User talk:SebastianHelm/Philosophy

SEP as a source
SEP is not a physical book. I have primarily relied on Adamson (2015), which Teishin also has access to. I find this a very problematic change to the proposal you made last night. I don't think we should limit Wikipedia's reliable source policy. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think it was a bit of Chinese whispers: I already misunderstood EdJohnston a bit, and you further misunderstood me. Of course we shouldn't generally limit our sources. But it may make sense to focus on one source (and particularly one that's different from the source primarily used so far) for a limited time. The fact that it's not a book will make it easier for us, though, since we won't have to worry about item 3 of the agreement. Let's see what Teishin has to say about this. ◅ Sebastian 23:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, but I much prefer books. I just cannot read a website in-depth on desktop or my eyes will kill me (yes, I see the irony of complaining about that on this platform, but editing is different). This is a subjective problem, but that's why I think we should allow sources more freely: we all have different requirements/preferences and one source is not going to work for everyone. Instead, I suggest the following: all new references will include the key passage as a direct quotation in the citation footnote. This can then be searched for in Google Books for verification. I have checked the two books I have used, Adamson (2015) and Sellars (2018), and it should work for both of them. I am unlikely to use more than these books, though if Teishin wants to use further sources, I am all for it. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

At this point, SebastianHelm tried to close the discussion with 


 * "SEP is not a particularly good source for the topic" is a mischaracterization of my position. My point is that they don't have an article that summarizes Hellenistic philosophy which we could use as a point of comparison. The SEP has plenty of good content about Hellenistic philosophy. Teishin (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I guess in the result description I oversimplified your – and Keepcalmandchill's – position. How would you guys reword the discussion result description? Can you both agree with “We will not use SEP as a model for how to approach this topic, since both T and K agree that SEP has no article which we could use as a point of comparison.”? ◅ Sebastian 14:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Reposted question for Teishin: Does the new wording address your concern? If not, please suggest a different wording. ◅ Sebastian 22:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources in general
This issue about sources is of central concern. Before EdJohnston suggested using the SEP as a source, I had recommended we consider the choices the IEP (https://iep.utm.edu/) and Britannica had made in deciding what topics to cover for their pages for Hellenistic philosophy. I would have mentioned the SEP too, as I did check it, but they don’t even have an article on the topic – a decision that seems wise to me, and rather close to how Wikipedia has handled the matter for the past decade, providing an article with little commentary that was mostly just links to philosophies and philosophers commonly considered to be Hellenistic.

As keepcalmandchill has explained, they’re opposed to the use of such sources. They instead wish to rely entirely on sources that I have concerns about, specifically introductory survey books such as Adamson’s which present story-like narratives to give a brief overview of a large amount of intellectual history. I have concerns about the use of such sources as they have idiosyncrasies about how the author chooses to organize and present their narratives. Take the Cynics as an example. The Cynics can be discussed as part of the Classical period in which they arose, or they can be discussed as part of the Hellenistic period, with which they are most associated, or they can be discussed piecemeal over the hundreds of years in which the movement flourished. One author might choose to cover the Cynics connection with the Socratic tradition. Another author might wish to point out that the Cynics’ connection with Socrates was likely a later fabrication. In any case, in an introductory survey book much detail has to be left out and the author must weave a narrative to cater to the reader’s attention. Such books were not designed to be reference books. They’re quick and dirty introductions for novices. Reliance on just a couple of these introductory survey books is hardly a sufficient basis for structuring a coherent encyclopedia article about such a complex subject.

