Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Logic/archive1

Logic

 * Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the study of correct reasoning. It is one of the main branches of philosophy. Since this is a level 2 vital article, it would be great to get it to FA status or at least find out which additional steps would be needed. Thanks to, , , , , , and for your reviews and other feedback on the article. This is my first featured article nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

 * Hi, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to do a source spot-check (although as I am to philosophy what whales are to hang-gliding, I may duck out of doing a general FAC review).  Tim riley  talk   22:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC) (Though in a quick canter through just now I noticed a "criticised" in an otherwise AmE text, and I'm not convinced that "Aristotlian" is a real word.   Tim riley  talk   22:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC))
 * Thanks for your offer! I took care of the spelling mistakes. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawn placeholder
Will leave comments soon. Hope this goes well. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, am fairly pressed for time at the minute. I don't think I'll be able to comment in the detail/quality I want in the next week and a half. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Image review

 * Don't use fixed px size
 * Done


 * File:Philbar_3.png: this needs a tag for the original work for Buddha, a US PD tag for all "others", an author date of death for File:Kant_Raab.tif, and a specific source for File:Andrea_di_Bonaiuto._Santa_Maria_Novella_1366-7_fresco_0016.jpg
 * I added the tags "PD-old-auto" and "PD-US" to Philbar_3.png.


 * You'll need an additional US tag for Buddha. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * I added the author date of death to File:Kant_Raab.tif
 * I'm not sure about File:Andrea_di_Bonaiuto._Santa_Maria_Novella_1366-7_fresco_0016.jpg. Its current source field says "Self-scanned". Should this be changed to "own photograph" or something else?


 * "Scanned" suggests it was copied from a publication - is that what happened, or was it directly photographed? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get your point, thanks for the explanation. I just saw, there is already a discussion to replace that image of Averroes with an image of Avicenna at Template_talk:Philosophy_sidebar. Before I replace the image, would File:1950_%22Avicenna%22_stamp_of_Iran.jpg or File:Qatar_stamp_islamic_figure_(1971),_Avicenna.jpg work in terms of their licenses? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The former needs a US tag and to specify which of the Iranian rationales applies. For the latter it's unclear why it's PD in either the US or country of origin, given the date. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which US license tag would do the job for File:1950_%22Avicenna%22_stamp_of_Iran.jpg. In order not to take too much of your time: is Commons:Village_pump/Copyright the right place to ask this kind of question? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at . Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I used the File:Avicenna_(980_-_1037).jpg for the last image. I composed the original images anew and saved the new image as File:Philbar_4.png. It has the same license tags as File:Philbar_3.png except for the added license of "PD-old" for Avicenna and self-cc-by-sa-4.0 for composing it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * File:First-order_logic.png: see MOS:COLOUR
 * I adjusted the image description in the article accordingly.


 * File:Young_frege.jpg is tagged as lacking source information and needs a US tag
 * I was unable to find a source so I replaced it with File:Wismar Marienkirche Bronzebüste Gottlob Frege (01-1).JPG


 * File:Aristotle_Altemps_Inv8575.jpg needs a tag for the original work
 * I added the tag "PD-old-auto".


 * File:GUILHERME_DE_OCCAM_(1285_-_1347)._Filósofo_inglês,_também_conhecido_como_o_"doutor_invencível"_(Doctor_Invincibilis)_e_o_"iniciador_venerável"_(Venerabilis_Inceptor),.jpg is incorrectly tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with File:Guillaume Occam.jpg
 * I've tried to make the corresponding changes. I'm not sure that I succeeded since my knowledge of image policies is very limited. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Source spot-check - pass
I have so far checked refs 13, 22, 24, 27, 28, 37, 39, 40, 41, 49, 50, 58, 73, 99, 102, 103, 108, 110, 123, 130, 131, 132, 140, 172, 181, 182, 192 and 196 and I had no concerns about the accuracy with which the sources are represented in the article. It is difficult to comment on close paraphrase, as in all but five of the above, two or three different sources are cited. All I can truthfully say is that in the 28 citations I found no close paraphrase from one of the sources listed, but for the citations with two or three sources I have not been able to check against the other sources cited in each case.

