Talk:Awareness

levels

May i add a section of levels of awereness? something like this:"Levels of consciousness"

 -Not aware  (Sub-conscious)
 -Weak awareness (Phenomenal consciousness)
 -Self-awareness 
  -awareness of ones existense
  -awareness of ones observation
  -awareness of ones calculation
  -awareness of ones psychological aspects 

I just need some help to complete the list and to make it more representative to reality.. Ressonans 15:52, 17 aug 2006 (CMN)

Sigmund Frued, Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, and Erik Erikson all described stages of development, which function like levels of awareness. Also, Maslow's hierarchy of needs has levels, which could be seen as levels of awareness. Levels of awareness is a concept in psychology, and quite a few people have explored it before. Qsimanelix (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Chordate

How is it known that the chordate nervous system facilitate awareness?--Brad Weisbecker 06:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Blank awareness

Is there a word for the general category of campaings and movements to foster "______ awareness," where "_____" is a poitical issue or crisis (as in breast cancer awareness, poverty awareness, etc.)? If so, should an article on that be listed under "see also" or up at the top? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 11:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Situational awareness

• analyze and communicate about people and things of interest” in a number of complex environments
• See Battlespace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.163.44.102 (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Elements of awareness?

Perhaps there should be some link to "situational awareness". Endsley's definition does unpack the notion, and perhaps is more broadly applicable to "awareness"?

Situation Awareness is the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future (pp. 36). (Endsley, 1995, after Endsley, 1987, 1988).

Company names Awareness?

I added the disambiguation link at the top of the page to differentiate between the concept of awareness (religion/philosophy) and the Massachusetts-based company, Awareness, Inc.Adammetz 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

minor thing

from the second paragraph: "awarement" I checked dictionary.com and this supposed word isn't listed. I would like a better explanation of this concept, because I think this part is a little vauge. "the form of awareness", etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checazoe (talk • contribs) 07:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

does this link fit here?

or where is the right place (in addition to the wikisite of Paul Brunton? is this eventually enlightenment or illumination or awakening? Please share your idea.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.3 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Add refimprove template

Since there are a few citations, I took out the Unreferenced template and replaced it with the Refimprove.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  09:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Awareness is the same as Mindfulness

I believe this article is missing a major point. Awareness is a western term for Mindfulness_(Buddhism) & Mindfulness_(psychology).

Awareness occurs in the now (present moment). Buddhist refer to it as Mindfulness.

Mindfulness is a very good descriptive word of what occurs particular in relation to the human condition. Awareness or Mindfulness watches the mind (inner world) and the external world (at the present moment). It can watch everything that occurs, memories, thoughts, emotions, feelings, physical objects, form etc. It does not get involved... it just watches non-judgementally. Real awareness can only occur in the now present moment (non-juddgemental observation). You cannot become aware of something later... that is a memory.

Without the incorporation of mindfulness this article lacks depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyjoyce (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Review

This article is barely trustworthy and is biased, incomplete, and in need of better writing and more accuracy. The article attempts to address awareness from the perspective of biological psychology and provides a tentative outline. However, the articles provides little in-depth information and random unreferenced examples presented in an arbitrary order. Fundamentally, it lacks an overview of the main theories on awareness from perspectives of cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and neuropsychology. For the purposes of an encyclopaedia it further lacks a lucid concise folk-psychological notion to be stated in the introduction. The reference to awareness in relation to digital information systems appears misplaced and unjustified. The edits contain apostrophizations, which belong to informal language. Finally, the references are not written in APA style. Ostracon (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

minimum requirement for language use

In a para overleaf you say "capacity for thought and understanding". Neither of the two words seem to be defined there or elsewhere. So it is impossible to check out the meaning of the definition. I doubt that it is right to claim such an idea. Mind you, even an insect may have "thoughts" and mammals and other animals or even plants are surely feature understanding as it is exhibited in theses days increasingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.35.70 (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Awareness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060308235733/http://www.news.cornell.edu:80/Chronicle/05/3.3.05/brain_damage_aware.html to http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/05/3.3.05/brain_damage_aware.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Reflective Access

Is awareness the same as the (philosophical) concept of "Reflective Access"? See, for example: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/#DegRefAcc Thanks.--Lbeaumont (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Circular reasoning

In the intro awareness is declared as "the state of being conscious of something". Then conscious is referred to as "the state or quality of awareness". This is a circular definition. 82.217.111.143 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

