This article was nominated for deletion on 10 June 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is it really necessary to have all those pictures on here? I don't see how they're at all relevant, "Oh and this is how the philosophers who thought about this subject looked - ALL OF THEM" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.177.163 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only do I completely agree but this comment made me lol Dakoman (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table of contents appears as a right sidebar, as opposed to being an element in the page. Likely the result ofd a syntax error. Kind of ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwo (talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jwh335 (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise here. I came to this from the entry on Perfect numbers. This section seems to be messy and lacks citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.62.85 (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this section it says that 10 was considered perfect for mathematical reasons as well as its relation to nature. However, there is no mention of the mathematical qualities that make 10 perfect. The only thing mentioned is the number of fingers. --24.57.19.247 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article had far too many images that didn't add anything to the article, to the point that it was hard to read (the images were a continuous border along the sides. I considered tagging with {{too many photos}} and asking an editor familiar with this topic to choose which images to remove, but decided that wouldn't be enough; it would be better to start over from scratch. So I have removed all of them; whoever knows about this topic can choose which images to put back (I'd suggest no more than 2 images per every 3 sections, so about 5 images maximum for the article); make sure they are only images of people who are important and discussed a lot in the article (many of the people pictured previously were only mentioned in a single sentence, so why bother taking up so much space to illustrate them?). If someone does feel I was wrong and reverts me, at least add a {{too many photos}} tag to the top of the article, because this is seriously a problem. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no call to delete the article's illustrations. Wikipedia encourages the use of appropriate illustrations, which prevent articles from being indigestibly dry and give some sense of realia and of the historic periods involved.

Regarding additional sources, if you have some, no one is preventing you from adding substantive information. As to the article's "balance," do you have any concrete concerns? Nihil novi (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's about time you post here.

First of all, read WP:Images. WP encourages images, that doesn't mean you should add hundreds of them; particularly, see "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic". I am not the first editor to have complained about the number of images here; see higher up on this talk page. Most of the images here are irrelevant or only barely, tangentially relevant, and none of them increase understanding of the article subject. Like I said above, five or six images would be ok, but flooding the article with images is useless and makes it hard to read.

As for single sources.... you have provided no rationale for removing the {{single source}} tag. It is perfectly legitimate: all the information in the article comes from the same author. the balance issue is the same: you are only presenting one author's version of this issue. When you reverted my image changes, you reverted this tagging along with it and never gave any rationale. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take, for example, the images of Calvin and Jansen. Each of these people is mentioned only once, in a single sentence, and not discussed at all anywhere else in the article. Do such minor asides need images? Absolutely not; it's just clutter. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had been less preoccupied with wikilawyering, you might have noticed that after restoring most of the illustrations (this was by no means a mechanical revert to an identical previous edition of the article), I did restore your "single-source" and "balance?" templates. Addition of substantive information is welcome. I do not, however, understand your reasoning that, if information comes largely from a single source—in this case, a highly respected historian of ideas who literally "wrote the book" on the subject of perfection—then "it's sure to be unbalanced".

I also fail to see the logic of your assertion that the portraits of the thinkers whose ideas the author is discussing, are "irrelevant". If they were, then all the portraits of persons discussed on Wikipedia should be deleted.

All these individuals appear briefly. This is an encyclopedia article that discusses over two millenia of thought on the subject. But each of these individuals has something substantive to say and is therefore included. Nihil novi (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now that you fixed the templates in your second revert, although you had removed them during your first revert (which you tried to disguise as a "copyedit"). There is nothing to argue about, then, because the templates belong there. No matter who the author is and how important he is, you are still presenting only his viewpoint, fair and square.

As for the images...it is clear that no Wikipedia article needs an image to illustrate every single sentence. I am glad that you are not edit warring anymore (although I wish you had come to this discussion page several hours ago, to preclude all the arguing that's happened), but if you continue insisting on keeping these useless images in I'll have to request a third opinion here, and I have worked with images in other articles enough to know what those opinions are going to sound like. To be honest, I still think your misleading revert here is pretty disgusting and demonstrates your unwillingness to work with others here, so I would rather just not listen to you anymore and seek out a third opinion instead. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might have come to the discussion earlier, but I work during the day. As for my terse edit summary—I try to use standardized brief summaries in order not to overload my computer's edit-summary prompts with distracting lengthy, one-time-application summaries. Nihil novi (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were lying. Your revert was nothing like a "copyedit". You might as well just drop it now because it's in the past and it's not going to change. As for whether you were too busy to come to the discussion...huh, that's funny, you weren't too busy to play with images and to comment on another article. Only after you were reported for edit warring did you suddenly become not busy; how convenient.