Elsewhere there were, I fear, some citations not specific enough to verify. For instance refs 19–22 give a page range of ten pages for Haack 1978 – far too big. Specific page numbers (or very short page ranges) are needed. Likewise for Blair & Johnson 2000, pp. 93–107, Clocksin & Mellish 2003, pp. 237–257, Johnson 1999, pp. 265–274, Korb 2004, pp. 41–70 and others, including, particularly unhelpfully, Walton 1987, where we are expected to wade through pp. 1–32, 1. "A new model of argument" and pp. 63–96, 3. "Logic of propositions". Those sections have subsections that could be cited to narrow the search, but, better, why not give the relevant page numbers from which the quoted information is taken?

And for some of the online articles a similar lack of precision is a stumbling block: for instance although Louis F. Groarke's 15,500-word article has no page numbers to cite, there are section headings that would considerably narrow the search in pursuance of WP:V.

For my own part I am confident that the sources are properly interpreted and presented in the article, and I have found no cause for concern as regards close transcription, but I cannot in conscience sign off this source spot-check until more precise information is given about the location within the sources on which the present text is based. To my layman's eye the article seems superb, but we need to follow due process for FAC. –  Tim riley  talk   19:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the spot-check and sorry for the big page ranges. Especially with a difficult subject like logic, this could take a very long for someone not already familiar with the sources to find the relevant passages. I'll have a look at them and I'll ping you when I have the exact page numbers. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. I hope I covered all the main points you mentioned. There are still a few that are more than 3 pages but I hope it's managable now. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * At first glance this looks more manageable. I'm a bit busy IRL, but may have time to revisit on Tuesday evening or failing that on Wednesday.  Tim riley  talk   16:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That's much more manageable. I have now checked a 15% sample of the references for accuracy and close paraphrase, and have no quibbles on either count. Happy to sign off the source spot-check. Excuse me for ducking out of a general FA review, but this topic really, really isn't within my comfort zone. I could do a purely prose review, if pressed, as long as I haven't got to understand the content of the article, but I'd prefer to leave it to others.  Tim riley  talk   11:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for investing your time into this thorough source check! Let's hope that some other editors start coming for a general review now that we have the source check and the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi . Please do not feel pressured, but as chance would have it, this nom has just received two reviews from editors who seem to know their Ockham from their Organon. As a coordinator, what I would like now is a review from someone not at home with the topic, to see if the article is over-clunky in broad terms to a subject neophyte. Wadaya think? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * By all means. An opportunity to parade my pristine and perfect ignorance is never to be passed up. As it happens I have a rare blank day in my diary tomorrow, so I'll give the text the once-over then.  Tim riley  talk   20:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
Right ho! Further to the above, though I intermittently lost the will to live when things got algebraic, I quite see why excursions into what to me might as well be Babylonic cuneiform are needed, and I can no more carp at such things in this article than I could at, say, Einstein's equations in our General relativity article: I don't understand them but they plainly have got to be there. I sometimes write about music, bandying technical terms about such as "modulation to the mediant, C♯ minor". Same sort of thing. Just can't be avoided sometimes.

The prose, otherwise, seems to me well shaped and as easy to read as a highly technical subject allows, which I think, Gog, is what you're asking about.

On more minor matters, I think there are more blue links than will be helpful to the reader. Does s/he need to be taken away from this page to learn what ambiguous, information, mathematics, reality, science, statistics, vague, and the English language mean? And there are duplicate links to deductive reasoning (twice), informal fallacies, informal logic, and syntax. A shame to smack the reader in the eyeball with a barrage of blue if it isn't necessary.

I wasn't thrilled at the caption for Bertrand Russell's photo: "various significant contributions". The second adjective seems to me a bit slack. Here is Plain Words on "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?' There is another "significant" later in the History section that, again, I don't think is quantifiably significant.