For the discussion of this topic, please see Talk:Consciousness#circular_reasoning 82.217.111.143 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

yep, I just noticed that as well coming from the article "Cognitive science#Consciousness" seems a bit silly to state as fact with no sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:600:3A78:3133:3DBF:D4A3:C255 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I think the whole section under Neuroscience has been plagiarized. Clarheart (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Spiritual Awareness

Hello Fellow Wikipedians: I feel the article needs to take into account the new use of the word in the context of meditation. However, although there are good references available, in this meaning, it lacks a scientific basis, and always will do, due to its necessarily subjective basis. Therefore it would not sit well here, and may need its own Wikipage. Could anyone help with this? Yesterday I wrote a rough outline, without references, which was swiftly reverted, of course. But what I wrote is as follows:

The word Awareness is being increasingly adopted by the worldwide spiritual movement as the word to describe transcendent mindfulness, where the meditator is completely detached from all objects of consciousness. This is such a supremely important new useage, it really deserves a Wikipage all of its own. Ajahn Sumedho may possibly be referring to this state in his phrase 'Intuitive Awareness.'

The term Awareness in this context is hard to exactly pin down, because it is not itself an object of consciousness. Instead, the word is used to describe a way of looking. Thus, in this context, 'Awareness' (capital A) is a way of looking, of seeing without an observer, of seeing without attachment, without identification, without identity, without an ego, without a centre. And yet, infuriatingly, many respected teachers go on to encourage the practice of being aware of Awareness. It seems therefore that even experts struggle to reckon with this Awareness. Some experts deny that there can be awareness of Awareness. Ultimately it seems that each of us must come to realise the truth of the matter for ourselves, without any hope of universal agreement. This is therefore an abstruse field of the most primary importance, because it is generally regarded as the direct route to Nibbana, Nirvana, Enlightenment. The practice of Awareness has suddenly become apparent in many religious traditions, and yet it is also becoming increasingly obvious that the practice of this Awareness has a very long history indeed. It is even visible in the ancient Upanishads. However, although many teachers agree to call this practice Awareness, any term for it is unsatisfactory. It is a state to be realised, not conceived of, or argued about. Therefore it has a plethora of other names, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. It has been called Emptiness or God or Truth or Love, and so on. It is one's true identity. One IS that. It is not to be objectively known. And yet, by consciously abiding in that state, one is led to final liberation from all that is known. By abiding in that state, one becomes gradually released from all attachment. Ajahn Chah called it Our True Home. Sukusala (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Winter 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 3 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WallaceAnne (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by WallaceAnne (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Psychology

I feel it would be nice to add some reliably sourced coverage of psychological experiments pertaining to one's ability to be aware of something/certain things during the experiment. 2A00:23C4:41A:9601:85A0:9D14:AB9D:DED (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Alterations of the Lede's Opening

Below is why I altered the first paragraph in the lede.

While the terms are often synonymous, they aren't always (see the APA definition linked in the article). Also awareness is an activity of the mind, and psychology is the study of mind and behavior. I also removed a circular definition of awareness because it contained "aware".

