Talk:Dualism/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) 14:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Shapeyness (talk · contribs) 02:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hi Phlsph7, I will review this one. First impressions, I really enjoyed reading this: concise, straightforward, clear, accessible. I also think the visual motif is great and useful to get a quick idea. I'm sure this would fly through FAC if nominated. I'll leave my initial review comments below Shapeyness (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Shapeyness, thanks for taking the time to review this nomination! Phlsph7 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• A references section is included and inline citations are included where needed. I would probably have a few more quibbles with sources at FAC, but things look mostly good for GAN. I'm not sure about Howe 2008 though, do you think it meets RS? Howe seems to have the background and past research in this area, but I'm not sure about the publisher and one of the editors has a history of misrepresentation (although that was only uncovered after this was published). Edit: also, forgot to mention, there are a few very old sources being used (pre-1930).

  Howe 2008 might be sufficient for GA but probably not for FA. I replaced it with a better alternative. I also found replacements for the old sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• Earwig shows low likelihood of copyvio. I'll include a full spotcheck later for this and to check for verifiability/OR.
• I briefly looked through overviews in the article and it looks like it covers all major aspects, but I'll do a more in-depth check for this later too. I did notice a few of the overviews mention ancient Egypt, although nowhere near as much as e.g. Zoroastrianism - do you think it's worth a sentence in the history section?

  I'm not sure how committed scholars are to calling it dualism. I added a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• The article is stable without edit wars.
• All images are appropriately tagged and useful to include.
• I will hopefully include more comments soon.

Here are some more detailed comments. Shapeyness (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• I think a bit more explanation about the problem that conservation of energy creates for interactionism would be useful (I think the REP explains this a little bit).

  I added another clause to connect the problem to changes of the energy balance. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• I couldn't find any sources that make a connection between platonic dualism and contemporary platonism (or even medieval platonism about universals). I saw more sources contrasting platonic dualism with Aristotle or talking about neoplatonism, although I didn't search extensively.

  I slightly weakened our formulation and added two sources. Falguera, Martínez-Vidal & Rosen 2025 says that the distinctions resemble each other but are not identical. Katz 1997 explores Platonic/abstract-concrete dualism and the problem of explaining interaction between the domains. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• Spots checks below.
• Dualism contrasts with monism... Whole paragraph covered by Schaffer and de Oliveira sources, except Empodecles, which is covered by Robinson & Weir
• A dichotomy is a... Supported by sources
• Various dualist theories in Indian philosophy resemble Western mind–body dualism... Mostly supported, what is the quote supporting emotions being a part of Prakriti?

  Ruzsa "§ 4d. Evolution, Humanity and the World" says that buddhi belongs to prakriti and emotions belong to buddhi. I added this section to the citation. Harzer 2005 says that the intellect (buddhi) and all mental functions belong to prakriti. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• A central topic in mind–body dualism is the problem of interaction... Whole paragraph supported
• Ethical or moral dualism is... Whole paragraph supported
• Another dualism, often addressed in monotheistic religions, concerns the relation between God and the world... Whole paragraph supported
• Platonic dualism holds... Whole paragraph supported, mainly from McInerny
• Epistemological dualism, also known as representational or indirect realism I recognised the explanations in the sources as representational/indirect realism, but didn't see them use those terms, do you have a quote?

  I found a source and adjusted our formulation to match it. It says I take it that the fault with the older type of epistemological dualism, called representationalism,... However, you won't be happy about its age. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Since this is just about alternative names I think that is fine. I found these if you think they might be useful instead, although none of them are perfect: "Epistemology and Sociology", Direct versus Indirect Realism (Chapters 6 and 16), "What it Means to Live in a Virtual World Generated by Our Brain". Shapeyness (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• What is the quote supporting nature-culture humanism plays a central role in human exceptionalism?

  From Haila 2000: It is commonly accepted that the western view of humanity’s place in nature is dominated by a dualistic opposition between nature and culture. ... I think the dualism tends to be reproduced because of two main reasons. First, it arises in human interactions with the world which tend to turn into subject-object relationships. Second, these specific subject-object relationships are generalized to a totalizing distinction between ‘us’ and ‘the environment’.

  I added another source that makes the relation more explicit. From Dědinová 2026 p. 87: In the dominant Euro-American culture, humans are not only distinguished from nature but opposed to it in ways that make humans radically alienated from and superior to it.

• Positively, it can be used to justify human domination over nature by establishing a rational order; negatively, it may characterize humans as a malicious influence that disrupts the natural world and degrades its ecosystems The use of "positively" and "negatively" sounds like value judgements, which I think is misleading

  They are value judgments made in the academic literature and we report them. I tried to clarify the passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, I misread the meaning behind that sentence, but it's clearer now. Shapeyness (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• Nature–culture dualism contrasts with monist views that see a continuum between nature and culture rather than a strict separation. Also, what quote supports this?

  From Haila 2000: instead of assuming at the outset that humanity and nature form two distinct realms of reality, we ought to view them as merging into situated, historically and contextually specified complexes. Then, the assumed fixed boundary between “I” and “the world” looses meaning.

  From Apffel-Marglin 2012: Such research leads to questioning the boundary between nature and culture, which is commonly taken as given ... The dissolving of the boundary between nature and culture has simultaneous metaphysical and political implications. ... But before considering the forces and events that brought this dualist paradigm about, a topic taken up in the next chapter, we need to recall that a very different non-dualist paradigm competed... Phlsph7 (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• A related dualism focusing on the divide between nature and humans... Supported by sources
• In the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, Gnosticism arose... Mostly supported, although not all in the lead, this may need another source or additional sections used in the citation

  I added another citation. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• In ancient India, Jainism emerged roughly in the 6th century BCE... Supported by Nath and Adamson & Ganeri, Barbato gives a slightly different date for the beginning of the religion but tbf it says "most texts" not all

@Phlsph7: Thank you for responding to my comments and addressing issues so quickly. Just to let you know, I included some sources in a reply above that may be useful. However, I don't think they are needed to make this pass GAN. All my comments have now been addressed and looking through overviews/checking for any missing sources that could be used, I couldn't find any major aspects missing or issues with undue weight. Therefore, I will pass this as meeting all the GAN criteria. Shapeyness (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

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.