't be promoted to FA. I still plan to continue my spot checks (probably today). Streded (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Streded: that sounds good. For concluding the review, it would be good if you could state whether you "support" or "oppose" the nomination so assessing consensus is easier for the coordinators. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]
Lead
Definition and related terms

A few minor suggestions to begin with. I will take a look at the lead at the end. MSincccc (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MSincccc, just checking whether you have had the time to take at look at other parts of the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had much time yet, as I still have Rain World's FAC to conclude, along with some commitments both on- and off-wiki. However, I expect to leave a few more comments by tomorrow. MSincccc (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mind-body dualism

MSincccc (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Religious dualisms

MSincccc (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Platonic dualism
  • None here except a few stylistic suggestions.

MSincccc (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemological dualism
Other forms
Criticisms
  • However, some arguments seek to undermine dualism as a whole
  • "general patterns found in most or all of its forms"

→ "general patterns in most or all of its forms"

History

→ "challenged the view that forms have independent existence"

Lead
  • "a family of views proposing a fundamental division"

→ "a family of views that propose a fundamental division"

Bottom line

Source review

[edit]

I'll do a source review for this. Shapeyness (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

I have read through the article a few times and can see no issues. It takes what is a complex subject and makes an intelligible Wikipedia article from it. I support its promotion to Featured Article status. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye7, thanks a lot for reviewing the article and for your support! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BP!

[edit]

This subject isn’t my area of expertise, but it was written very well after I read it. Despite its complexity, Phlsph7 definitely nailed it again! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boneless Pizza!, thank you for the feedback and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Noleander

[edit]
  • "Mind–body substance dualism became a central topic in early modern Western philosophy following the works of René Descartes. It was largely replaced by materialist monism in the course of the 20th century." [emphasis added] To me, that is ambiguous and can be read two different ways:
  1. Western philosophy focused on dualism for awhile around the time of Descartes; later, other topics became the focus of Western philosophy, and dualism fell out of favor (not because it was flawed, but philosophers moved on to other interests)
  2. Western philosophy considered dualism as an important concept around the time of Descartes, but they later found it to be flawed (or otherwise deficient) and so dualism was superseded by other concepts that resolved the shortcomings.
Could a word or two be added to that sentence to let readers know which of those two is more accurate? Noleander (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noleander, thanks for your input. The answer about the correct interpretation probably depends on whether you ask a dualist or a materialist. I added a clarification to explain that they disagree about the same issue without stating in Wikivoice that one is objectively superior to the other since this debate is not conclusively settled. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: May I start another nomination? This one has four supports, an image review, a source review, and is over 1 month old. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. FrB.TG (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dualism/archive1&oldid=1355623151"