This may ruin the philosophy effect, but Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, and an accurate, robust encyclopedia is more important than the philosophy effect. Closetside (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Psychology is first because a definition from psychologists (particularly the American Psychological Association) is used. Please do not alter the order of the wiki links without explanation. Closetside (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The APA definition was stable (hence implicit consensus for the APA definition) and the link ordering fit the definition used. Unsubstantiated link switching were done by IP editors and an SPA, not by established users. Another established user reverted one of those link changes. Lastly, an RFC does not occur before a talk page discussion. If there is a substantiated defense of the previous version, please respond here. If not, kindly cease and desist. Closetside (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right way to think of it being "stable". The order was stable for years until your change, which an IP changed back just days later, implying that your edit was contentious, not the reversion. IPs are editors, too, don't forget that. They're welcome to weigh in on changes like this. SWinxy (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The IPs never replaced the APA definition, only the link order. Therefore, "[t]he APA definition was stable." My declaration of stability was not about the link order. I was willing to have a talk page discussion with IP editors. However, the IPs never communicated on the IPs nor gave a substantial reason (the only reason was the philosophy effect). Closetside (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The absurd requirement of having an RFC before changing a "stable" lede contradicts the be bold policy. Furthermore, everything but the order of links was stable. Closetside (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The practice is WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, not just "make the change and ignore people who revert you because you disagree". Get consensus for your change, and stop being disruptive. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 15:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You are forgetting the discuss part of BRD. There was no talk page discussion before an RFC, which violates WP:RFCBEFORE. All the reverts before you were by one-edit IP editors or a one-edit WP:SPA without any substantial reason. Therefore, the opposition isn't legitimate. Furthermore, the new definition was stable. Additionally, another editor reverted one of those one-edit IP editors. Closetside (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Closetside full disclosure, I came here because of the YouTube video, though I never edited the article. I would just like to point out the flaw in the argument that "awareness is an activity of the mind, and psychology is the study of mind and behavior." - is there a Wikipedia rule that suggests that articles for activities should be classed by the field that studies the agent of those actions? I'm really curious, because that seems strange to me, considering the same claim could be made on the other side. - awareness is based in knowledge (or even more precisely, is knowledge) and philosophy is the study of, among other things, knowledge (epistemology). Saeleriela (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Philosophy studies awareness (perception and knowledge of something) abstractly while psychology studies awareness scientifically. There is a far greater corpus of work from the scientific perspective compared to the abstract perspective, because only the former perspective can yield direct, practical results. Due to this difference in prominence, psychology should be first. Closetside (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Closetside now we're getting into value judgements that I don't think have a place on Wikipedia. Who are you to judge that the "scientific perspective" yields more "practical" results? First of all, philosophy is a science too. Secondly, once again, the practicality is, I would argue, subjective (it is, to me, funny that this argument about results being direct is in fact built on indirect claims). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of all knowledge, not just the one you think is more practical, or direct, and neither should there be a hierarchy of knowledge built on such subjective opinions. Saeleriela (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

First, science has two definitions.

Knowledge

Knowledge obtained through the scientific method

The first definition says everything is science, and that's the definiton you are using. The second definition restricts it to the natural sciences and the social sciences. Considering Wikipedia defines science in terms of the scientific method, it prefers the second definition (hereinafter the definition of science used).

Science produces working hypothesises, theories, and laws. These products are easily applicable to reality. Formal science which makes the rest of science possible. Therefore, it is sometimes considered part of science).

On the other hand, every branch of philosophy beside logic is theoretical and not concrete (ethics and epistemology are two big examples). If a subject is practical, it will have far more academic study than a virtually non-practical counterpart, as in the case of psychological awareness versus philosophical awareness. Indeed, most of the article's body is about scientific experiments related to awareness, and not about awareness as philosophical concept. Closetside (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Closetside That doesn't change the fact that there's no reason "science" in the strict sense of the word you're using should be above the "non-scientific" knowledge. I agree that there is a larger corpus of work on psychology, and so it should perhaps be above philosophy, though I also think it is pedantic and there should be a place for whimsy on Wikipedia, like the philosophy rule, if it doesn't seriously impede the use of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. But you're injecting your opinions into these arguments about what knowledge is more practical, which I don't agree with and I feel they should be kept out of the discussion. There simply isn't a single reason the concrete sciences have more of a place on Wikipedia than non concrete sciences, like some branches of philosophy, (and art, for example too) because there is space and need for all. Saeleriela (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That still ends up being a value judgment that psychology is more important than philosophy. Can you show a Wikipedia rule that says the more prominent link must come first? That's a question you haven't answered. I'd also like to point out that while philosophy is not like physics or biology, science and the scientific method relies on philosophy to give its rationale for being the way it is. Bytor (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If a concept appears more often in Field A than Field B (like awareness in psychology than philosophy), Field A should go first. This is obvious when it when it is way more field A and 50-50 is a good cutoff. If it’s not an official rule it should be. Closetside (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Another reason to support this is that the Philosophy article does not link to Awareness, but Psychology does. It seems that the psychology is more relevant, at least according to our own content. Also, the APA definition is the one being used here. Qsimanelix (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, the lede "Awareness in X and Y is..." seems awkward to me regardless of which is X and which is Y. Awareness is a general concept which is also understood and used by people outside of these two specific areas of study.

Compare to the article on knowledge, a similarly general concept. That article beings "Knowledge is an awareness of facts, a familiarity with individuals and situations, or a practical skill." Only two paragraphs down does it mention "The main discipline investigating knowledge is epistemology." In my opinion that sort of lede not only reads better but is a much more suitable way to introduce a broad, general concept which is used outside of just a couple of specific academic disciplines. In contrast, for a term like "epistemology" which is a technical term in philosophy rather than a general-usage term, the article begins "Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge." "Awareness" being a general term with non-technical and interdisciplinary usage deserves the definition-first lede like "knowledge", not the discipline-first lede like "epistemology".

