Talk:Nihilism/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 17:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Patrick Welsh (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I hesitate to review this because the nom has broken the process down to a science, and I do not wish just to spot-check and rubber-stamp. But I believe I have some productive suggestions — even if in excess of GAN requirements — that I can make here just as well as I could at peer review. User:Phlsph7 knows the policies and guidelines better than me and is, as always, encouraged to push back against any nonconstructive suggestions. Comments forthcoming!

Hi Patrick Welsh and thanks for reviewing this nomination! Depending on how it goes, I was hoping for an FA nomination at some point, so any comments you have beyond the minimal GA requirements are appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I will be taking part in this review as an experienced editor for the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025. I'm excited to work alongside Patrick Welsh, I have outlined my process with GAN reviews at User:IntentionallyDense/October 2024 GAN backlog drive if you are curious. If you (or the nominator) have any questions at all feel free to reach out on my talk page or ping me here. Patrick Welsh I noticed that you are interested in making this an especially thorough review and seeing as Phlsph7 wants to take this to FAC would you be okay with me taking a bit more of a hands-on approach and providing some extra feedback that I wouldn't usually? If you want to do this more independently, I am more than happy to allow you to do so, but I thought I would put that out there as an offer. Cheers! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense, thanks taking this on—and checking in with me. Please by all means be as hands-on as you like. I learned a lot about GAN working alongside Phlsph7 to bring Philosophy up to GA, and I welcome the opportunity to work with an experienced reviewer from the other side of the process.

I'm expecting that my focus will be on content issues in excess of the GA requirements to help get the article ready for FAC. But other issues may crop up along the way, and I'll be curious to see what suggestions you might have that would not have occurred to me.

This weekend is busy for me, but I should have comments to post Monday or Tuesday.

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. You are probably more knowledgeable than me on philosophy in general but hopefully I can provide some help with some of the technicalities. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense: Thanks for taking a look at the article, I'm looking forward to your comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that I will be on vacation until May 17th and therefore won't be able to provide much input till then. Cheers!IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 23:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see this until after posting below and pinging you. Letting it sit for a few extra days in order to get some additional feedback is completely fine with me. Thanks for letting us know. Enjoy your vacation! Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

It's going to be a few days before I can read this closely enough to provide detailed comments. Please bear with me.

One thing I can say now though is that I was surprised to see literature come up multiple times without getting a section of its own. Nihilism is a philosophical concept, and so I don't have any issues with passing the article on GA criteria 3A&B. At FAC, though, I would probably object that this is a shortcoming in comprehensiveness (criterion 1B). I would think that both Fathers and Sons and "The Grand Inquisitor" deserve a paragraph each. Beckett (esp. Endgame) is also a strong candidate for his own paragraph.

I added sentences on Dostoevsky and Beckett to give some additional details on nihilism in literature. I didn't mention The Grand Inquisitor in particular since it does not get much attention in the works that I'm familiar with. For example, I don't think that Stewart 2023 "A History of Nihilism in the Nineteenth Century" mentions the Grand Inquisitor anywhere even though it focuses on that particular century. Fathers and Sons gets close to a paragraph in the section "Other forms" and is also mentioned in two other places in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

In the other arts, I'm not convinced Fountain is a great example, but I will look at the sources on this. I do support the inclusion of something from the visual arts. The films mentioned are also very much on topic. It would be nice if the article discussed one or two of those listed in a little more detail. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The example of the Fountain is given in Manschreck 1976 p. 89. I guess it's a good example of the Dadaist brand of nihilism but not necessarily a good representation of other forms of nihilism. I'm open to more ideas related to visual representation since it is a difficult topic to depict. I would also like to include more on movies but the main sources that I'm familiar with have very little information on movies. For example, if you look at the references given for the movies, they are not overview sources on nihilism. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