Similarly, keepcalmandchill has elsewhere expressed opposition to even considering what Wikipedia’s articles have to say about aspects of Hellenistic philosophy, considering it irrelevant that claims they wish to introduce into Hellenistic philosophy about, for example, the Cynics, are contradicted on Cynicism (philosophy).Teishin (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. This may be a good problem to start with. So it sounds like you, Teishin, would prefer, just like EdJohnston did, if I understand him correctly, that we all use at least some sources together. Since you seem to agree with Keepcalmandchill that SEP wouldn't work here, let's drop that. Is there no source that both of you can agree with? Keepcalmandchill, would you agree with one of the online sources that Teishin suggested if you had it on paper? If so, how about printing it out – wouldn't that solve your problem? ◅ Sebastian 16:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If one looks at the sources used in our articles about individual Hellenistic philosophies or topics within those philosophies, one will see ancient texts, academic books, academic journal articles, and specialized encyclopedias, such as the IEP or SEP. For examples of what is considered best one can look at the highly rated articles in WikiProject Philosophy/Ancient/Popular pages. In this subject area, citations from introductory survey books are so rare as to be perhaps non-existent, and for good reasons. I'm not unhappy with the SEP; I'm just pointing out that the SEP has made a possibly wise editorial decision not to have a summary article about Hellenistic philosophy. It has plenty of articles about individual Hellenistic philosophies and topics within Hellenistic philosophy.Teishin (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I understand what you mean. There are more specialized sources, and you would prefer to work with those. We will eventually reach that point. For now, while we're still in the phase of coordinating with one another so that we can repair the trust that got damaged during the conflicts that led to the WP:Dramaboard, I would like to follow Ed's advice to keep things simple by agreeing on one source that we can scrutinize together. That's actually not how I usually do these things, but I like the idea and want to give it a try. ◅ Sebastian 20:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I took Ed's suggestion to mean that we should look at how encyclopedias that specialize on philosophy, such as the SEP, handle the matter rather than meaning we should prize one source above others. If we were to take the SEP as a guide, then either we would conclude that this article should not exist or that it should mostly be a list of links to other articles - which is what our article looked like for a decade until this month.
 * (off topic talk removed per agreement #2.2)
 * First, the subject is complex and there's a heterodoxy of views. Second, it is subject to partisanship. We have revivalists arguing about this stuff. There are even organizations running ads on Google to persuade people to reject Stoicism. While a book author can produce a coherent comparison, a crowdsourced encyclopedia has the potential to produce lots of friction trying to do so. These philosophies are tantamount to religions. My understanding is that keepcalmandchill thinks #2 is worth doing. I find the prospect daunting, and the idea of engaging in it based on the narrow views of a couple of authors of introductory survey books - one of whom is Sellers, who is strongly connected with the Modern Stoicism movement - worrisome.Teishin (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, your first sentence expresses how I now understand Ed's suggestion, too. From the second or third sentence on, most of your post doesn't really fit under the headline “Sources in general”. A better place would be the next section, or, more specifically, a section on the article Hellenistic philosophy. But before we can reply to your points, we first need to reach a conclusion about whether we want (a) or (b) there. It seems to me, your #1 and #2 presuppose (a). Can you please clarify that below? Once we have agreement there, it would be valuable if you could post your further reaching conclusions (with adjustments as needed, depending on the outcome of the discussion there) in that section. Points that fit under the headline are the information that “There are even organizations running ads on Google to persuade people to reject Stoicism.”: I know that these philosophies used to be tantamount to religions, but I had no idea that they still are for people to the extend that they'd pay for a Google ad. Personally, I have an eclectic view on these philosophies, and I've never met anyone who approached one of them with the conviction of a religious believer. But I take your word for it. (off topic talk removed per agreement #2.2) ◅ Sebastian 15:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Reply by Teishin has been moved to section .
 * After moving the reply, I had to remove the off topic talk from the preceding messages, includying my own quip, per our agreement #2.2. ◅ Sebastian 16:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Reposted question for Teishin: Do your #1 and #2 presuppose case (a)? If not, name one example (no more than two lines) for each that can exist without case (a). ◅ Sebastian 22:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

What article to begin with?
Original title of this section: Do we even need a full article on Hellenistic philosophy?