I would suggest the following:

> Awareness is a perception or knowledge of something. This concept is often treated as synonymous to consciousness. However, one can be aware of something without being explicitly conscious of it, such as in the case of blindsight. The nature of awareness is studied in both psychology and philosophy.

If no one objects, I can be bold and make the change, but I figured I'd solicit feedback here first. (For what it's worth, I've avoided checking how this change would effect the "first link" game.) - Tim314 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking at a few other articles for similar general concepts, like knowledge, understanding, perception, and insight, none of them start by naming specific fields as if the concept is limited to those before defining the concept. - Tim314 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This pattern of in X and Y sometimes occurs, such as in Truth value, Converse, and Statement. While awareness is a broad topic, so are psychology and philosophy. It's important that the discipline is occasionally mentioned, and this is the case throughout every topic in Wikipedia. For example, most chemistry articles don't have "In chemistry", but some do.

Considering there are four major branches of philosophy, and three of them don't really study awareness (ethics, metaphysics, and logic), maybe we should substitute philosophy for epistemology in the lede. Closetside (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, awareness is also studied in metaphysics. Therefore, I will restore philosophy and remove epistemology. Closetside (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

More examples for in X and Y include Abstraction (computer science) and Matter.

Examples for sparse in X notation include Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory not having "In chemistry", but Acid–base reaction having it. Genus does not have "In biology", but Taxonomic rank does. Stating the discipline, either directly or recursively, is important per MOS:CONTEXTLINK. Closetside (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

My impression from examples that start "In X", such as Truth value, is that the definition is technical or specific to a particular field. While the definition of awareness used here has come from a psychology organisation, it is not very different from Google's generic definition, "knowledge or perception of a situation or fact",[1] and does not seem specific to any academic field. I would suggest something more like Awareness is a perception or knowledge of something, and has been studied in philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

PS Converse and Statement are disambiguation pages and don't seem to be the links intended. Mgp28 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Found them: Converse (logic) and Statement (logic), which I also feel are giving specialized definitions. Mgp28 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Really. Energy and Sound are two everyday words, but they are formally concepts of physics so they have “In physics,” Closetside (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those articles start with definitions of those words in the context of physics, which may differ from how the words are understood in other contexts. So I suppose my question is, outside of psychology and philosophy, what other definitions does awareness have? Perception or knowledge of something sounds like a universal definition of awareness so feels like it does not need the conditional part.

Similar to the epistemology / philosophy discussion above, I also wonder if psychology is too specific. Awareness is of interest to neuroscientists, ethologists, botanists. Probably also to some people in computer science. Perhaps philosophy and biological science or natural science would be more inclusive of the fields considering awareness. Mgp28 (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no non-technical definition of energy or sound, otherwise there would be an alternate definition. Acceleration is another example. Closetside (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article sound is its meaning in human physiology and psychology, and that's not to mention the word's different meanings in geography and medicine. And energy has an everyday meaning -- "I'm full of energy" -- that differs from its meaning in science. Acceleration (disambiguation) kicks off with four definitions outside of mechanics. But I'm not really motivated to work through every Wikipedia article that starts In.... I don't think the definition of awareness needs to be conditioned on particular subjects, you think it does. I'll leave it to see if anyone else has a view. Mgp28 (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ethnologists study everything (you can pass moral judgement on anything). The parts of neuroscience that deal with awareness are part of psychology and if plants have minds like humans and animals, we would have plant psychology. Psychology is the right identifier. Closetside (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

can we please have philosophy back? :( 2003:D3:2741:E526:F142:C930:C4AC:8AAC (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any justification for reverts Special:PermanentLink/1230323525 and Special:PermanentLink/1230388731? Practically every Wikipedia article starts by describing the topic in the article with "[Subject] is/was ..." yet this inexplicably been reverted as "sabotage" for this article with reference to this talk page. Bringing a page in line with every other Wikipedia page is very obviously not sabotage. This talk page only discusses here whether psychology or philosophy should come first in the phrase "psychology and philosophy". I personally find that an absurd thing to have strong opinions about, but more importantly it's just not relevant to those reverts. My hat stinks (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