(sorry jumping in here) do sources allow you to say that the movie only represents one view of nihilism? Are there sources discussing the lack of visual media on nihilism? If so both would be great additions to the article but I get that sourcing can be tricky. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Our current formulation says In cinema, elements of nihilism are found in movies such as.... That leaves it open whether they all present elements from the same view or from different views. There are some sources on visual art, like Dadaism, but not a particularly influential coverage compared to philosophy. My impression is that it is not so much a lack of existence of those representations but a lack of prominence. I would have to go through the sources again, but I don't remember any specific discussion of the reasons for this. I presume one reason is that nihilism is relatively abstract and therefore difficult to represent. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The publisher's description of the overview source Gertz (2019) promises a discussion of prestige television. A brief inspection of the text, however, suggests that this is a distorted description introduced by someone in the marketing department at MIT Press. Nevertheless, specific shows are mentioned a way that authorizes the use of such shows as examples (p. 114). So even though I now agree that a dedicated section would probably be undue, it would still be nice to mention such pop cultural texts wherever it might serve to helpfully illustrate a philosophical point. A monograph that shows up in an Amazon search for just "nihilism" is Nihilism in Film and Television: A Critical Overview from Citizen Kane to the Sopranos (2006) by professor of the humanities Kevin L. Stoehr. I haven't read it and you certainly don't need to include it, but it's an example of a high-quality source the makes the pop-cultural link to nihilism explicit. Not required even for FAC-level comprehensiveness, but I suspect many readers would appreciate any appropriate mentions. Don Draper probably has better name recognition than even Nietzsche. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I added a sentence on Citizen Kane based on the book you suggested. As I understand it, the point of Gertz 2019 p. 114 is slightly different: it's not about these shows being nihilistic, it's about viewer using these shows as an escape from reality. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

You're right about Gertz. I was using the search function on a digital copy (with increasing exasperation) and didn't read enough of the surrounding context. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Due coverage

This is a challenging topic to cover concisely in an encyclopedic manner. Some of issues are similar to those I confronted editing Postmodernism: it has pejorative connotations and would be rejected by most thinkers to whom it is applied (except also some people embrace it); it's both philosophical and political (but not always in quite the same sense); and it has currency in non-academic discourse that is probably important to discuss, but which also muddies the waters and can be a nightmare to source. I did not resolve these issues to my own satisfaction for that article, and I do not expect we will resolve all of them here. This just seems worth stating at the onset. Feel free to point me back to these remarks if I make requests that are unreasonable given the nature of the subject and the constraints of WP.

To help establish a baseline for due coverage, I consulted five non-expert, general-purpose sources: Britannica[1], a 1990 World Book Encyclopedia, Meriam Webster[2], Dictionary.com[3], and the OED. I also searched some of the reference collections available through the Wikipedia Library.

These all support a strongly philosophical treatment, which is what the article provides with impressive clarity. They also all support a TOC-level section on the Russian nihilist movement, which is also supported by the preexisting child article (on the basis of which further treatment here should still be kept sort and sweet). These[4][5] are two possible sources. I realize that this is indeed mentioned multiple times in the article. Nevertheless, it gives me pause that a specific movement that is literally part of the dictionary definition of the term does not appear in the TOC and is mentioned only indirectly in the lead.

See the comments below on political nihilism. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Contrary to my earlier suggestion, they do not support a section dedicated to fiction. If inclined, however, they do support more discussion of Fathers and Sons. The Translator's Introduction to my copy (Michael R. Katz: Norton, 1992) says "nihilism" is defined in a "key passage". He doesn't bother to say what that definition is or to provide a page reference, but it might be worth tracking down to at least include in a footnote.

These general sources also support additional emphasis on the extent to which nihilism is associated with the loss or rejection of religion (esp. Christian) faith. To me, this gets a bit lost among all the conceptual distinctions. I'd at least mention it explicitly in the lead. Otherwise, just note this and exercise your own editorial judgment about whether the article would benefit from additional changes.

Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to try to target further remarks to specific sections. Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Addition: Since it's not featured in secondary overview sources, there's no need to discuss The Brothers Karamazov. But it might be a useful example, especially if you agree the article would benefit from a little more discussion of nihilism in relation to Christianity. The World Book mentions the book by name in its three-paragraph entry, and "The Grand Inquisitor", in particular, is widely anthologized and will likely be familiar to a lot of those folks who read past the lead. One of the top hits on my Amazon search (for whatever little this might be worth) was Against Nihilism: Nietzsche meets Dostoevsky by professor of humanities Maia Johnson-Stepenberg. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I added a sentence on The Brothers Karamazov. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

"Definition, related terms, and etymology"

This section does an excellent job of handling the uneven semantic contours of the term. I especially appreciate the differentiation of nihilism from pessimism, absurdism, cynicism, and apathy. One other term often muddled together with these is "existentialism". "Existential nihilism" is treated in the next section, but if it's possible to clarify the relation of nihilism to existentialism in general, that would be a great addition. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I added a sentence on existentialism. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Great. Rereading it, I would consider removing apathy unless it is discussed by more than just one nihilism-specific source. If I understand things correctly it is an involuntary subjective state, whereas the others are all philosophical positions or active stances toward the world.

Also, I think Philosophical pessimism is probably a better target than Pessimism in this context. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the link. I'm not sure about apathy. It's not essential but other sources also discuss it or related concepts (like not caring or detachment) in relation to nihilism, such Stewart 2023 and Stoehr 2015, so I'll keep it for now. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

"Ethics and value theory"

As with previous articles, all of these free-floating views makes me crazy. In a bad mood, there's a lot of stuff here that I could tag with who/whom?!?!. But apparently even at FAC no one else cares about this. If there's anyone significant enough to have a WP article, please consider mentioning them by name. Otherwise, I have zero interest in arguing the general point.

The people that you do name are to my knowledge the most significant. Excellent.

I've never seen anyone align Nietzsche with anarchism. This might just be because I have a limited knowledge of the secondary literature. But if it's not well-supported by secondary sources or is a marginal reading of N., I would consider qualifying or removing this claim. I have not checked any of the four sources, but, based on the titles, they do not appear to be reliable secondary sources on N specifically. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I removed the mention of anarchism: the source links it to moral nihilism but not to Nietzsche in particular.

I usually try to mention it if a view has its own name or is associated to a specific philosopher or school of thought. However, there are often widely held views in a particular area for which neither is the case. One solution would be to just select a random philosopher who holds this view and attribute it to them, but I feel that this misrepresents the situation, suggesting that it is primarily the view of this philosopher. In such cases, a weasel phrase may be the best solution, especially if the sources themselves do not attribute it to anyone in particular. I'm not sure if that's the case for all the free-floating views. If you have concerns about specific cases, I can look into them. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I struggle a lot with the "should this have a name attached to it" as well. In general, I tend to take a similar approach to you, if it's a big name, absolutely include it. The only caveat here is that sometimes there are big names in Academics which laypeople don't know and that including names for every belief can also mess with prose. I appreciate the mix here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

"Epistemology"

The same point again here (and to save us time, again immediately below): Naming a particularly prominent or representative proponent of the views presented would be helpful to readers at all levels. We should not be left wondering whether anyone actually holds some possible view presented in the passive voice.

If Agrippa's trilemma is worth a footnote, maybe add a sentence or two saying what it is?

I fear that a discussion of Agrippa's trilemma might need too much space. We first have to say what the three different options. Skepticism only follows if none of them is accepted, so we would have to explain why this could be the case. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

N. saw belief systems as expressions of the will to power, intended to assert dominance rather than represent reality.: Could you replace "intended" with something that could not be interpreted as a matter of subjective choice? I'm pretty sure that N. takes himself to be describing a metaphysical fact, and, if I'm right about this, it would be good to reformulate the sentence accordingly.