I've listed this at WP:3O to get outside input. I don't see any good coming from us continuing to talk to one another, as all it will bring is drama, so I'm probably not going to comment here again for now, I'll just wait for outside input to come. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should indeed discontinue this conversation. But just for the record, what I meant was that, while you were busy hacking away at the article's illustrations, I was precluded from being aware of your intent and of its execution by the necessity of earning a living. My failure to appear on this page immediately I did become aware was prompted by my habit of reflecting before writing. Nihil novi (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of images displayed on this page before the edits Rjanag made was pretty excessive. A close reading of WP:IMAGES, Nihil novi, makes it pretty clear that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." [Italics mine] Most people would indeed likely be interested in seeing a picture of Euclid, but not because of his contributions to Perfection, which is the source of the issue here. Thus, it's inappropriate to display his picture and many/all of the others, such as the portrait of Gay-Lussac, which don't elucidate the subject of perfection. The idea is to use any images in an article to enhance readers' understanding of the topic in a visual manner, not to stop them from getting bored or to entice them into reading elsewhere. Anyway, hope that helps clarify things a bit; hopefully we can proceed congenially from here on out. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 06:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks to me now like there is consensus for cutting down the number of pictures and only including a couple that are particularly relevant (such as Tatarkiewicz—even though he is only mentioned once in the article, the fact that he is cited so heavily suggests that he is important enough in this field to be worth picturing). Like I said above, the only reasonable way I see to do this is to remove all the images and let some editor who is familiar with this topic come in and re-add 4-6 that they feel are most relevant. So I propose that that be done again (we can leave Tatarkiewicz in to start, there's one down), unless there is suddenly dissent that I didn't know about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: neither version was good. Old version was too image heavy; new version had none. Select about half of them that are most relevant. Perhaps a Commons gallery could be created for the excess? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then someone list here which 5-6 images should be kept, and I can leave them in while I remove the rest. The end result is the same--identifying a reasonable number of pictures that belong in the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the number of pictures must be reduced. How to decide? Perhaps by chosing only some people from each epoch (antiquity, middle ages, modern era) - or choosing only the philosophers (Teresa of Ávila, say, does not need to be pictured). Hekerui (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting a limited number of portraits, in an article of this nature, will necessarily be arbitrary, even if one starts by selecting conventionally "rock-star" individuals. However, a gallery at the end of the article, for overflow, does seem reasonable. Nihil novi (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would such a gallery be necessary? There is a gallery like that at Mononymous person because the article is about those people (although, as I said at the talk page there, I don't even see the need for a gallery at that article either). This article is not about the people, it's about the ideas, and there's no need for a picture of most of these people; if a reader really wants to know what, say, Calvin looked like, he can follow the link and go to the article about Calvin. If it's hard to select portraits, then that just means select fewer...I have already done some of the work by saying that Tatarkiewicz is one of the portraits that can stay. What other people are especially important to this article? If someone's not especially important to the article (ie, if they are only mentioned in a sentence or two), they probably don't need to be pictured. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review of the historic evolution of the concept of "perfection" comprises individual sentences, even parts of sentences, devoted to various thinkers on the subject.

"Mononymous person" discusses the concept of mononymity, illustrated with examples of mononymous persons. "Perfection" discusses the concept of perfection, illustrated with key proponents of distinct interpretations of that concept. Nihil novi (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three sections that contain larger numbers of portraits: "Ethics," "Aesthetics," and "Ontology and theology." Why not just create a gallery for each of these three sections, placing all the portraits that are in those sections into the respective galleries? Nihil novi (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no consensus to do that. Other than you, everyone who has commented here thinks the pictures are not desirable. We are giving you a chance to identify which pictures you think should stay; please cooperate. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Can you say specifically what edification keeping portraits such as these in an article provides, whether in a gallery or not? If someone is interested in the concept of Perfection, what good does an image of Teresa of Ávila provide? There is nothing to be gained by using the image that a reader couldn't get by following the link in the text. I agree that a large number of these should be cut out, and based on the content I'd weigh in on the less rather than more side. Aristotle is a good one to keep, as is Plato. If the section on Physics, etc. spoke more about Charles or Boyle, as, perhaps, it should, then one of them would be a good candidate. St. Paul would be a good bet for the Ethics/Religion section, especially if accompanied by a quote from scripture. I think also that a picture of Raphael would be a welcome addition - he is one of the few actual examples given of something that is called "perfect," and of which there can be illustrations - especially if there is also a caption. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments. I support concentrating on images of perfection, not of people who wrote about it, with an exception of Tatarkiewicz, if he indeed is the most reknown expert on this. A gallery at the end of the article is not a common solution, but considering possible problems with such a category at Commons, and the importance of visual illustrations for this article, this may be a good solution here. Lastly: isn't Venus of Milo seen by some as one of the images of perfection? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no need for moving all the current images into a gallery at the bottom since, as you said, they're mostly images of people who wrote about perfection, not images of perfect stuff. Such a gallery would be tantamount to me going to the reflist of an article (take, for example, Chinese classifier) and replacing it with headshots of every author cited. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no need for a gallery of academics who wrote about perfection; I meant we could use a gallery of objects that according to them illustrate the concept of perfection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, no such images exist in the article; all the images I've reviewed are images of people who wrote about stuff; that suggests to me that most of them are ok to remove. Since no one has commented yet on my suggestions below, I'm going to use them as a starting point for cleaning up the article. I'm about to go play badminton, but once I get back I'll BOLDly remove all the images other than the ones suggested below, and try to add captions explaining them; people involved in this article are free to make tweaks later, clean up captions, add an image here or remove an image there, etc., but there should not be any wholesale reverting--there is definitely consensus here that the vast majority of images on this page ought to be removed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Everyone is free to tweak captions, etc., as well as copyedit and reorganize the article (which is sorely needed). But let's not add new images unless there's a good reason. Right now some sections are ridiculously long and hard to read (too many one- or two-sentence paragraphs), but someday if they are cleaned up then 1-2 images per section should be appropriate. If people feel there are not enough images in the current version, the correct response is to add a couple images at a time, where they are appropriate (as I suggested in my very first post on this topic) rather than to do a wholesale revert and restore the version of the article that no one likes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my suggestions and Amory's above; starting list now to get the ball rolling. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tatarkiewicz -- lots of work in this field, heavily cited
• Raphael -- "celebrated for the perfection and grace of his paintings and drawings"
• St Paul -- perfection in religion
• Plato
• Aristotle

Nihil novi has undone the edit again. As far as I can tell, there is still no consensus for all those images. This may not have exactly been a machine revert, but it was close enough (re-added forced image sizes, which we don't use; removed captions that explained the images' relevance; removed the Raphael picture that had been suggested, etc.). It is clear from the above that everyone other than Nn agrees most of the images are irrelevant, and there should be fewer images in general, so I have undone his edit again...since Nn has not commented here since in over a day I see no reason not to. Pretending to be unaware of the talk page is no excuse to edit war. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In making a different selection of illustrations than in your "tentative list of images to keep," and choosing 14 of the article's original 42 portraits, I was following your own recommendation to "let some editor who is familiar with this topic come in and re-add [fewer illustrations] that they feel are most relevant." Certainly I am more "familiar with this topic" than you, who betrayed that you had read very little of this article, when you wrote that "many of the people pictured previously were only mentioned in a single sentence, so why bother taking up so much space to illustrate them?"—nearly all the individuals are given only a sentence (or part of a sentence), which does not make any of them less important to the discussion of the topic. The five individuals selected by you do not do justice to the rich history of thought about the concept of perfection; the 14 that I selected, from the original 42, give at least some hint.