The question raised by Teishin above whether it is better for Wikipedia to (a) expand the article on Hellenistic philosophy or (b) keep it rather small is a good one, too. If you both agree on option (b), we can bring this whole project quickly to a close – at least for now. Of course, since we don't WP:OWN the article, we can't prevent someone else from expanding it. What would we do then? ◅ Sebastian 16:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC) amended 19:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Correction: The above contained a thinko: Of course the problems aren't limited to the article Hellenistic philosophy, but to a set of articles that fit under this topic. So our work here won't be done if we decide on option (b). Still, it would make sense to first tackle the overarching article, wouldn't it? ◅ Sebastian 20:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I completely disagree with (b). This whole discussion has its roots in my edits being reverted. I would not have spent this much time arguing about it if I had been fine with how the article was. Although, in a kind of personal Streisand effect, attempts to keep me from editing in this area have made me much more keen to do so. Without the drama I probably would have left it at Hellenistic philosophy and moved on. Now I reckon I'll be editing many more ancient philosophy articles for a long time to come. I have no rush and the challenges feel stimulating in a way that editing articles with zero attention never does. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But yes, we should first focus on the main article. I am definitely happy to then start looking at the sub-topics, since I think that philosophy is criminally underemphasized in Wikipedia (Jimmy was recently in Tyler Cowen's podcast, where this was brought up). Very glad that you are on board to help undertake this massive project, Sebastian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepcalmandchill (talk • contribs) 03:00, 27 November (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clear (and positive) reply. Teishin, what do you say? ◅ Sebastian 14:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (off topic talk removed per agreement #2.2)
 * If one wants to expand Hellenistic philosophy, one should be aware of the issues about the taxonomy. It has historically been common to apply an Aristotelian taxonomy that shifts the Cynics and Cyrenaics to the Hellenistic period (if not ignoring the Cyrenaics entirely) to present a picture of Aristotle as being the culmination of the Classical period, to which philosophy eventually reverts. This is not accurate, and it is objectionable to Modern Stoics as it obscures their Socratic lineage. Even the category of pre-Socratics is disputed, famously by Onfrey. Despite its ubiquity, it is a modern invention that tends to distort the history of the non-Socratic schools.
 * (off topic talk removed per agreement #2.2) Teishin (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Teishin, (off topic talk removed per agreement #2.2) . Can we hear a clear statement from you what article you would prefer us to begin with? ◅ Sebastian 15:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * b. Teishin (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (moved here from previous section) Sticking with option (b) – a thin article like we’ve had for the past decade – seems to me to be the most achievable course of action under our current circumstances. Option (a) – expanding it substantially – looks not only difficult, but perilous if introductory survey books are being relied upon as sources, and most particularly if we go beyond brief summaries (option a.1.) to engage in comparative philosophy (option a.2.). My understanding is that keepcalmandchill rejects option (b) and wants to do both (a.1.) and (a.2.) relying on Adamson’s and Sellers’ introductory survey books. Further, I understand keepcalmandchill’s position to be that the burden of proof regarding objections to references from those introductory survey book sources is on the objector, not on whether those quick-and-breezy sources have presented encyclopedia-worthy information. I see the big problem with option (a) being due to the methodology, as it is so prone to introducing error into Wikipedia, and especially for (a.2.), friction about competing interpretations. Further, I’m not thrilled with the prospect of the investment of my time to achieve option (a). I got pulled into this because errors were being introduced, not because I volunteered to generate a major overhaul. If option (a) is pursued, it would be best to try to recruit a team of editors who have already made substantial contributions within the subject area. It would also be important to ensure that content added as part of this project was congruent with content elsewhere in Wikipedia about the subjects covered.Teishin (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Teishin, if we want any chance for success, we need to first tackle the big questions before going into detail. Since the details are interwoven with the big questions, I am asking you to please rewrite your message so that it does not presuppose decisions that aren't ripe yet, as I asked you in my message of 15:00, 27 November in the previous section.
 * For now, the only information I am taking from Teishin's message is that seems to be OK with starting with the article Hellenistic philosophy, but favors option (b) over option (a). So there is currently disagreement about whether we should start with plan (a) or plan (b). Keepcalmandchill, since option (b) is much easier, how about we start with option (b) first, and if that goes well, we can still decide whether next to proceed with (a) or with another article? ◅ Sebastian 17:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC), amended 17:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what I wrote accurately presented my thoughts on the question. My view is that option (b) represents the state of the article before this month. There is no such article then that needs to be "started". I understand that keepcalmandchill views option (b) this way, too, as they said "...I completely disagree with (b). ... I would not have spent this much time arguing about it if I had been fine with how the article was." So, to effect option (b) all that needs to be done is to revert the article to how it read at the beginning of November and we are done. This seems to me to be prudent. As keepcalmandchill rejects option (b), it seems appropriate for me to discuss the problems with option (a). I don't see how such a discussion presupposes decisions. It looks to me that I am discussing the issues with choice being presented.Teishin (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Teishin, we're not here to accurately follow each of our thoughts with all possible ramifications, but to reach a decision. Currently, your message contains one misunderstanding and one nonsequitur:
 * Nobody said that an “article ... needs to be "started"”. We need to start working in a way that we can overcome the personal problems that led to ANI. This start doesn't have to focus on an article; in fact, we could just go back to the edit warring noticeboard decision that you could not do any change without prior consensus. That is a tried and proven start; it's just one that I wanted to spare you guys.
 * Your statement “As keepcalmandchill rejects option (b), it seems appropriate for me to discuss the problems with option (a).” is a non sequitur, which blithely ignores other options – even that of the compromise I suggested, which should be rather along the lines of what you prefer.
 * That said, your statement that Hellenistic philosophy (a) would be very simple is a point in favor of doing that first. But if no agreement for Hellenistic philosophy (a) can be reached, then I would like to hear a suggestion what else we can start with. I would believe an article would be best as a common goal, which is why I named this section accordingly, but I'm open for any other suggestion. ◅ Sebastian 18:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I edited the above to precede the “(a)”, which is in fact a suboption, not an option, with the option “Hellenistic philosophy” so that we can keep our view open for the wider options. ◅ Sebastian 18:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that going back to EdJohnston's resolution would be a good idea. Teishin (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not an answer to the question, because to my knowledge EdJohnston did not make a statement about what article or other common goal to start with. If by “EdJohnston's resolution”, you mean the resolution of ANI/EW/Teishin_reported_by_User:Keepcalmandchill_(Result:_Both_warned) then it does not suffice here. Please read the note on User:SebastianHelm/Philosophy for that. ◅ Sebastian 22:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Reposted question for Teishin: Please name an article that we should start with. Just one link, please; no additional text necessary. ◅ Sebastian 22:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Disengagement?