I get your point, but I still have to chuckle at the irony of an objectivist interpretation of a perspectivist philosopher. I reformulated the passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Irony acknowledged. Thanks, by the way, for holding back in response to the comment at the same time asking to add philosophers by name and to remove the one that you named.🙃 I might come back to your response, but this is not required for GA and we've discussed it before, so I may just drop the matter. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Similar point about the Lyotard caption. The subtitle of The Postmodern Condition is "A Report on Knowledge". (It literally was a report commissioned, for reasons that remain elusive, by the Canadian government.) His claim about the end of metanarratives is presented as a matter of empirical, historical fact. His concern is not to "defend" this situation, but to figure out how to cope with it in a responsible way. I'd just revise in some way to avoid misinterpretation. (Five sources, by the way, is overkill. I wouldn't think you'd need more than one, but you could at least get it down to three, imo.) --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Reformulated and sources pruned. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Great. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Bundled citations (which are a pain if using sfn) are also an option. I usually use them if my sources exceed 3 but this is a personal preference. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

"Metaphysics"

It looks like you forgot/deleted a subhead for the first section, which does not act as a lead, but describes an independent position.

Could the article briefly define the Ship of Theseus and Sorites paradox? If not, either one with a description would be more helpful for most readers than mentions of both that rely on wikilinks.

Happy to see cosmic nihilism associated with a specific person. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

My idea for not having the extra subsection was that it is the primary form of nihilism in metaphysics and that having a subsection "Metaphysics#Metaphysical nihilism" in an article on nihilism sounds a little tautological. I added the subsection title, but it's not an ideal solution either.

I focused on the Ship of Theseus and added a footnote to explain the paradox. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think the repetition is better than risking confusing some readers (like me, in this case). Maybe someone else will produce a more elegant solution.

The footnote looks good. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

"Other forms"

The fact that "political nihilism" redirects here helps support breaking this off into its own section. That would also allow you to address my concern about Russian nihilism without introducing history into the otherwise strictly conceptual form of the article's TOC.

I expanded a little on political nihilism, but it seems that this view is not particularly interesting on the conceptual side: its primarily a historical movement in 19th-century Russian politics. In principle, we could convert it into a one-paragraph section, but compared to the other main sections, it would be very simplistic. If you know of essential information on the topic that is currently missing, we could add it and maybe we can get to a point where it deserves a main section, but not in its current form. Maybe we could put it as a subsection of "Ethics and value theory" by interpreting politics as a subfield of ethics, but that is also not ideal. Many of the main overview sources don't include it or the Russian nihilist movement in their TOC, so I don't think this is a requirement for us either. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I would have no problem with this if the article were Nihilism (philosophy), but it's not (and I do not think it should be). The current coverage meets GA criterion 3, but I would object at FAC.

If the section comes out short, you could move some of the Turgenev material to get another paragraph. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I found a way to turn political nihilism into a subsection. I added a second paragraph to clarify its relation to the Russian nihilist movement. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy to leave it to other editors to judge whether anything more is due. Swapping out one of your philosophical sources for one on Russian history, such as one of the two I linked above, would help to diversify the bibliography in a way that might be appreciated at FAC. But this is 100% optional. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I had never heard of medical nihilism, but my general search queries on nihilism turned this up without my having to specifically check for it. I removed some formatting suggesting it was a redirect target. Please take a look to be sure I was correct in doing this.

That's probably going to be it from me today. I may have additional notes on art for this section, and I know I have some suggestions for "History". I will wait to review the lead until we're both happy with the state of the body.

Being focused on areas of possible improvement, my comments have been mostly critical, but this is great work (as always!). I'm reviewing as if this were at FAC.

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Addition: The coverage of literature looks good to me. Turgenev could be moved to supply a second paragraph on Russian political nihilism, but I'll say more about that in response to above.

I also like the mention of Kane and those you have selected to mention by name. Citing them individual to academic sources is smart; it will help prevent indiscriminate additions. Although I could name some French art-house films more thoroughly nihilistic, I agree with your decision to stick with material more likely familiar to a general audience.

Stewart (2023) is a pass as an RS for GA. I would not consider it sufficient for FAC, however, because there is little supporting discussion and he is not an art historian. I checked to see whether Manschreck had any art-historical credentials, and, since he does not, I read the piece. It has serious POV issues and cannot be used without attribution. Since that would be distracting here, I recommend simply removing it. The piece is an unapologetic polemic, and his treatment of the philosophers, authors, and artists he mentions is outright hostile. He directly blames nihilism for the Holocaust, rape, and Watergate. Humanism cannot save us, he claims, but only knowledge of the supernatural (his word). At FAC, I would be entirely happy with Stewart supplemented by one art historian.