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style does permit size-forcing of images: "[S]ize-forcing may be appropriate..."

It would be well if you changed your tone of an avenging fury. Nihil novi (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the 5 I suggested were so terrible, why didn't you weigh in during the 24+ hours there was discussion going on here? You were active at other articles, and ignored this discussion. Again, ignoring a discussion is no excuse to revert. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more clarification about why your revert was inappropriate: even if you think adding more images was acceptable (and, as I said, it is acceptable if you provide a reason why--within the article), you need to give a reason when you change or remove another editor's work, especially when it's already in the middle of a heated discussion. This is what edit summaries and talk pages are for. You see that an editor has added captions to images—if you're going to remove them, you need to say why. You see that an editor has made formatting changes to the article—if you're going to undo them, you need to say why. You're not working in a bubble here. People watch these articles, people pay attention to what you do (people pay attention to what I do, too), and if you can't work with people you're going to have problems. Just undoing a bunch of edits without any edit summary or rationale is not ok; even if you have a clear reason inside your head, you need to articulate that reason to other people who are involved in the discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have little standing to preach the virtues of communication. On June 26, without having given the slightest prior notice, you single-handedly deleted all the illustrations in the "Perfection" article. After I reverted this, you hailed me before a 3R court, with the full knowledge that no 3R event had occurred. Only when this was challenged, did you withdraw your complaint. You then hastily called for a "third opinion," which on June 27 concluded with a recommendation to "split the baby", i.e., to restore some of the illustrations. Aware that you knew nothing of the article's subject, you repeated an earlier call for "some editor who is familiar with this topic [to] come in and re-add [illustrations] that they feel are most relevant." No one volunteered, so that same day you again made haste and, still no wiser about the article's subject matter, put together an arbitrary list of five portraits.

Quit your bullshit lies. I dropped the 3RR report when you finally started discussing things, not when I "realized no 3R had occurred". Everyone knows you don't need to break 3RR to be edit warring.

And, if you had even read my first post on the topic, you would have seen that I too recommended restoring some illustrations. You really would be better off if you read these discussions before hitting the undo button. If you had opened your eyes and done things right before reverting and lying about it, this crap would not be happening. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As no one heeded your call to assist your ill-conceived project, on June 29 you again deleted the illustrations that I had restored—all but the five that you had selected. At this point, I took you up on your call for expert assistance and, keeping three of your portraits, dropped two (Raphael, St. Paul) while adding 11 others that do mark milestones in thought on the subject. ("Perfection," 29 June, 05:42.) The same day, again without prior discussion, you again reverted my version.

I think that the 14 illustrations (of the article's original 42) that I selected on June 29 help bring attention to some key turning points in thinking about perfection and are not an excessive number. The baby, as butchered by you, could use a head and some limbs. Nihil novi (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then list your suggestions here, along with reasons why you're suggesting them, and wait a while for some input before taking any action on them. That's what I did, and you're not special. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all still there, at Perfection, 29 June, 05:42. The rationale for each will be evident from the adjacent texts referring to the respective thinkers. Nihil novi (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can post suggestions at this talk page so people can comment on them. Furthermore, when images are added, they should have a brief, descriptive caption explaining what is so important about this person that they are pictured—as you yourself said above, all of these people are somehow important to the concept, so the images chosen should be ones that are of particular importance compared to the rest. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need for captions, since the images stand right next to the texts that they illustrate. A caption is therefore redundant. The selections are best seen by going to that edition of the article and seeing the illustrations in context. Nihil novi (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to bring up on the "Perfection" page the version of 29 June 2009, 05:42. Readers will be able to see for themselves that it does not show an excessive number of illustrations, and that these relate to notable concepts of "perfection." Nihil novi (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a note somewhere here about perfect flowers, which is a commonly used synonym for bisexual flowers, but I don't see an appropriate place. Could I get some help? Thanks. Dcoetzee 07:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've started a "See also" section with an entry for "Perfect flower (bisexual flower)." Such flowers, I gather, take their name from the criterion of completeness. Nihil novi (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to learn about this concept from the cultural perspectives of various groups, such as the Asian philosophers and mathematicians, the original Americans, island cultures, Central African groups, the Ancient Egyptians, and so on. I wonder if there is an absence of the concept or if it is viewed differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Global intellect (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the concept ridiculous without a for what, like a concept that have run wild and far out of context, c.f. Free will (to what, in what situation?). Are there any authors/philosophers (except of course implicitly Ludwig Wittgenstein) that criticises the concept? Then it should be in the article. A similar question is: what's the difference between an elephant? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do it because I don't have an account, but could someone please state, in the paradox section, after the words "("perfectio complementii").," that possibility for improvement can be considered to be an imperfection, and that unchangeability can thus be seen as a perfection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.134.169 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some major problems with the theology section. Aquinas said that perfection belonged to God long before Descartes. C.f. question 4 Summa Theologiae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.226.65 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming to 'Ethics and religion'. They are actually two different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.128.107 (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "Perfection#Perfection paradoxes in technology" section be completely deleted?   M aurice   Carbonaro  08:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes There is no paradox --SimonBramfitt (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably Whether there is a paradox is perfectly arguable. I am not even perfectly happy with the presence of the article in its present form at all, not because of POV, so much as because of the pervasive dominance of handwaving and question begging in the application of the term. Personally I am not perfectly satisfied with the very concept of perfection in general (it entails ambiguous infinities and accordingly inconsistencies) and perfectly dissatisfied with it in anything to do with the empirical world, which implicitly includes all fields of technology. If the non-technologist wishes to apply the term "perfection" to any physical object, and in particular a manufactured object or application, have fun, but it has nothing to do with the (rare, very rare, usually dispensable) use of the word as a term of convenience in expressions such as "perfect conductor", "perfect crystal", or "perfect combustion". The point at issue is not perfectly material nor perfectly of practical interest, so I would not object to omitting it. If someone thinks the article itself is of sufficient philosophical or philological interest to earn its place, have fun, but tread softly in invoking concepts from other fields such as technology and empirical science; they are stricter disciplinarians than theology and formal disciplines, and they tend to bite philosophers who muddy discussions by misapplying concepts that they fail to understand. In the unlikely event that anyone can produce a persuasive, comprehensible, relevant, and articulate passage on the subject, then I for one will not argue for its exclusion; so far however, I see no sign of material benefit to the article in the deleted text. JonRichfield (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Tunnel diodes" have now been mentioned in a newly introduced, ungainly subheading, "Perfection paradoxes in technology," in the article's "Paradoxes" section. Isn't this too detailed a concept to interpolate into the text? What is its relevance in the context? What does it add to the discussion of imperfection as a paradoxical condition of perfection in semiconductor technology? Nihil novi (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo there Nihil novi (talk),

