Talk:Teleological argument

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• The article contains uncited statements.
• The article relies upon quotes and block quotes in some sections. This creates copyright concerns and makes the article more difficult to read and connect ideas.

Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:If GA discussions lead to every statement needing a footnote, and no blockquotes that let readers see more clearly what was said, then they are pushing for a style of writing which is the opposite of what would be considered good in high quality writing about historical or philosophical topics. If there are specific statements that deserve better citation, and your aim is to improve quality, then why not just say which statements, in a clear and concise manner? Seems easy enough.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

::{{re|Andrew Lancaster}} Sorry that I did not respond to this sooner: I did not see it on my watchlist. The good article criteria requires that every statement be supported by a citation. This does not mean every sentence needs a footnote, as a footnote can verify information in previous sentences. However, it does mean that there should be a footnote at the end of each paragraph, with some exceptions (like the lead, which usually does not have citations per WP:CITELEAD). If you would like, I can add "citation needed" tags to the article to indicate where the citations are needed.

::As for the block quotes: per MOS:QUOTE "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement, and so most of the content should be in the editor's own words." In my opinion, this article uses too many block quotes which makes it difficult for the reader to understand the point that is trying to be conveyed in each block quote. Please ping me in responses so that I can reply more quickly. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Z1720 I doubt the article should ever have received GA status, but I also don't see that as an important priority. What would be far worse would be rushed deletions and tag bombing driven by formal criteria and drive-by editors not interested in the specific issues connected to the article topic and its sources. I am sure the article can and should be improved, but the two recommendations you make are too crude and rushed to be helpful. Acting quickly on them would not be a good idea. If you want to remove GA status please just do so. If you also have more detailed comments these might certainly help in the longer run. But I see no point assuming that we should rush to react on those just to save a GA status.

:::*The article contains a lot of citations, so tag bombing would be a very bad idea. If there are specific sentences or sections with problems, then please do the necessary work and explain those in detail. The last thing this article needs though would be an influx of pro forma B-grade citations, rushed in to save a GA status. If a controversial sentence has no citation, then there should not just be a rush to stick a footnote on it, but also careful consideration about whether the sentence is justified or needs tweaking.

:::*I think your block opposition to block quotes is "personal taste", and not a real WP "law". Broad guidelines like the ones you cite should be used in a sensitive and flexible way, looking at the best sources and controversies, and trying to find the best ways of explaining clearly, and avoiding misunderstandings. In the long run a better version of this article might involve fewer block quotes but removing them quickly as part of a drive to save a GA status would be a bad idea. This specific article covers a difficult and controversial topic. It has been a lot worse, and it could be a lot worse again. I do not want to say that drive-by editing is never useful, but it would always support "real editing", and by real editing I mean editing which has to be driven by the nature of the topic, including common misunderstandings and controversies, and the materials published about it. For example, for some "history of philosophy" topics, the best academic works compare and contrast the classic "block quotes". The best sources about this specific topic are in effect typically structured around a series of important quotes that secondary sources tend to interpret in different ways. Quotation of the originals is therefore often advisable. This could perhaps be done more subtly, but when they are in a rush Wikipedia editors often collect low quality sources from the internet like magpies, and these are particularly problematic for some history of philosophy topics. Such lower level works are often distorted by culture wars, and low level professional debates between academics who do not themselves spend much time on the classical sources they seek to enlist and distort for whatever their position is. If we want to discuss Aristotle then we should for example cite Aristotle experts, people whose work is often structured around block quotes, and not whichever academics are easiest to find online.