While there are many Wikipedia articles that do begin with the [Subject is] format, Awareness is an extremely broad concept which should have its scope clearly defined in the beginning of the article. Currently there is no need for a restructure of the lede, and while "sabotage" is a strong word, most current attempts to do so are just vandalism motivated by a Youtube video. CitrusHemlock 15:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a very poor justification for a number of reasons. These edits did not change the scope of the article or make it unclear what that scope is; the scope was still defined clearly at the beginning of the article. There is a disambiguation page for this article; if there's some confusion about what this article covers it should use a more appropriate disambiguation template to link to the alternate interpretation. Many other articles cover broad topics yet still start the same way, eg Technology, Society, Ethics, Mathematics. There is "no need" for many small rewordings on Wikipedia which nevertheless improve articles and consistency between articles, these edits are generally not reverted. Suggesting that an edit isn't worthwhile simply because you assume it came from someone watching a video is a clear violation of WP:AGF. My hat stinks (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe that the new editors on this page are operating in any bad faith, I do think that they are naive for disrupting a generally stable article to edit war over a joke. In the future there may be a place for discussion about the lede's wording, but currently that's outweighed by people attempting to stop disruptive edits. For now focus should be put on maintaining the article in the state it was at before the video, not trying to introduce a third idea. CitrusHemlock 20:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the scope of this article limited to the psychological and philosophical view of awareness, though? It seems to me that the definition as "a perception or knowledge of something" accurately fits the broader concept and "Communications and information systems" already goes beyond that scope.

If this is indeed for a limited view of awareness, shouldn't there be another article on that more generalized subject? 172.59.224.170 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though the order was changed to get rid of the "philosophy effect". That's not a good reason. Letting these things happen naturally is cool, although of course it should be secondary to WP's purpose as an encyclopedia. Making changes just to thwart it is not cool, even though it doesn't particularly detract from WP's primary purpose. As far as I know, there is no rule or guideline saying that the psychology article should be linked first. So, contingent on my current impression of the facts, I think the order should be put back to philosophy first. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I find the argument for changing the order of the two to be without merit. Philosophy is (by far) the elder of the two disciplines, and furthermore encompasses all science and therefore psychology. Philosophers have been debating the nature of awareness for thousands of years before the birth of John Stuart Mill. cf. the opening sentence of the History section of Psychology. By nature of psychology being a subset of philosophy, the APA definition is also a philosophical one.--Wlerin (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

But the change wasn't made because of how "important" or "historic" either field was but instead based on the fact that the rest of the lead uses sources and definitions from psychology (APA etc.) and not Philosophy. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The choice of the APA definition comes down to the existence of (relatively) authoritative bodies for psychology while there are none for philosophy. I don't see what relevance this has to the order of the two fields in the lede (besides which, as I said, a psychological definition is also a philosophical one.)--Wlerin (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, actually the choice of the APA definition has an even simpler explanation. The same person who is now advocating switching the order of these two terms also replaced the original text of the lede (which referenced a philosophy encyclopedia) with the APA definition a little over a month ago. (edited to remove an inaccurate claim)--Wlerin (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Closetside, could you explain exacly why you replaced the SEP definition (which was "Awareness [...] is a concept about knowing, perceiving and being cognizant of events.") with one that cites the APA (awareness is a perception or knowledge of something)? As far as I can tell these two definitions are very nearly identical, except that the SEP-citing definition avoids potential copyright issues. In which case the only reason to use the APA definition seems to be an personal bias towards psychology over philosophy - which I don't think is a good reason to have changed the article.

I'd also question the removal of Chalmers' definition (which was "a subject is aware of some information when that information is directly available to bring to bear in the direction of a wide range of behavioral actions"). As far as I can guess from your references elsewhere on this page the issue seems to have been that you read that sentence as "Another definition describes it as: [a state wherein a subject is aware of some information when that information is directly available to bring to bear in the direction of a wide range of behavioral actions.]" instead of the way I'm fairly certain it's intended to be read - "[Another definition describes it as a state wherein] a subject is aware of some information when: [that information is directly available to bring to bear in the direction of a wide range of behavioral actions.]" Hopefully the added punctuation makes clear the differences between the two readings, and why the latter is very much not circular. If the problem really is that you read it the first way rather than the second, I think a slight rewording to avoid potential ambiguity would be more appropriate than removing that definition entirely? 185.248.65.156 (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Request for Comment on ordering of philosophy and psychology

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.