thanks for your comment.

Obviously this latest change is not definitive: my aim was that one of comparing the "imperfection" that has lead us to the information revolution with what was considered "perfect" and "highly valuable" for a long time: i.e. diamonds. Their value has been an object of speculation by Carl Marx in Das Kapital. Please compare Marx contribution on Labor theory of value for example, even if the term "diamond" in the Wikipedia article/section is not mentioned (yet).

So I was just wondering...: how can we relate the paradoxes of perfection in technology with the paradox of value nowadays?

  M aurice   Carbonaro  08:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone translate that last comment into English? I can't respond if I don't understand it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Arthur Rubin (talk),

Maybe you could find some volunteer here in the wp:embassy. Please consider that some regulations may apply:

1. you may be kindly requested to switch your God helmet off (if you are wearing one);
2. drug tests could be randomly performed;
3. a diplomacy test could occur: for example some uninvolved admin could kindly ask you to adopt the use of "may" instead of "can"
   

I hope this helps. Please let's both try to have a nice and relaxed week-end.

  M aurice   Carbonaro  10:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was called here from WP:AN. The result of the discussion is maintain status quo. The current version of the article, which was edited about two months ago around the time of the above discussion, says the following:

The paradox of perfection—that imperfection is perfect—applies not only to human affairs, but to technology. Thus, irregularity in semiconductor crystals (an imperfection, in the form of contaminants) is requisite for the production of semiconductors. The solution to the apparent paradox lies in a distinction between two concepts of "perfection": that of regularity, and that of utility. Imperfection is perfect in technology, in the sense that irregularity is useful.[7]

There's nothing wrong or inappropriate about saying that imperfections in technology are sometimes necessary. It's not undue weight. One paragraph is about what that concept is worth. Chutznik (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At 14:40 (UTC), on the 31st January 2013 contributions I have made adding a Perfection#Perfection paradoxes in technology section have been completely undone by Arthur Rubin (talk) with the following motivation:

Reverted good faith edits by Maurice Carbonaro (talk): Better without your blank lines and overlinking

It looks Point of view to me and a violation to Neutral point of view that editors would normally expect from an Administrator which hasn't even participated in comments on this talk page Tunnel diode section about the contribution.
Comments are welcome. Thanks.   M aurice   Carbonaro  07:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin is right. The "paradox of value" is irrelevant to the theme of the "Paradoxes" section of the "Perfection" article; and the section's sub-heading, "Perfection paradoxes in technology," which was gratuitously introduced by Maurice Carbonaro and has been deleted by Arthur Rubin, is superfluous. Nihil novi (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rousseau didn't say the perfection was in a lost "golden age". That's an old misunderstanding. He only talks about a hypothetical more perfect past when men lived in harmony with nature to deny natural law's thought and claim a less artificial civilisation. If he did otherwise, the quote in the article against chimeric aims it's wrong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.23.240 (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I know this is most likely stupid but and you will deny my request. But ill still ask it mine and my fiancés 4 year anniversary. And she's down in the dumps about her looks and i don't want that i asked her what she said would make her believe me that she's perfect she said if i see my name next to the deffinition jokingly of course. Her name is Sarah Prehara I'm not like asking for a day here or a permeant change five minutes 2 min anything so i can just show her it to make our anaversary better. i understand the accuracy and importance of this website and it need to be accurate. and I'm not asking this as some one wanting to deceive people I'm asking it to you as a person if you have ever cared for a loved one and would do anything to change there sadness and self image to at least consider it for your intergrity you can not i understand, but know that this would mean a world of difference to her. i Thank you for listening to my request and if you do decide to please let me know asap so i can show her and screen shot it so you can change the page back to accuracy. my specific request is Please chance the deffinition to include Sarah Prehara thank you, Russ

Dr.eveland (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Russ[reply]

Not done: I'm sorry, that simply isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Unless you have a reliable source indicating such..... -- ferret (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2600:8807:C00B:8D00:2027:8A34:6706:8EF (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 02:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Kasey Austin Scooternoscooting (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Perfection is a state of flawlessness where there is no error, this term is often used in Technology, beauty, software, and others of that sort, an example of the use perfection is,"Gabriela is pure perfection, she is able to pull anything off", an example of technical perfection is something like, the united states has to have vehicles that are near perfection to ensure safety of soldiers." GAMEINHD (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I feel the qualificative "completeness" in the opening sentence is superfluous as something uncomplete in regards to its objective "complete" form will obligatorily be flawed, and so the character of "flawlessness" takes this scenario into account. Therefore remove the word "completeness" for a more succinct, accurate rendering. 24.202.201.91 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising the question. I've made some adjustments to the lead.

