Jump to content

Talk:Holism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Holism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm trying to figure out what happened to this page? There is an incorrect reference to Adler in the opening paragraph and a lot of content seems to have been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall.h.parkersr (talk • contribs) 10:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul Project

[edit]

Greetings. I guess it raises an editorial flag for me that a start-class article containing all of 5 paragraphs involves almost 30 distinct talk topics. This is a Vital Article for the Philosophy wikiproject and, as such, I'm performing an overhaul in the following ways, top to bottom: 1. Readability (Smutz talked at a high level, that doesn't mean we should too). 2. Citations (citations across the board seemed weak in credibility and focus. Some citations did not clearly justify the cited claim (raising concerns over being challengeable). The citations justifying the original definition of holism were,,,not very credible, vague, and nearly unrelated to the interdisciplinary nature of the subject; plus in another place, someone literally cited a dictionary entry which I do not believe appropriately satisfies our encyclopedic citation standards, especially those worthy of a vital philosophical article (it was OED but still, there's scholars we should be referencing here and we can do better). 3. Pictures and relevant captions--besides being a necessary condition for a Good/Featured Article, pictures help a reader follow longer articles visually, making it easy to recall where they might have left off. Plus they're fun! 4. Expansion of material. There's a lot to be said for physics and linguistics, just to name two. 5. Reorganization. Streamlining the structure a bit by separating science from non-science contexts and specifying the non-science disciplines involved even though they are not the "big players" when it comes to the philosophical concept of holism.

As far as addressing concerns in the talk topics.... Some of these entries are old and TL;DR (aren't I one to speak?). I skimmed many, some of the concerns were addressed, others concern sections that no longer exist. RE: Smuts Smuts coined the term but once science got its hands on the word, it took it and ran. Anyone seriously researching this concept (anything more than 2+ hrs of research) will quickly realize this word is simply no longer as controversial as it has been in the context of either Jan Smutz or Alternative medicine. It is a topic of legitimate philosophical and scientific inquiry based on my (cited) research presented throughout the revisions I am going to upload. Holism as an idea that simply has moved on from Smutz. This point alone seems to cover a lot of ground when it comes to responding to the talk topics on this page.

In any case, I'm still preparing my work in a draft page, check it out if I have not applied my overhaul changes yet: User:Non-pegasus/sandbox/Holism draft.

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you🦄Non-pegasus (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Holism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cessaune (talk · contribs) 02:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to review this. Seems interesting. Likely timeline: two weeks. Cessaune [talk] 02:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Sounds good, let me know if you have any questions.Non-pegasus (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's the first half of the review (I'll start from the back):
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: checkY
  • It's a philosophical article, so the images that are currently in the article are fine as is.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: checkY.
  • Not much to say here. No edit warring going on.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Seems neutral. I read through some stuff online, and it seems to give due weight to opinions fairly.
This was the easy part. I'll finish the rest later. Cessaune [talk] 04:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Non-pegasus:
Broad in its coverage: Question?
  • After a check online, it seems to touch on all the important points of the concept. However, it does not touch significantly on criticisms of holism, especially in the context of reductionism. It also needs to go more into depth when it comes to some of the claims it makes (Biological scientists, however, did offer favorable assessments shortly after its first print because? There must've been a reason.)
Verifiable with no original research: Question?
  • A bunch of scholarly articles that, at a glance, are definitely good. I did some digging and it seems that the sources are generally good. The problem here is that certain sections lack inline citations (lifestyle applications for example) and certain assertions are unsourced (The advent of holism in the 20th century coincided with the gradual development of quantum mechanics—is this implying causation? Or is it just correlation?). Every paragraph has to have at least one inline citation, two to be safe.
  • There is also a general lack of links. Given the technicality of the subject, I would expect there to be more links to aid the reader in understanding things. Based on the lack of links, certain sections and sentences look almost OR-ish, and massive swaths of article text are only supported by a single source.
Well-written: ☒N
  • This article is approaching a level of technicality that makes it only minorly understandable to a broad audience. Coupled with the issues below, this issue gets blown out of proportion.
  • The prose is off, and grammar mistakes permeate the article. Three examples:
    1. First, holism is the idea of an empirical whole system with examples including atomic or material systems, cells, and an individual's personality. This reads weirdly. In its contextual bubble, it kind of makes sense, but outside that context, it fails to remain understandable.
    2. The metaphysical claim does not assert that physical systems involve abstract properties beyond the composition of its physical parts, but that there are concrete properties aside from those of its basic physical parts. For instance, theoretical physicist David Bohm (1917-1992) supports this view head-on. For instance? This is incorrect grammar. For instance implies that an example of the previous claim is coming next.
    3. Bohm believed that a complete description of the universe would have to go beyond a simple list of all its particles and their positions, there would also have to be a physical quantum field associated with the properties of those particles guiding their trajectories. The comma should be a semicolon, colon, or m-dash.
  • Each section seems to be walled off into its own little bubble. It reads as if it's talking abot multiple, somewhat-related ideas. Consequently, it simply isn't interesting to read.
Based on all this, I'm going to put this nomination on hold. Please ping me when you think you have adequately addressed the issues I have laid out above. Cessaune [talk] 05:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cessaune,
Thank you for your review, I appreciate the honesty and, as far as I can tell, the accuracy of your feedback. Because of other commitments, I will not be available to address your points concerning breadth, verifiability/OR, and writing to the level of adequacy I assume you're looking for (or the level of adequacy I want out of myself). I wish I had more time to improve its quality within 7 days. I've made a few edits already and will continue making edits when I am able but I understand if you need to fail the review after my 7 day period. I appreciate your careful review over the past 2 weeks and I will keep the feedback in mind as I continue other projects on Wikipedia. It was my first good article nomination so I really mean it that I appreciate your feedback :). Thanks! 🦄 Non-pegasus (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Non-pegasus Outsider chiming in: Notwithstanding that the nomination failed, I congratulate you for your bravery in nominating an article and the work you've put into it! I've done one, and I've definitely been scared off the process for a couple months haha - good luck with your future wiki-endeavours :) ~ Frzzl talk · contribs 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. The amount of effort you've put in (>90% of the article) is staggering, and is also the kind of thing that goes unnoticed. I hope that, one day, this page will be lucky enough to ggrace the Main Page. Happy editing! Cessaune [talk] 03:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! It was very rewarding to develop the article. While I'm developing another article that is closer to my interests and which is taking up a lot more of my wiki-focus, I hope to return to this one and align it closer with our criteria. I appreciate your kind words! 🦄 Non-pegasus (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to be missing quite a bit

[edit]

I noticed there was a good article review that's currently on hold so I thought I should chime in - in it's current state, this article appears to be missing any mention of several important topics in holism, the SEP articles cited here alone [1] [2] [3] mention several types of holism that go entirely undiscussed or only barely mentioned in this article. And there's no mention of confirmation holism, which even has its own article here and also one at SEP.

I'm not sure the claim that Jan Smuts came up with holism is true, either - like the SEP link, most sources I've found seem to credit Pierre Duhem with the development of holism, and he died 12 years before Smuts' book was published, so I think we can rule out Smuts' priority on this. At any rate, not mentioning Duhem at all seems like an omission. - car chasm (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holism&oldid=1288038234"