Be all that as it may, you, Gog, have asked me for "a review from someone not at home with the topic, to see if the article is over-clunky in broad terms to a subject neophyte". I think it is written as elegantly and as comprehensibly for the layman as a 4,000+-word article on the subject could be. I believe I got a pretty good idea of what each section is telling us, and from the commanding heights of almost complete ignorance I am happy to support the promotion of the article, particularly as it has the support of people who evidently know what they are talking about. –  Tim riley  talk   11:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review and support! I put up arms against the sea of blue and I hope to limit myself to only significant uses of "significant". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Shapeyness
Hi, might have to do several rounds of comments as I read through. Here are some initial thoughts from the lead. It's well written and clear but I think there's some places where things can be clarified even further. Feel free to push back, most of these aren't necessary for a support and are mostly stylistic. Hopefully I will be able to get to the rest of the article soon and give some comments on the actual body and substance of the article! Shapeyness (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for reviewing this nomination and your helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * at first I was quite sceptical of this being stated in wikivoice immediately in the lead, but after checking a few (philosophy) logic textbooks, this appears to be given quite universally as a definition of logic to introduce the subject. Nonetheless, perhaps there is room in the "Philosophy of logic" section to provide alternative views as I know there is a tradition of non-normative views of logic (i.e. against the view that logic tells us how we should think). On the other hand, I'm aware large overview topics like this need a lot of care to avoid excessive detail, so I'm of two minds about this one. There's also the issue of due weight and there might be more important things to include in that section first if it's expanded.
 * One could also define it as the study of correct arguments or inferences or as the study of the laws of thought. However, I don't think that the difference matters much. If we want to be on the safe side, we could write something like "Logic is often defined as the study of correct reasoning". However, this might be seen as a violation of MOS:REFERS. Some individual views characterize logic differently but the definition presented here is mostly standard. Generally speaking, logic is interested in the norms of correct reasoning while psychology is interested in the empirical observations of how correct and incorrect reasoning actually takes place. The section on the philosophy of logic could be expanded in various ways but I'm not sure that I would focus on this point.
 * I just remembered: a similar point was already discussed a while back at Talk:Logic/Archive_1.
 * Thanks for the link and yep, I agree with the MOS:REFERS point. Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting any change to the lead as it appears this is a very standard definition, just wondered if there was room to include in the body anywhere. But if there are more central problems in phil of logic which would take priority if that section were expanded, then this point is probably best left to the philosophy of logic page and left out of this article. I am probably slightly distorted in assessing due weight here as this is the only area of phil of logic that I have read about! Shapeyness (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. If you have some relevant sources then I would have a look. We could probably add something to the article philosophy of logic and maybe I find a way to fit it into the article logic as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment here with some sources. I will hopefully get through the rest of the article soon and can check whether this issue is generally covered in other sources too. Shapeyness (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a short paragraph on this issue to the article Philosophy of logic. In theory, a similar paragraph could be added to the article Logic as well. However, we would have to attribute this position to Gilbert Harman and it seems to focus primarily on deductive logic. Maybe we could find a place for it in the subsection "Formal logic" but it might be better to leave this topic to the article Philosophy of logic. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, definitely better to leave this to philosophy of logic now that I've looked through a few more sources, sorry intended to have more comments by now but quite busy this week irl. Shapeyness (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you're trying to get across the idea that logic is concerned with form rather than content, but don't want to use the word "form" as this is likely to be unhelpful as a definition of formal logic. I do still think this would be clearer and more helpful if that idea was explicitly included - maybe ?
 * Good point, I implemented your suggestion. It's a little bit more wordy but makes the main point clearer.