---

Should the lead sentence in this article list philosophy or psychology first? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Improper RFC per WP:RFCBEFORE. No talk page discussion before this RFC was initialized. Closetside (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice try. Stop trying to Wikilawyer. The RFC is happening. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I asked for a WP:3O. Let's see what an uninvolved editor says about your RFC. Closetside (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright then, let's see. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 16:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: I'm sorry, what? This is quite frankly ridiculous coming from an editor with seventeen (!) years experience and 10,000 edits. No, you do not need an RfC to change a lead. Yes, if you start an RfC there must be discussion beforehand. In case you have forgotten, your sole pre-RfC comment consisted of mentioning WP:BRD, apparently under the mistaken impression it's a get-out-of-jail-free card for a revert, and an accusation of disruptive editing (WP:KETTLE). Now your RfC !vote contains no evidence and no indication you have even read Closetside's arguments above (who by contrast, has conducted themselves excellently). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I never said you need an RfC to change a lead, I did say you need an RfC to change a lead contrary to prior stable consensus, if the bold change is reverted, which it has been repeatedly. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Also incorrect. What you need is discussion, which Closetside was happy to start and which none of the numerous reverters, yourself included, were willing to participate in. As I said above, the "discuss" part of BRD applies just as much to the reverter as to the one who made the bold edit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Support ordering philosophy first -- in most articles, philosophy comes before psychology and there doesn't appear to be any valid reason to change the ordering for this article. But I'm interested in seeing what other people say. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 16:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus for the APA definition. Because a definition of psychologists is used, psychology should go first as explained above. Closetside (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Invalid RFC/Speedy Close – no point in an RFC at this stage; there has been no substantial discussion. Aza24 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2024 (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.

It would be kinda cool to preserve wikipedia's "first-link network"

I just watched this really well-made video analyzing the network theory of Wikipedia, specifically how taking the first link on 97% of pages eventually links to the philosophy article. The video mentioned this link to philosophy pattern was broken by a reordering of psychology and philosophy on this page. I'm assuming there is a moderately good reason to have psychology first, but as we are humans who occasionally like to give meaning to the meaningless, do the editors of this wiki think it'd be cooler to switch the links back and preserve the first-link network? Zyansheep (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think these network effects are super interesting or fun unless they are not intentional. Making a change to keep the network effects sort undermines the network effects and any analysis of it, and also why they could be fun or interesting. 172.87.67.58 (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. We should link to the more relevant article, not whichever one makes the "network" better. The average reader doesn't care about the network described in the video. Qsimanelix (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

i just checked, even with awareness going to psychology it still links to philosophy (Awareness > Psychology > Mind > Intellect > Ability > Action (philosophy) > Philosophy) which means pages going to awareness still get to philosophy Valleybox (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That edit to Mind was done by a one-edit IP editor and that edit caused its lede to contradict its body. I therefore reverted it so now that chain no longer exists. Closetside (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

someone changed the first sentence (thank you) to go to perception (which links to philosophy), so the debate is hopefully over Valleybox (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Now somebody added a link to science on the psychology page, which leads to philosophy Vortex4020 (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that we aren't optimizing for or against pages eventually leading to philosophy. AlonzoMucy (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it maybe an idea to create an actual article (not just an Wikipedia:[text] article) for this whole thing? QwertyPc Game17 (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We would need more press coverage beyond one YouTube channel, especially one with less than 100,000 subscribers before we would write an actual article about the former philosophy effect. Closetside (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess it already exists: it's called Wikiracing according to WP:Wiki Game Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually ended up here just to satisfy my curiosity with the talk page from this seemingly unpopular video (which is now at over 350,000 views, a bit more than your snarky 4,000 view comment) that covers a topic that they were inspired by and put actual effort into creating unlike most of the drivel that’s out there.

Honestly I couldn’t care less about the preservation of the philosophy first link “rule” and actually agree that artificially preserving the rule just for the sake of it makes no sense.

What I do have an issue with is your judgmental attitude towards what is and isn’t “worth” being written as a Wikipedia article (that already exists and has existed since 2008, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy, mind you) as if you are the be-all-end-all judge as to what is worth writing about and what pertains to be quality.