Perfection is not a perfectly simple concept, as a reading of the article will show, and can even be viewed as a set of diverse, if kindred, concepts.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

BTS is a great example of perfection Beritha7768 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Perfect (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My dog (Wicket) is a great example of 'perfection' Hybrid5150yt (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from 2 citations (one being a insignificant link to the current count of Mersenne prime numbers) every other citation is attributed to a handful of works from Władysław Tatarkiewicz. There are entire sections which cite a single source. I will not regurgitate Wikipedia:Articles with a single source but this raises questions re the notability of this concept, original research/synthesis and maybe even copyright violation in the event large chunks of this article have been largely lifted from Tatarkiewicz's works. I will add a more citations needed template for the time being, please replace if there's a more apt descriptor for this - I don't know if single source article necessarily applies even if some (most?) of the sections cite a single source. Yours ToeSchmoker (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can seriously question the notability of this - but you are welcome to take it to WP:AFD (which I expect to be closed as a snow keep quickly). You are correct this needs more sources, but there is no reason to remove WP:RS, and Władysław Tatarkiewicz is a perfectly reliable scholar for this topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the notability cannot be seriously questioned. GNG uses the word "sources" plural. Tatarkiewicz's reliability I cannot comment on but it is largely irrelevant because the article is still based entirely upon a single source. In its current state it's the rehashing of the ideas, opinions of a single person. It's in no way a balanced, sensible article - this is without even getting into the attribution and paraphrasing problems. ToeSchmoker (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be GA, but it's obviously notable. If you disagree, WP:AFD is that way - try it and see if the community shares your reservations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the repeated twice insinuation that I wish to delete the article but if we're not going to get anywhere fixing its issues - it'll require a mammoth rewrite, so I understand - then I'll maybe consider that avenue. Still fail to see how it "obviously" is notable but I suppose we can agree to disagree. Thanks. ToeSchmoker (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the topic is not notable, it should be deleted (discussed at AfD). If you think the topic is notable but the article fails to demonstrate it, it should be tagged with {{sources exist}}, not with {{notability}}. Articles tagged with {{notability}} are ones in which we need to discuss whether the topic is notable; and if there is no consensus, send it to AfD. So either AfD it, or use the sources exist template. (And sources, obviously, exist, beyond Tatarkiewicz: [1], [https://www.academia.edu/download/52332902/The__Idea_of_Human_Perfection_in_Modern_Philosophy.pdf, [2] and many others. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to check the other two sources (one of which I cannot access) you have provided but the only mention of the word "perfection" in the Scolnicov text is in the title and then 16 other times on every odd-numbered page where said title is in the header. It's irrelevant to the subject of this Wikipedia article. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some specific examples of poor sourcing/citing/quoting etc.:

• "There were fixed proportions for Doric temples, and others, likewise fixed for Ionic temples." paraphrased in article as "Similarly, in temple architecture from the 5th century BCE, there were established orders. There were established proportions for Doric temples, and for Ionic temples." - opting for "established" over "fixed" changes the meaning as "established" is more synonymous with something that's came to be generally accepted as norm vs "fixed" being something unchangeable, set in place;
• "In classicism, especially in French 17th-century classicism, from an ideal attainable by few, it became an obligation for every author. This was a striking change. And inasmuch as the criterion of perfection had at the same time been lowered, it now meant only the same thing as correctness." paraphrased in article as "In classicism, especially in French 17th-century classicism, from an ideal attainable by few, perfection became an obligation for every author. And inasmuch as the criterion of perfection had been lowered, "perfection" now meant only correctness." - this is near enough verbatim and should be given an inline attribution to avoid plagiarism;
• "... primitive man was the most perfect, for he was the closest to nature. Thus perfection already lay behind present-day man, not before him; civilization placed a distance between man and perfection instead of bringing them closer." paraphrased in article as "Primitive man was held to be the most perfect, for he was closest to nature. Perfection lay behind present-day man rather than before him, for civilization distanced man from perfection instead of bringing him closer to it." - as above.

These are all from a quick look at paragraphs selected largely at random - I did not have to look very hard to find them in the original sources. From what I can tell the article is essentially a composite of sections which are all based (in some cases near enough verbatim & unattributed) on a selection of works from a single author. I reiterate as per above this raises serious concerns re notability, OR/synthesis and plagiarism. ToeSchmoker (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Aside from 2 citations (one ... to the current count of Mersenne prime numbers) every other citation is ... to a handful of works from Władysław Tatarkiewicz." NOT TRUE: It's not a "handful of works" -- it's one 70-page book, On Perfection (1976), as serialized in English translation in 7 issues of Dialectics and Humanism: the Polish Philosophical Quarterly between 1979 and 1981.

"There are entire sections which cite a single source." NOT TRUE: At least every paragraph in the article is cited to source.

"[T]his raises questions re the notability of this concept, original research/synthesis and maybe even copyright violation..." Tatarkiewicz literally "wrote the book" on the concepts of perfection. The Wikipedia article merely provides the book's quintessence.

"I will add a more citations needed template..." More citations are NOT needed: but you've placed such templates for the whole article, and additionally for the "Term and concept", "Perfect numbers", and "Physics and chemistry" sections -- but not for the "Paradoxes" (which you've unaccountably deleted), "Ethics", "Aesthetics", "Ontology and theology", and "Many concepts" sections. Nihil novi (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses to your own above:

• "NOT TRUE: It's not a "handful of works" -- it's one 70-page book, On Perfection (1976), as serialized..."- noted, but this doesn't change anything. If anything it makes the notability and potential copyright issues more obvious. I'll change it to a single source maintenance template since you've clarified.
• "Tatarkiewicz literally "wrote the book" on the concepts of perfection. The Wikipedia article merely provides the book's quintessence." - what does this even mean? The article's existence doesn't provide anything to the book, they're separate entities - how does this article existing make the book quintessential? I digress as not relevant to the issues raised - I have no inclination to descend down a "philosophical" line of argument when I'm raising points re Wikipedia policy/guidelines.
• ' "I will add a more citations needed template..." More citations are NOT needed:' - please see WP:ONESOURCE, please see my text immediately succeeding that sentence fragment ("replace if there's a more apt descriptor for this"). Replacing with single source maintenance template as above.