, Seeing as Teishin seems to have disengaged from this discussion, should we just move on without them? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not disengaged. Teishin (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * “Disengaged” is a fair word. Teishin, we have been waiting for replies from you for 11 days in all three sections above: (1) was reopened per your objection, and your reply to the question whether the correction addressed your concerns was needed for closure. (2) At, do your #1 and #2 presuppose (a)? (3) At , a suggestion what else we can start with. (Of course, suggestions for an alternative by Keepcalmandchill are welcome, too.) Please write your replies in the appropriate sections.
 * That said, maybe the disengagement includes articles or edits that are contentious, since I have not heard a complaint about any such edit. If that remains the case for some time, and both of you feel comfortable with the situation, we can close this page without having to drill down into the details. ◅ Sebastian 09:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not see anything I was supposed to respond to. (off topic talk removed per agreement #2.2) Teishin (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Teishin, please! Stay on topic. Your rambling here is not what you have been asked, and I will once again remove it. What part of “Please write your replies [to the mentioned questions] in the appropriate sections.” don't you understand? (Hint: To find a question, look for a question mark.) We are here to accomplish a task, which is to enable constructive editing for both you and Keepcalmandchill. If you rather continue to be unconstructive here, and if I catch you performing controversial edits in the area of Hellenistic philosophy, I will have to take appropriate administrative action. I'm sorry that it has come this far; I had thought one could reason with someone interested in Hellenistic philosophy, but it is starting to look like I was mistaken. ◅ Sebastian 14:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I am addressing the topic. I really do not understand what your problem is with my answers. Most of what I edit here is Hellenistic philosophy. Philosophy is full of controversy. That's why I keep warning to stay away from turning the article into comparative philosophy. I think that the thing to do with this article is to return it to the status quo ante.Teishin (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, the problem is that you are not answering the questions. Or, put differently, the problem with what you call “answers” is that they are no answers to the questions you have been asked. It is becoming increasingly hard to come up with a good faith explanation for your “I really do not understand”. But I will try once more. For your sake, I'm reposting the questions at the bottom of each of the above three sections. Please simply write your answers under each question. ◅ Sebastian 22:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears that not only Teishin, but also Keepcalmandchill disengaged - apparently executing what may be described as a self-imposed interaction ban with Teishin. That, too, would be a solution of the problem that led to the ANI notice. Unless I hear differently, I will therefore also disengage and tomorrow or in the next days close this little project. ◅ Sebastian 13:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sebastian I have not disengaged, or else I would not have commented just 24 hours earlier. I am ready to start editing the articles in question, but was waiting for a green light. If you don't wish to be a part of this anymore, thwn I suggest returning it back to ANI. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, one message in two weeks - that really is engagement⸮ There are some questions that I hoped you, too, would answer, Keepcalmandchill. But don't bother, we can close this endeavor. It has had some positive effect since there have been no complaints about both your and Teishin's behavior in the area of common interest, as can be seen from the fact that User:SebastianHelm/Philosophy/watchlist is still empty.
 * Therefore, there is no need for yet another thread at ANI now. You already have an administrator here listening to you; if you choose to not reply to his questions then don't think you can go admin shopping until you find one whose questions you find more to your taste. One of the questions none of you replied to was the question above, whether you feel comfortable with the situation and we can close this page. I took your silence as agreement, and am therefore disappointed that one of you now says otherwise. That leaves us with the simple solution as follows: ◅ Sebastian 15:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "There are some questions that I hoped you, too, would answer". I don't understand this. You did not address any questions to me, so what exactly should I have answered? It had appeared to me that you understood my positions very well. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My advice to you is the same as that to Teishin: To find questions, look for a question mark. There are several that were adressed to you, too. That said, you did do better in answering questions and consequently I think I did understand you better than Teishin. Still, this whole little project was not intended as an interrogation; the Q&A format was only the lowest common denominator. I had hoped for active participation, with the creativity of three intelligent people geared towards solving the common problem at hand. This can be done, even in much fiercer conflicts – I have experienced that before and found it very rewarding. ◅ Sebastian 16:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I am now closing this case by extending EdJohnston's ruling to the article Western philosophy. The next person who makes an edit at Hellenistic philosophy or Western philosophy is risking a block unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. However, I will add a way out: If, after 3 months, I can verify that things have gone well, I will lift the restriction. ◅ Sebastian 15:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with this rule if I understand correctly that the condition for its removal in three months is that we haven't broken it in that time. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Clarification, though: I will not act mechanically like a stopwatch or a robot, but form an opinion also by looking at other relevant information, such as behavior in edit conflicts with others. ◅ Sebastian 16:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Rewording of clause 1
I just realized that the reason I may not have heard a complaint could be that clause 1 of our agreement is worded such that it presupposes that both are editing. But the case of one person editing an article and the other one restraining themself still warrants an alert. Moreover, I want to focus on the edits, not on editors. I therefore would like to rename that sentence to “As soon as there is a contentious edit to an article, ...” Is that OK? ◅ Sebastian 09:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The concern I have is about the introduction of erroneous information, which is particularly likely through the use of introductory survey books as sources. This is my complaint. My experience is that it is much harder to get errors addressed than it is to introduce proper information. In just the past few days I've had to deal with an editor determined to add erroneous information to Zeno of Citium and Porphyry, and another who added erroneous information to Zeno of Citium that I had to resort to pinging my network to find the ammendation for it. If folks are dead-set on the idea that this article must be expanded, I suggest trying to recruit editors who have made substantive contributions to the articles about the various Hellenistic philosophies to participate. Teishin (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, please clearly reply to the question. Is the suggested wording OK, and if not, what alternative do you suggest? ◅ Sebastian 14:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (off topic talk removed per agreement #2.2) Teishin (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