The popularity of something is not equal to the importance of it, nor the quality of it. You tout being for the scientific method and seem to rely heavily on the ideas behind science but do you really think that peer reviewed scientific articles go through more than 100,000 people before they are published? At best we’re talking dozens of people reviewing articles before they’re published, yet they’re somehow inherently more valuable? What is your metric here for determining whether something is “worth” writing about?

Doing a quick search around pulled up an analysis done by Collin Morris (also a Wikipedia contributor) in was an effort to find the least visited Wikipedia article of all time. The average view count per page was around 13,000 views. By your own metrics for something being valid enough to write about based on how popular it is, the majority of Wikipedia articles aren’t worth taking up space on the site because they don’t have over 100,000 page visits over the course of their lifetime. 50.223.32.18 (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't use talk pages as a WP:FORUM or WP:SOAPBOX to wright unrelated Walls of text about policy, as they are for discussing improvements to this page (although as I'm sure your aware Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy is not an article but a backrooms essay page) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm famous! (Just kidding, that video only has 4,000 views). I agree with the response of 172.87.67.58. Furthermore, the philosophy effect is not a rule of Wikipedia, while having psychology first resulted from following Wikipedia's rules and improves Wikpedia in its current state. If the philosophy effect can be restored through improving Wikipedia, go for it. Otherwise, the philosophy effect will remain a relic of the past. Closetside (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

i mean, the rule isn't really that important in the long run, and can still mostly exist if you just add "or awareness"

of course, this isn't what some people might call "as cool" as it all going to philosophy but it doesn't really matter in my opinion at least

again, there are still articles that don't end up at philosophy and the number of these might go up, which could say something about the sheer diversity of things there are Valleybox (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Philosophy leads to awareness, so you can just say awareness, and It will stay the same percentage. Cal3000000 (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me for not knowing Wikipedia rules, but what rule is it that results in psychology first? I suspect that the video is going to bring in a lot of people who are interested in this aspect of the article and a clear explanation of the rule from an experienced editor would be very helpful to any future discussion. Thank you. AlonzoMucy (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

in an earlier section in the talk page, the editor who began flipping links has justified themselves by saying that "psychology is first because a definition from psychologists is used" [while a definition from philosophers specifically, isn't, to the best of my knowledge] Valleybox (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, Closetside mentioned here that the change resulted from following Wikipedia's rules. My inquiry is to what rule that is and how it applies here. AlonzoMucy (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

To quote Closestside: "This may ruin the philosophy effect, but Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, and an accurate, robust encyclopedia is more important than the philosophy effect". Jkar (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

He also stated, " Furthermore, the philosophy effect is not a rule of Wikipedia, while having psychology first resulted from following Wikipedia's rules" AlonzoMucy (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the rules, per Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources, and section 3 in the APA Terms of Use, would the direct use of the phrase "perception or knowledge of something" not constitute a copyright violation? Airliners321 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

There seem to be a number of conflicting issues here:

1. The philosophy effect - I believe a consensus is forming that this ought not be the motivation for an edit, I agree

2. The history of revisions/stability of edits - looking at the edit history the Philosophy>Psychology ordering appears to be prevalent prior to the 5th of April where it was changed for "ease of reading" and quickly reverted. Closetside's rewrite on the 17th of May has not been discussed on its own merits and the definition has been unstable since.

3. The ordering of disciplines when a definition is provided - I think this points to the entire sentence being a bit clumsy, it's not clear to the reader that the definition refers primarily to the psychological use of the term. The fields should be listed in the order of which studies awareness the most. To my view awareness relates more to what you think than what you perceive and the philosophy references (including this removed one) seem to have more detail on the subject than the APA definition.

4. Copyright - The current opening paragraph certainly seems to cross the boundaries of close paraphrasing rules, if the first sentence of the APA definition is copied exactly it should be quoted. 2401:D002:B508:C900:85EB:5391:5A2B:DFBD (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree on all points. And more on point 3, looking at a similar psychology/philosophy term (Perception) it doesn't make sense to say that "the term is from field X and Y" before giving the definition. It seems more consistent to just give the definition outright. Zyansheep (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It is just in most articles of Wikipedia the it starts with 'In X, Cal3000000 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Is that true? Just clicking the Random Article button a bunch of times doesn't give me any "In X" articles but perhaps it is more common in some relevant subsection of wikipedia? Zyansheep (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree on some of your points and disagree on others. Here is what I think.

1. Fully agree.

2. While the link order wasn't stable, everything else was. Therefore, my reference to the stability of the remainder of my change was valid. Consensus was established in the closed Request for Comment above, where its Original Poster conceded the dispute and closed the discussion in favor of psychology being first.