Thanks ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the above, I do agree that that two examples from above seem to be the case of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING, and should be rewritten further or changed into proper quotes. It's probably easiest to the the latter... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having come here from the AfD, I concur. There are evidently no issues of notability and I'm unsure why that issue continues to be pressed, but the paraphrasing ought to be fixed if it hasn't been already. Psychastes (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I press notability because these are the opinions of a single person but given the (seemingly confused) scope of the article they are being stated as if objective facts on "perfection". Not so much an issue for your more scientific things - perfect numbers, gases, fluid etc. - that can be backed up by other sources but for the philosophical waxing lyrical that forms the vast majority of the article then it makes for incredibly poor encyclopaedic writing.

A couple of paragraphs look to have been loosely resolved with an "according to...", "author states" etc. but there remains an egregious amount. I'm in the process of collating a document with the most offensive incidents. ToeSchmoker (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can see what you're talking about here - most of the article as it stands now appears to be Tatarkiewicz attributing various views on perfection to figures throughout history, which are all objective historical claims of the form "Plato said this" and "John Calvin said this." I'm not sure why we need to say "Tatarkiewicz said Plato said this" unless there's reason to believe another scholar might say Plato said something else, in which case we ought to find those sources and cite them. Psychastes (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of parts of the article which aren't "objective historical claims". Many paragraphs remain sans any attribution to anyone. I agree we still need more sources regardless in the case of "Tatarkiewicz said Y said, thus XYZ". In the case of uncontentious things like "Plato said this", not really a problem, but when it's the author's interpretation of something/someone/a quote/an event and being laid out as a fact then it's really poor stuff. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any author's interpretations as such, could you provide some examples of what you're talking about.? Psychastes (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the para re "primitive man was the most perfect..." shown above/in the ethics section for a hyper-specific example. If you look at the original text this is prefaced with an "it was said" but it's not stated who specifically said it. It's in no way a hard fact, it's just someone's opinion. There's a fair amount of unsubstantiated waffling along these lines in the same section but it's not contained to just there because naturally given the (forgive my being a broken record) paraphrasing going on there are plenty of Tatarkiewicz's opinions being regurgitated as if fact. I'd recommend locating an OCRed copy of the cited source and picking paragraphs at random - sooner rather than later I'm sure you could find more. ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to paragraph 19 of the "Perfection" article's "Ethics" section.

I don't know what "OCRed copy of the cited source" means. I gather that you would like to compare paragraph 19 with the pertinent text in the English translation of Tatarkiewicz's book. I therefore give you that paragraph and the immediately antecedent paragraph, which places it in context:

In the 18th century, the religious conceptions of perfection, Catholic and otherwise, lost their prominence. From a conviction of the generality, they became a conviction of believers. The idea of perfection survived, but it completely changed character: it did not cease to be a faith, but it became secular. It was a fundamental article of faith for the Enlightenment. This secular, 18th-century perfection may be summarized generally by the thesis: nature is perfect. Perfect, too, is the man who lives in harmony with nature's law.

In developing this new faith, first of all, it was said that primitive man was the most perfect, for he was the closest to nature. Thus perfection already lay behind present-day man, not before him; civilization placed a distance between man and perfection instead of bringing them closer. The other conception was the reverse: civilization perfected man by bringing him closer to reason, and thereby to nature. The way to perfection was through subjecting life to reason, which would direct life as it should be directed, with due consideration for the laws of nature.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the one, cheers. OCR means optical character recognition. If you have an "OCRed" PDF you can easily search the text, which is what I have been doing. ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the definition of "OCR" ("optical character recognition").

Concerning Władysław Tatarkiewicz's opinions: there are opinions, and there are opinions. Tatarkiewicz (1886 – 1980) was the author of what, 45 years after his death, remains the Polish standard, 3-volume history of western philosophy.

In the Wikipedia "Perfection" article, all statements of fact and opinion – other than the latest facts concerning Mersenne prime numbers – are duly inline-cited to his 70-page book O doskonałości (On Perfection, 1976), as serialized in English translation in a Polish philosophical quarterly in 1979-81. Thus it would be superfluous to state their authorship within the text of each paragraph.

Should others in future make substantive textual contributions to the article, these would of course also be acknowledged in inline citations.

A number of the 26 non-English Wikipedias which have articles on the concept of "perfection" include Tatarkiewicz's book O doskonałości in their bibliographies; and some of the Wikipedias with "perfection" articles have drawn very heavily from the English Wikipedia's "Perfection" article.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ToeSchmoker on 24 May 2025 deleted, from the "Perfection" article – and, on 25 May 2025, I restored – the penultimate paragraph of the "Term and concept" section; the entire "Paradoxes" section; and the first and last paragraphs of the "Ethics" section.

In the "Perfect numbers" section, ToeSchmoker mistakenly has the last paragraph read: "As of 24 May 2025, 51 perfect numbers had been identified" – whereas 52 had already been identified on 21 October 2024.

The texts deleted by ToeSchmoker can be found in the 23:59, 2 February 2025 version of the article. Those texts accurately reflect their respective sources, are meaningful, and should be restored. Nihil novi (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply apologise for making the mistake in the Perfect numbers section - I have amended this. FYI the date given is in fact 12 October, not 21 October so we are both mistaken. See above for my points re the text I have removed. ToeSchmoker (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article on the report of a close paraphrasing copyright violation. I mistakenly removed the content and tagged the page. Then, reading further into the source, I realized much of the article was closely paraphrased. Something didn't feel right. I looked up Polish copyright law and the source material paraphrased entered the public domain twenty-four years ago. So. Am I correct in assuming that nothing needs to be done but for me to remove the close paraphrasing tag and explain why to the editor who set it? Why not enter the text of the public domain sources into WikiSource so future editors don't repeat the tagging error? Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, can you assure me, @Nihil novi, that the Tatarkiewicz material actually is in the public domain? I read further into Polish copyright law. The law in effect when the 1979 journal was published was revised in 1952. That extended his copyright to twenty years after his death. However fourteen years later, in 1994, that law was revised to extend copyright to seventy years after his death.

