Template:Did you know nominations/Relations (philosophy)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hey man im josh talk 19:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Relations (philosophy)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that according to some metaphysicians, there are no relations?

• Source:

• ALT1: ... that the relation "being a sibling" is irreflexive because no one can be their own sibling? Source:
• ALT2: ... that in the 19th century, philosophers changed their understanding of relations in response to developments in logic, mathematics, and science? Source:
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Luigia Pizzoli

References

Sources

• Mulligan, Kevin (1998). "Relations: Through Thick and Thin". Erkenntnis. 48 (2/3): 325–353. doi:10.1023/a:1005454805376.
• Heil, John (2009). "Relations". In Le Poidevin, Robin; Peter, Simons; Andrew, McGonigal; Cameron, Ross P. (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics. Routledge. pp. 310–321. doi:10.4324/9780203879306-34. ISBN 978-0-203-87930-6.
• Makridis, Odysseus (2022). Symbolic Logic. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-030-67396-3.
• Bogen, James (2005). Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199264797.
• MacBride, Fraser (2020). "Relations". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 5 October 2023.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 21 past nominations.

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC).

• Freshly promoted GA, looks quite solid, not copyvio. ALT0 and ALT1 are good hooks, correctly sourced and interesting. For ALT2, the sources could be a bit more explicit about the 19th century, but I agree this is correct. I am not sure it is as interesting as the other two. QPQ has been done. Approved. —Kusma (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)