Manschreck 1976 is published by Cambridge University Press, so I don't think we should dismiss it out of hand. While its discussion is a litte more nuanced than you make it sound, I agree with you that we have to be careful about using it to support claims about religion, given that the journal focuses on Church History. However, I don't think that our article uses it this way. It's mainly used to support claims about some form of nihilism being present in this or that work of art or literature, always together with one or two alternative sources. I added an additional source for art to backup Stewart 2023. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. Manschreck seems to name-check and denounce everyone he can think of with very little supporting analysis. I'd give it a pass if he were a cranky art historian, but he's a cranky theologian. That's not automatically disqualifying, of course, but he shows little evidence of actual engagement with the many works he mentions.

Since most claims on WP do not require more than one source, you could probably just remove him without actually having to make any changes to the article, or at most just small adjustments to the wording.

Maybe User:IntentionallyDense can weigh in. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll be completely honest here, I'm not well versed in the field of philosophy so I am trying to relate this to a field I am experienced in (Medicine). Sometimes I will find a source that while is at times, lower quality, it is more detailed in certain areas. In this case I usually try to find a higher quality source to back up the general idea (to establish that the less good source isn't just making stuff up) along with the original source. In my opinion this is okay, even at a FA level. Sometimes the best possible source for information isn't great. But as long as the source itself isn't straight up unreliable there is a bit of leeway. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for taking a look. I might check in again at FAC with additional notes, but I have no problem give it a pass here. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

As to the selection of the example itself, being so recognizable means that some readers will come in with their own interpretations that have nothing to do with nihilism. But these things probably cancel one another out. I checked a couple of places, and didn't find anything I thought would be an improvement.

If you wanted another example from the visual arts, The Scream would probably work. But that won't make the point about Dadism, which I think should be preserved whether you also add something else or not. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

"History"

I appreciate the qualifications attached to the Ancient Greek material. It's also nice to see some non-Western material, also presented with what I assume to be appropriate qualification.

You are appropriately cautious in your presentation of Descartes, but I would remove Hume. Otherwise it should be clarified that these people are not generally regarded as nihilists. Readers who don't already know about them might get the wrong idea.

Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

It's good to see Jacobi mentioned. His influence during this period is much larger than his low name-recognition would suggest. Di Giovanni is a great source on him. Happy to see that. I'd consider adding another sentence. If you want another source, Jacobi's use of the term is also discussed directly in F. Beiser's The Fate of Reason at pp 81–83. Oh, and where the article says "rationalism", I would reword to say "reason". It is not incorrect as written, but it might be misleading: the primary opposition is to religious faith, not philosophical empiricism.

We could replace "rationalism of ... Fichte" with "emphasis on reason in the work of ... Fichte", but I don't think that it's worth the trouble since it makes this introductory clause more complicated. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, if I find it bothers me, I will implement a change myself. It's probably fine though. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph on Nietzsche looks great, and so does the one on Heidegger. (I actually would have expected to see the latter's name earlier in the article as well. I may come back to this, but the suggestion would be entirely optional.)

Unless Russell described himself as a nihilist, I would reword to avoid suggesting that he did. I would remove the citations to Manschreck in this paragraph as unreliable on these topics.

Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The description of Lyotard should be slightly reworded as per my suggestion above about the image caption. Or, an even better option might be to swap him out for Baudrillard, who is a much more nihilistic example of a postmodern philosopher. To call Lyotard and Rorty nihilists is to adopt the position of their critics—and the same goes for Derrida, now that I read the paragraph again. I happen to believe that some of the critics are correct, but the article shouldn't take a position. So it would just be nice to be a little bit clearer about this. Anyone picking up Rorty to learn about nihilism would find themselves quite disappointed. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The sources that I'm aware of mention Lyotard more frequently than Baudrillard. I think it's uncontroversial that Lyotard and Rorty explored themes associated with some forms of nihilism. We don't explicitly call them nihilists, so we should be on the safe side. I reformulated the sentence on Lyotard. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