:::In summary I don't think that GA status should be used here to encourage rushed editing. This could easily make the article worse. I strongly prefer that discussions about the article content should be based on careful and specific discussions, looking at specific sentences and sections, and the best sources. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::::{{re|Andrew Lancaster}} I am not going to discuss each individual sentence that might need a citation on the talk page, as I do not have that much interest in this article. Per WP:V, information on Wikipedia needs to be cited, and if it is not it might be removed. I don't want to do that, as the information might be useful. Would you be able to look at the uncited statements in the article and add sources to them? Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Wikipedia is made by volunteers working without a WP:deadline. When working properly they are spending time on each sentence by looking at multiple sources, and carefully weighing up the options. I have not looked at this article for a long time, and neither has anyone else as far as I can tell, and I do have other things I need to do. If you can name specific concerns then I can possibly work quickly, but if you are saying you just looked quickly and counted too few footnotes, then sorry but I don't think this is really a high priority right now. If you were to move from threatening to remove GS status, which is fine, to deleting sentences in order to make a WP:point, even when you admit not to have checked if they might be worth keeping, then I would call that disruptive editing. Drive by editors are only playing a positive role on WP if they support real editing. Imposing deadlines and making disruption threats is not going to help this type of article, so if you want to remove the GA status, please just do it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::{{re|Andrew Lancaster}} An article does not have to have a GA designation. If no one is actively updating an article, and it is far from meeting the criteria, then it might be best to delist it for now and re-nominate it when it meets the criteria again. My concerns are not just a couple uncited statements, but several sentences and paragraphs with uncited prose, including uncited block quotes. I also am concerned that some sections need to be expanded, such as "Fideism and rejection of natural theology". If anyone is willing to work on this, I am happy to re-review when the concerns are addressed. If no one is willing to work on it, I will nominate it to GAR in the hopes that someone will adopt the article and improve the article. I have added cn tags to the article to help highlight where citations are missing. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::{{re|Z1720}} thank you for making some of your concerns more specific and concrete, because that can potentially help. As to the GA status I still doubt this article ever really deserved it. I see it as being in a different phase of development for now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::{{re|Andrew Lancaster}} I am happy to do a more thorough review once the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::{{re|Andrew Lancaster}} Are you still planning on working on this, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::{{re|Z1720}} my apologies if I gave the wrong impression. My feeling is that this article is too far from GA level to stress over, and it should loose that status without further ado. I don't think any push to gain it can be very constructive in the short run because this article is too far from that level, and needs a different type of editing effort which is difficult to trigger like this. It is in a building up phase, and needs people interested in the topic to find time and energy. In terms of concrete feedback what you've mentioned so far is the section Fideism and rejection of natural theology which you think should be expanded. I am not intending to work on that at the moment. Your remark about unsourced materials is a bit strange to me. I don't think every sentence needs a footnote, so if you see specific ones then maybe you can tag them. I also don't see blockquotes without citations except in the Fine-tuned Universe section. I am also not intending to work on that. These sections can't be done quickly by me. (I did not create either of these sections FWIW.) In any case I think many bits of this article were probably meant as placeholders for future improvement, by people interested in the topic, and there is in principle nothing wrong with that. More concrete feedback or tags might draw more editors to help, but basically when an article is at this growing and forming phase the main thing to remember is that we are relying on a limited number of potential volunteers who are interested in this topic, and they have no deadline.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{re|Andrew Lancaster}} Would you be willing to bring this to WP:GAR, as you can outline the concerns better than I can? Z1720 (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::This discussion is initiated by you, and to be honest I can't follow what concerns are driving your continuing posts. GA is NOT my concern, but yours, and as far as I can tell ONLY yours. It is not IMHO normal for people interested in GA status to act like this. MY concern is that if you have no interest in this topic, you should please leave the article alone, and of course if necessary get rid of the GA status. It is IMHO indeed not an article at GA level, but simply one which still needs to a different kind of work. It does not need "polishing". It needs more basic work sorting our the raw materials, by people interested in the topic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Just wanted to volunteer as another editor who preliminarily understands the nature of the work that needs to be done, if my availability helps accomplish said work. I have difficulty finding the confidence to self-start on these dense subjects sometimes. Remsense ‥ 论 23:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Would be great. I find your problem very understandable but perhaps if you or anyone else has questions, proposals, ideas, you could post them here. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Teleological argument/1}}

The first sentence in the 4th paragraph of the article has "already" used superfluously and incorrectly. This usage is becoming very common. While I am not opposed to language being a living, changing thing, I think we should keep to accepted correct usage. It needs to be deleted. 174.3.216.108 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I propose merging Natural-law argument into Teleological argument. There's very little content on that page, which is currently a stub, and almost all of it is duplicated here in some form or another. while a longer article on such a topic probably could be created, it makes sense to merge it into this article for now as a redirect with possibilities. Psychastes (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have some sympathy for the idea. It seems to me personally that many of these old argument are in effect the same argument. Still we have to follow published sources, and we also have to consider the fact that if that other article is so short that's basically because no one has worked on it. Once worked out with proper sources it will inevitably be more complicated combine into this one. So I'm feeling uncertain. I suspect that the best method might be to work on getting some reasonable sourcing and definitions into that stub first, including evidence that reliable sources agree with you (which is likely, but I'm not 100% sure).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)