 * I think there should be a link to proposition here (possibly also a statement of what a proposition is, although it's probably easier said than done to do that without derailing the lead into needless detail so maybe not)
 * I added the wikilink. We could add something like . I'm not sure if that is helpful or distracting. My hope was that it's clear from the example and the context.
 * I quite like the idea of that little aside, but I leave it up to you as this is a very minor point :) Shapeyness (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Other parts? Logical structure is not a part - should this be ? Maybe I'm misreading the idea.
 * Done.
 * this seems awkward, but I'm not sure what to suggest to improve it, so I'll just leave the comment here and hope it's useful :)
 * One alternative would be to add a new example. But that might bloat the lead. Another option would be to remove the second clause, which would make it a more abstract.
 * More comments to come.
 * Shapeyness ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Unexpectedly busy last week, will hopefully be able to get back on it tomorrow! Shapeyness (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, here are a few more comments below. I will continue working through and should have more comments tomorrow/next few days as well. Shapeyness (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * just wondered if "correct" here is a technical term or just mirroring language of the fact that logic studies correct reasoning stated previously?
 * If we were only talking about formal logic, we could talk of "deductively valid arguments". But the term "correct argument" is better here since it covers both formal and informal logic. For examples of this usage, see and.
 * The only reason I ask is that if "correct" is being used in an everyday way, then this sentence seems a fair rewording of the idea in the sources. But if it's a technical term then perhaps a source that explicitly uses that language would be better to include as well. The Craig 1996 source does refer to correct/incorrect arguments though so could use that one possibly, or if it's not a technical term then no need to add in any additional sources at all. Shapeyness (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can’t find the text that supports this in the Craig source - I can access the other sources but they seem more limited in scope so just wanted to check with this one too.
 * From Craig 1996:
 * From Barnes 2007, p. 274: The position that all logic is formal logic is discussed in more detail in the following two paragraphs on the same page. Have a look if you think this is sufficient. Otherwise, I could try to find a few additional sources.
 * I think another good source would definitely help if it's not too hard to find. The Craig source is great and supporting the first half of the sentence well, but not the second half. The Barnes source is better for the second half but doesn't actually say that view has been held, it is just being put forward for consideration/discussion (maybe that is a little bit nitpick-y but hopefully another source should not be hard to find). And in terms of the Planty-Bonjour source, this seems to be discussing views of logic within the context of marxist ideas in philosophy so a bit more limited in scope; it does verify the last part of the sentence but I would worry about due weight if this was the best source for the claim. I will attempt to look for a source for this too and will let you know if I find anything useful. Shapeyness (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I added one more source that makes this claim explicitly for W. D. Ross and Aristotle's logic. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfect, that source also explicitly states "This is a position about the nature of logic which logicians once subscribed to more widely". I would have suggested this article might be useful but I think this is already well-supported now anyway. Shapeyness (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if sections are provided for the Hintikka 2019 source in citations where possible, e.g. citation 6, not sure if there are other examples too
 * I added the section for citation 6. I'll add the locations for the other mentions of Hintikka 2019 when I have the time.
 * Done.
 * perhaps there could be an extra sentence here on what this means - ok, informal applies not just to language but also to but what does it mean for these things to be formal or informal?
 * I simplified this passage and I added a few examples about the wider scope.
 * Maybe this could be more specific in terms of which is formal/informal - I know it is quite obvious from context and preceding content but still think it might make things clearer. On the other hand, if you think this is the simplest/most concise wording then feel free to ignore!
 * Done.
 * Do you think giving the example of the same proposition in different languages would be useful clarification here or would be straying out of topic? IMO this would make this a little less technical and may help illuminate later on too.
 * Good idea, I added a short example that hopefully makes the difference more concrete.