What is this whole discussion about?
(This was originally written under the question of 22:18, 9 December in section, but it is fundamental enough to deserve its own section)

I am bewildered by why this is being asked. My understanding is that this discussion has to do with the content of Hellenistic philosophy -- just that one link. My understanding is that these references to "article" have been referring to what kind of content Hellenistic philosophy should contain (i.e., an article of mostly links, an article of extensive summaries, an article of comparative philosophy.) Teishin (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As you may remember, this whole little project was started as a way to solve the ANI case User:Teishin acting in an insulting and unconstructive way. Common ways to solve such cases are blocks or bans. I wanted to avoid those, since I was under the impression that both of you were well-meaning editors. That, and the fact that I find the topic interesting, was why I sought a different approach, one that would allow both of you to cooperate productively. but one that also would take more of my time than the usual solutions. You seem to confuse this case with another case, ANI/EW/Teishin_reported_by_User:Keepcalmandchill_(Result:_Both_warned), which concerned only one article, Hellenistic philosophy (and only edit warring). The case we are trying to solve here has a wider scope – as I'm rereading it, I notice that it even encompasses the wide field of Western philosophy, which agrees with my impression that the issues between the two of you were not just about a specific article, and not limited to edit warring. To sum it up, this is not just “that one link” and in the question of the above section “” the word “article” really means “article”. ◅ Sebastian 00:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As was mentioned in the ANI case, that case was a duplication of the other case. Seeing them as the same does not appear to me to be a confusion but a correct identification. Similarly, the issue associated with Western philosophy is substantively the same as the issue about Hellenistic philosophy regarding what that article says about Hellenistic philosophy. Again, one topic. As for that one topic, I have been trying hard to focus on it. It is about the introduction of inaccuracies, the problems of sourcing, and the introduction of contentious claims associated with comparative philosophy. These are the substantive issues: they are about what we say about Hellenistic philosophy and what we deem to be encyclopedia-worthy sources and narratives for such broad topics. The scope of the issue is actually narrow. It is about articles that sum up the philosophies. Teishin (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)