In the literature on postmodernism, he is often presented as the cheerful American neopragmatist in contrast to the apocalyptic versions of folks like Baudrillard. But this is a small point, and I am not going to insist on it. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

"References"

I have little to add here to what I've already said above. The sources are almost uniformly of high quality. I'm familiar with most of the presses and journals cited (at least by reputation), and the handful of non-philosophy sources set off no red flags. The few Internet sources are peer-reviewed. (Or I'm not actually sure if the NDPR is peer-reviewed, but it has strong editorial oversight. Even academic journals usually assess book reviews in-house.) The only one that gave me pause was Philosophy: A Visual Encyclopedia. Based upon the backgrounds of the authors, however, I can confidently say that it satisfies the RS criteria.

I am also satisfied that I have fulfilled the spot-check requirement with the sources I have already mentioned consulting in the body of the review, as well as a few others that allayed a concern and did not require comment. Because my primary worry coming in was that the article might be unduely focused on philosophy, I also consulted with non-expert reference works for the general public and a some databases of academic work. I was happy to discover that this was not nearly the problem I feared that it might be. The one outstanding issue, which may yet be resolved, is not a requirement for GA.

IntentionallyDense, is there anything that you would like to do in addition to the above? The nom has not signaled any need for additional time, and I expect to have very few notes on the lead. We're close to a pass here. (Per the drive instructions, I will be sure to ping you again and wait for the thumbs up before actually executing on that.)

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this review is thorough enough. Great work on both of your parts.

The one thing I'm curious about, coming from the area of interests I have, is the distinction between Nihilism and depression. "Definition, related terms, and etymology" and "Existential nihilism" somewhat touches on this. In my experience when people first hear of Nihilism, they tend to think it is quite a depressing worldview. I'm not sure if I'm wording this correctly but do sources mention the mental health aspects here? I know personally, while struggling myself I adopted a worldview similar to Nihilism. Based on a quick google search there is some conversation about this (while these links probably aren't appropriate sources they are interesting: [6][7][8]). As always, use your best judgment on this as far as if it is dueweight. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I added a footnote. I focused on existential crises rather than depression since the connection seems to be more prominent. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead

Right now my only suggestion is to mention Fathers and Sons. This is well-supported by overview sources, and it would be a good way to indirectly introduce literature and politics into the lead without giving them undue prominence.

I mentioned Turgenev instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good! Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I can give everything one more read after our third editor has a chance to review everything, but I don't foresee having more to add.

Please just ask if you have any questions for me. As far as I'm concerned, though, this is a pass. Very nicely done!

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the in-depth review and the many suggestions! Let's see what IntentionallyDense has to say when he comes back. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: My only complaint is use of the passive voice to avoid attribution. Otherwise, though, this is a clear pass: admirably clear prose describing a sometimes messy philosophical concept.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: I will wait to review the lead last. It is a pass on the other MOS criteria.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Yes, I will inspect this more closely with an eye to FAC, but it more than meets GA requirements. The use of citation templates is not required, but it is very much appreciated.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): The body is well-supported throughout. Every paragraph has at least one citation, and most have considerably more.

   C. It contains no original research: As above, everything is well-sourced, and I found no instances of SYNTH.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: Earwig picked up some higher percentage–possible violations than I expected. They all check out fine though. One site is citing WP, and the other hits are pretty much just titles and common phrases.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: I've now fully reviewed everything but the lead and checked coverage against third-party sources. I believe that a dedicated section on Russian political nihilism should be required at FAC, but the current coverage is more than enough to pass the criterion here.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): The article might actually benefit from a little bit more historical detail. That's a matter of editorial judgment, however, and so this one's another clear pass.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Yup. Top marks!

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: No recent conflicts in the edit history.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: Yes, everything is public domain or CC. I would consider cutting one or two of the portraits, but this is a matter of stylistic judgment. The current version is fine for GA.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Captions are good, and I appreciate the inclusion of alt-text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.