More comments below - getting through quite slowly but hopefully it's still useful! Feel free to push back on these btw. Shapeyness (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the helpful comment. Please take your time. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Truth tables: can you add a sentence or a footnote explicitly stating that T means true and F means false - I could imagine somebody unaware of the topic being confused
 * Done.
 * I think this should say truth values
 * Done.
 * Can something be added here to show the reader why Tarski’s view matters, why it is being presented. Even just something mirroring the source’s “One popular answer derives from the work of Alfred Tarski”.
 * Done.
 * I think this could be clarified slightly - why does a focus on formality lead to prominence of rules of inference?
 * I reformulated the following sentence: I hope this makes the point clear.
 * Also on this section: there is a paragraph on the first and third feature but not even a sentence on the second
 * The main characterization of the 2nd feature already happens in the paragraph introducing Tarski's view. Do you feel that the second feature needs to be discussed in more detail? My impression is that this not that widely discussed in logic since it belongs more to the field of epistemology. But it would be possible to expand a little on the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
 * I don’t think I understand the idea here - maybe surface and depth information can be quickly defined as this isn’t the most intuitive.
 * I tried to clarify it but this is a difficult point. The explanation of surface and depth information is not absolutely necessary and could be removed if it is not helpful.
 * I found the explanation useful but it depends if anyone else thinks it was better before. Shapeyness (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think maybe “alongside” works better than “besides” here - what do you think?
 * Done.
 * There is no explanation of what a conductive argument is, maybe this can be relegated to a footnote if it is less important?
 * Done.
 * Definitory and strategic rules: are these widely discussed concepts?
 * They are frequently discussed in the philosophy of logic. I don't think that introductory logic textbooks often explain the difference.
 * Maybe this paragraph could be altered slightly and moved to the philosophy of logic section as these concepts seem less central than the others in this section. This is completely optional, in fact I am also using this edit to support! Shapeyness (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions would also work but I'm not sure that it would be a significant improvement. I think discussing this topic in the section "Basic concepts" is not a must but there are also good reasons in favor of it. For example, the Britannica article on logic in general has a main section dedicated specifically to this topic. For now, I think I'll keep it as it is.
 * Thanks a lot for your support, your in-depth reading, and all the detailed suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t follow how the second sentence follows from the first (which seems to be implied by “in this sense”).
 * Good point. It is implied by the sentence before the example but it feels a little out of place so I removed the expression "in this sense".
 * Is the idea of this paragraph that Aristotelian logic uses different types of subjects whereas predicate logic uses different types of quantifier to distinguish between universal and particular propositions? I think this could be made a little clearer.
 * see below
 * An example here might be useful
 * see below
 * maybe it is better to introduce how predicates are used in Aristotelian logic before contrasting with classical logic, otherwise it makes this paragraph look like it is focusing on differences between the two at first glance.
 * I decided to remove the comparison with predicate logic since the main point here is Aristotelian logic and properly explaining the difference would take up too much space.
 * OK, this also works. Shapeyness (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Only a few more comments this time - there may be one set more after this one, not sure yet. Shapeyness (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Should this maybe be in the history section?
 * Yes, it fits better there.
 * I think this sentence is splitting up the sentences before and after it
 * Done.
 * More general question: is there enough that is different in Avicennian logic compared to Aristotelian logic to justify a subsection in systems of logic? I only ask because, from the history section, it seems to be a historically significant form of logic.
 * Avicenna's logic was very influential in the Islamic world. But its influence outside the Islamic world was limited compared to Aristotle. For example, many standard textbooks on logic today discuss Aristotle's syllogistics as a concrete introduction to more abstract ideas. But it's not common to have separate discussion of Avicenna's logic in them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: all of my comments have been addressed and having a final check over the article, nothing else stands out. Shapeyness (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Support from Jens