• z dnia 10 lipca 1952 r. o prawie autorskim The 1954 law
• The 1994 law]

Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

The "Perfection" article's history shows that the "close-paraphrasing" notice was placed on the "Physics and chemistry" section at 19:05, 27 May 2025, by user:ToeSchmoker.

He had begun his involvement, deleting swaths of the article without discussion.

On 10 June 2025 (please see the article's talk page) he nominated the article for deletion. The decision was to keep the article (which has siblings on 25 non-English Wikipedias).

The "close-paraphrasing" tag should be deleted.

When I click on the "1954 law" and "1994 law" links, I get only "Bad title".

Nihil novi (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil novi, when Mr. Tatarkiewicz died in 1980, Polish copyright law prevalent at that time extended protection of his works to the year 2000. However in 1994, when his works were still under protection, Poland revised the law and extended protection to seventy years after the death of the author. In the United States, the protection is either seventy or ninety years. So this is not a subject for discussion. Carrying content closely paraphrased like this leaves English Wikipedia legally vulnerable to Mr. Tatarkiewicz's heirs or estate. Having 25 non-English Wikipedia versions does not protect English Wikipedia from this. I'm removing the content for this reason.

I carefully read this article and I strongly suspect you have the talent to write this article very well in your own words. You clearly understand Poland's rich intellectual history. Why not pay true tribute to Mr. Tatarkiewicz's erudition and scholarship? Why not internalize his concepts, put his book aside and write the article as if you were explaining the ideas to your best friend? Show that you truly understand what he's saying and and don't just mimic what he wrote. From what I understand of Poland's intelligentsia, they deserve that. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oona Wikiwalker:

Tatarkiewicz, whom I had the privilege of assisting as a translator over several years, was Poland's greatest historian of western philosophy. My various studies were not in that field. If, however, you leave the article up, I will do my poor best to alter the present text sufficiently to avert any concerns about potential copyright infringement.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil novi, I think the conversation we're having should be part of the history of this article, so I'm going to cut and paste it to the Talk page there, where we can continue the discussion. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil novi, I don't want to minimize the stature of Poland's contribution to world culture and thought, trivialize Mr. Tatarkiewicz's stature as an intellect, or insult your advanced level of language skill. I also don't accuse you of bad ethics. You first added the closely paraphrased content long ago when things here were done a bit differently.

But the article is basically a rehash of Mr. Tatarkiewicz's book and English Wikipedia can't cheat his grandson and great-grandchildren out of royalties by hosting reworded versions of his writings. That's the essence of the issue.

The subject of the article is perfection, and other philosophers have examined the concept (Descartes, Kant, and Hegel, off the top of my head). You could mention them and then introduce us to Mr. Tatarkiewicz. Who studied his book? How did people react to it? How did it affect society? What are its lasting effets? Then offer links to the English and Polish versions in a separate section of the article. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This "Perfection" article was not "closely paraphrased". For example, our "Term and concept" section comprises 5 paragraphs, while in the Polish original it was 6 pages; and our "Paradoxes" section is 3 paragraphs, while the original was 4 pages.

I doubt whether Descartes (1596-1650), Kant (1724-1804), Hegel (1770-1831), or many recent philosophers have delved into the concept of "perfection" in the contexts of semiconductors, perfect numbers, perfectly rigid or perfectly black bodies, or perfect gases.

The Wikipedia "Perfection" article should include information on pertinent ideas of thinkers in addition to Tatarkiewicz.

But, however his ideas may ultimately figure within the "Perfection" article, his texts do need to be reviewed, and I'll continue reviewing them.

I will remind the Wikipedia community that an editor recently nominated this "Perfection" article for deletion as an "absurd" topic, but the community declined to do so.

Nihil novi (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil novi, I don't think this is an absurd topic. I'm not suggesting the article be deleted. But this article is not a review. This is a digest version of Mr. Tatarkiewicz's book. Digest publishers pay royalties to the copyright owners whose works they reproduce. Wikipedia isn't doing that. We cannot leave this up. I'm only delaying doing it because I'm trying to be as fair, careful and respectful as possible to both you and Mr. Tatarkiewicz. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Nihil novi was suggesting I (being the editor in question who nominated the article for deletion) am the one who branded it "absurd"! I did not. I made the nomination on account of the article's paraphrasing/single source issues.

I have nothing more to add at present as have largely already said my piece here and elsewhere, I just thought best to chime in because Nihil novi's suggesting that is why it was nominated for deletion is a bit of an obfuscation of reality. FWIW, I'd probably go with "confused" or "aimless" over "absurd". Many thanks. ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToeSchmoker: Unfortunately, because of who participates, AfD is really not suitable for addressing any problem with an article beyond notability. Critical problems should be raised at a relevant noticeboard (in this case, Wikipedia:Copyright problems). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I fixed the bad title problem above, the links should work now. That said, since Tatarkiewicz died in 1980, I don't think his stuff will be in PD until 2050 or so, which is why Wikisource has no texts of his. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC) Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the "Perfection" article to better present sourced information in a fair-use way.

For context, I have added chronological information about the philosophers discussed.

The revised version is at [3]

I invite editors to review this version and, if it meets with community approval, to revise -- or add information to -- its sections; and to add new sections on any other appropriate aspects of the concept of perfection. Nihil novi (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Perfection" article was listed 19 July 2025 on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page.

The article is no longer there. Where can the decision be found? Nihil novi (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's Copyvio Detector, having compared the "Perfection" article with its principal source, Władysław Tatarkiewicz's papers in Dialectics and Humanism: The Polish Philosophical Quarterly, has concluded: "Violation unlikely: 4.8% similarity".

[4]

"Does this resolve the question?

Nihil novi (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 4.8% similarity is with the text from the Scribd webpage where you can download the source, not the source itself. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is Earwig's Copyvio Detector comparing?

Nihil novi (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Perfection"-article copyright question is currently being considered at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 July 19.

[5]

All 6 papers by Władysław Tatarkiewicz may be viewed there by clicking on "from [6]" in the first line under the date, "19 July 2025".