3. In many pages throughout Wikipedia, the list of disciplines is listed before the definition of a topic. For example, Spacetime.

4. Definitions are hard to say in our own words, especially as non-experts. Two words that are ordinarily synonyms could mean totally different things within the context of scholarly study of the discipline. Lastly, the definition was meant for the public to reuse, being given in the APA's FAQ page. Closetside (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Although I agree with 1. issue is that many people do opposite now and try to destroy this effect. That is why I think it would be better to go to original order as that was created before this whole thing begun Darth Kirtap (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It may very well be that the rest of your changes were only "stable" because the war was focused on the word order and no one was even aware of the rest of the changes. And anyone who might have ideas for how to improve the lede (which imho at present reads very clumsily and lacks the scope of the previous lede) doesn't want to get lost in the ongoing edit war. Ephemeral stability in the midst of an edit war is not an argument for the new lede.--Wlerin (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

True to my word, it is now restored. See Universe. Closetside (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zyansheep I just checked, and it still leads to philosophy later down the line, so the effect is still preserved, the video maker mentioned the fact that the accuracy of the video could've changed when you watch it, and everything is fine. All that's different is that 25% of articles go to philosophy from somewhere else now. RteeeeKed💬📖 06:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

doesn't anymore! But people can just say awareness rather than philosophy, as Philosophy leads to Awareness Cal3000000 (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

yeah, I think there are some people trying to optimize other articles to preserve the link. Zyansheep (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the off-topic, but would this be considered press coverage? I recall other talk pages having YouTube listed as press coverage. Arslan35 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Currently, Awareness still goes to philosopy, just in a different way. 176.240.216.192 (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

THIS MESSAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT: Psychology now redirects to philosophy later down the road; there is no need to switch back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.194.179 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

IP as has been repeatedly pointed out above, decisions on Wikipedia shouldn't be made to keep an alleged "rule" correct (no matter how entertaining the video is). In future please try avoid using WP:SHOUT for emphasize, sign your comments (using ~~~~), and don't place your comments at the top of threads (I've moved it to the bottom as to not confuse people). Thank you. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

ah alr thx, not rly used to wikipedia talk pages 108.65.194.179 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Footnotes for psychology and philosophy

The footnote for psychology links to a text about philosophy. The footnote for philosophy links to the dictionary of psychology. This is nonsensical. Either the links must be switched around or the footnotes must be switched around. Gastly12345 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Protection Level

Please can someone protect or semi-protect this article due to edit warring. This seems to have been started by a youtube video about the first links on each page linking to philosophy. Most of these edits have just been reverts without explanation, and so surely this constitutes edit warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal3000000 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It was semi protected on the 22 July with an expiry of the 29 July, which has calmed things down (there has only been one revert in the following 2 days, so it it seems to be working) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 08:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Should the Article Start with Awareness

Should the starting defention be changed to start with the word Awareness like it was before the switching of the first 2 links? So that it is more clear that the start is a defenion of Awareness. As well as following the Manual of Style. GonzoBlue (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Most articles stating the discipline list the discipline before the term. Closetside (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024

Remove psychology I think too much is related to psychology Eta124 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2024

Revert edit Special:Diff/1230941564: The discussion on the talk page which the edit summary refers to is every other user clearly and unambiguously objecting to this one editor forcing through this change. My hat stinks (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: By definition, no revert is an uncontroversial change, and edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes. Feel free to discuss with the user. Tollens (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ER states multiple times that edit requests are valid for potentially controversial changes if there is clear consensus. As already stated, all discussion on the talk page related to this change is people objecting to it. My hat stinks (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The page starts wrong generally

I believe the page shouldn't start with "In psychology and philisophy" or the other way around. This part should be removed completely or moved later down the line. This will end the whole "war" going on, as it will link back to philosophy and the article will be undamaged. Many wikipedia aricles don't even start with the field as first word. 85.193.33.118 (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This was attempted and reverted as "sabotage", discussed above in #Alterations of the Lede's Opening. Other changes to the page keep getting reverted as "under discussion" even when there's a clear consensus on the talk page. It appears there's some users very heavily invested in making this page an exception to wiki norms, the only explanation would seem to be to break the "philosophy effect" mentioned in relation to the controversial change which started this drama. My hat stinks (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)