 * Important article. Will take me some time.
 * Hello and thanks for taking the time to review this article.Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I know that this would add more clutter, but, for general readers like me, it would be really helpful: In the lead, add examples for inductive and abductive arguments when you first mention these terms.
 * Done. I hope that the increased length of the lead is not yet a problem.
 * Arguments that fall short of the standards of correct reasoning are called fallacies. – is it really the argument that is the fallacy (e.g., can you say "your argument is a fallacy"?), or is it the logic mistake in the argument that is the fallacy?
 * Fallacies are often explicitly defined as "bad arguments". See, for example, and . However, the two characterizations do not need to exclude each other, as is argued in.
 * These two definitions of formal logic are not identical, but they are closely related. – I don't fully understand. Aren't these two definitions just describing the very same concept? Or does one definition includes some special cases that the other does not?
 * This is a fine and difficult point. The two definitions disagree about what the essential features of formal logic are. As I understand it, this would pertain to the intension of the concept of logic or what is meant by the term. I'm not sure whether this also affects the extension of the concept of logic, i.e. whether one definition includes some cases that the other does not. The two definitions are discussed in more detail in the article Philosophy of logic in the section "Nature of logic". But a detailed explanation here might go too far.
 * This means that they have a truth value: they are either true or false. Thus contemporary philosophy generally sees them either as propositions or as sentences. – I don't understand why you use "Thus" here. It suggests that the sentence is somehow the consequence of the previous statement, but I can't see that connection.
 * Agreed, the "Thus" is not very helpful here. I removed it.
 * This position is known as psychologism and was heavily criticized around the turn of the 20th century. – I think the "was heavily criticized" part lacks clarification (or, alternatively, should be removed). What is the significance/consequence of this criticism? Is this position now considered to be outdated?
 * I reformulated that passage. One result of the debate (known as Psychologismus-Streit) is that psychologism is not widely accepted today.
 * "If Mars is red, then Mars is red" – is it possible to add a more complicated proposition, too? This one is so simple that I struggle to see the point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed the example to "either Mars is red or Mars is not red". Maybe that makes the point more straightforward. In principle, any tautology could be used as an example. The point is interesting from a logical point of view but from an everyday perspective, logical truths are trivial and uninteresting. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Jens, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will come to it as soon as possible. This article just requires some concentration because of its difficulty, so I have to find a quiet minute. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * A third type of rules concerns empirical descriptive rules. – This paragraph first talks about strategic rules, then about empirical descriptive rules, and then about strategic rules again (in the last sentence). I found this confusing. If "empirical descriptive rules" are really a separate thing, should the three types of rules maybe discussed one after the other?
 * The main contrast relevant to logic is between definitory and strategic rules. I removed the passage on descriptive rules to avoid confusion and keep the focus on the main point.
 * The term "a logic" is used as a countable noun to refer to a particular formal system of logic. – This has already been pointed out in an earlier section ("Formal logic"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence in the section "Formal systems" to avoid the repetition. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * inferences that results – "result"
 * Done.
 * the fallacy of begging the question is a fallacy – Is there an article to link to? I have no idea what this fallacy is about.
 * Done.
 * That's all from me – a very well-made article on a challenging topic. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your useful input! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am supporting. Very nice work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass
Recusing to review.
 * Bibliography: all article titles should be consistently in either sentence case or title case - your choice - irrespective of how they appear in their originals.
 * See next response.
 * Similarly, all book titles should be in title case.
 * I hope I got everything. I was not sure what to do about chapter titles and section headings so I left them as they are. There was one German title for which I did not apply title case.
 * Works which are not cited to should not be in the bibliography. Ie Goertzel et al; Klement 1995a; Okeke
 * Done.
 * Was Invitation to formal semantics ever actually published?
 * I don't think so. I replaced it with another source.
 * Łukasiewicz needs an OCLC. (656161566)
 * Done.
 * Further reading: could we have a page range for Belnap.
 * Done.
 * There is an ISBN available for A Precis of Mathematical Logic. (9789401705929)
 * Done.
 * Principia Mathematica needs an OCLC. (872285723)
 * Done.
 * Encyclopedia of Mathematics needs an ISBN.
 * Encyclopedia of Mathematics links to a website. We could use the ISBN of an early publication, like the CD-ROM version of 1998 (ISBN: 0-7923-4805-2). But I don't know whether the article is the same as the one linked here.
 * My error. I confused it with the book of the same name by James Tanton.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Parts of the first paragraph of the lead are uncomfortably close to the first match picked up by Earwig. Could it be paraphrased.
 * Scientific Research Publishing is a predatory Chinese publisher. The book in question was published in February 2023. It seems the text is a direct copy-paste from an earlier version of this article. For example, see the 2022 version of our article at . I add the template "Backward copy" to the talkpage. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops. Apologies.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)