If the Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 July 19 conferees don't fully trust the work of Earwig's Copyvio Detector (as some of them seem not to), perhaps they could ask a human to compare "Perfection" with Władysław Tatarkiewicz's papers. The human might even find less than Earwig's 4.8% similarity.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the text on that Scribd page is considered "images" instead of "words" by Earwig; thus, the similarity estimate is inaccurate (unfortunately, it's almost never accurate to the actual amount of copyvio in an article). To illustrate what I'm talking about, look at this comparison between my user page and the Scribd article; the text Earwig finds is from the Scribd article is on the right; note how none of the actual text from the PDF gets picked up by Earwig.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to stub this article due to the copyright issues; there's simply far too much overlap with the Tatarkiewicz translation, which has existed in the article since 2006. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees Shouldn't this go to AfD again? These issues were discussed there just two months ago. And what I see above is an explanation of why Earwig doesn't work, but I am not seeing a proof that most of the article was a copyvio. Some of the content may not meet TOO. For example, looking at User:Nihil_novi/sandbox#Term_and_concept_2 (which I believe still contains a relatively recent version of this article), the first sentence of the article read "The noun "perfection", the adjective "perfect", and the verb "to perfect" derive from the Latin verb "perficere" – "to finish" or "to bring to an end"". It seems to me like this sentence would meet WP:LIMITED exception. Ditto for the second one: "The ancient Greek word for "perfection" was "teleiotes"". Again, I'd say the same for the next one "The Greek polymath Aristotle (384–322 BCE) distinguished three concepts of perfection:". Then there is short description of the three concepts, which indeed is very closely paraphrased to the cited source (p.7), but given we are essentially repeating the definitions here, I think that too falls under LIMITED - or perhaps it could be argued to be PD, since Tatarkiewicz provides a translation of Ancient Greek that is in public domain. The last part of that section reads "The Polish philosopher Władysław Tatarkiewicz (1886 – 1980) notes that perfection is often confused with other qualities, such as "excellence". The German polymath Leibniz (1646–1716), who thought the world to be the best of all possible worlds, never called it perfect." and it seems fine to me (again, LIMITED is relevant as well). Since the first four paragraphs (sentences), i.e. the entire first section of the article do not seem to by copyvios (at least in my understanding of LIMITED), I am not convinced blanking of everything is the right thing to do, given the keep verdict of AfD (granted, it wasn't widely participated in; outside of the editors active here, that would be only @Psychastes and @Tpbradbury). PS. Anybody knows how do deal with the Scribid's annoying ads? I am wasting a lot of time with them :( PPS. Another option would be to review each sentence, one by one, as I've done so above. I do agree (as noted before) that the article had some sentences that necessitate rewording or putting in quotation (but, to repeat myself, if there was any analysis here that showed the problem to be substantial, rather than affecting only a small part of it, I've missed, and my analysis of the first section points to LIMITED being a major factor we should consider). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, Nihil novi's rework is fortunately different from what I revdeled; see this Archive.org save of what the article looked like before my revdel for comparison. For example, note how the paragraphs in the old version's "Term and concept" are mostly rearranged excerpts from Tatarkiewicz. Honestly the old version is closer to an outright paste in places than close paraphrasing. Regardless, as WP:LIMITED says, "Note, however, that closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression. The more extensively we rely on this exception, the more likely we are to run afoul of compilation protection." (see also WP:NFCC). I don't have any issue with the article being kept around or whatever, as long as there aren't copyvio concerns. I think Novi's new version is much better from a phrasing perspective; To further negate any LIMITED issues, maybe other sources on the subject can be incorporated? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also yes Scribd is very annoying with the ads... maybe this Archive.org save will fix that but it's not loading for me just yet Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees Thanks. The article very much needs other sources, I think everyone agrees on this. In the meantime, do you think we can use NN's current draft version (copy it over here), or does it still need more rewriting in some places? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I manually reviewed each of the sentences (yes, I dealt with the ads for almost 2 hours, would not recommend) before I sent it to Copyright Problems, so I thought I could chime in. The entire article was a copy and paste with minor rewording in some sections, and very little to none in others, to put it simply. The new rewrite of the article from a copyright standpoint is much better. Nothing like the original article. My thoughts mirror Moneytrees on WP:LIMITED. The4lines |||| (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The4lines Thank you for your analysis, that's very appreciated. Than unless I am missing something, User:Nihil novi can copy the revised version from his sandbox into the main space here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, from a copyright standpoint, I see no issues with the revised version being inserted into the article. The4lines |||| (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems WP:NOTDICT applies, the article relies on a single source (and its translation). The article is pretty much a disambiguation page anyway since the "See also" links make up the bulk of the article's prose.

@Nihil novi, Moneytrees, Oona Wikiwalker, ToeSchmoker, and Piotrus: courtesy ping. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the entire article was a close paraphrase of a work with about 45 years of copyright protection left. Ouch. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure "Perfection" warrants an article and there are enough sources for one out there, but until it is written should the current article be a disambiguation page or should it be draftified? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I'd be opposed to. The article's been in a shoddy state since pretty much the first revision. There has been talk of rewriting and expanding upon the article since I first came to this talk page a couple months ago now but the primary contributors haven't offered much progress there. I've been met with the usual "sources definitely exist", "it's definitely notable", etc. with the onus seemingly falling on the passing editor (in this case myself) to polish the turd. No doubt Wiki editing standards have improved drastically since the mid noughties but I'm not a fan of the notion of waiting another two decades for it to be half-decent.

I think with some rewriting and much better sourcing it could be some sort of summary article, but then maybe you run the risk of it being disjointed/containing unrelated concepts e.g. a perfect fifth and a perfect gas don't have anything in common other than the modifier in the name. Naturally it has been overshadowed by the copyright issues but there remains an undisclosed COI re Nihil novi and Tatarkiewicz (see yonder at COIN for more info). At the very least this should be disclosed should Tatarkiewicz's work continue to be used going forward, and should it be continue to be used then it shouldn't make up the source for 99% of the content because then you have a very clear cut NPOV problem. ToeSchmoker (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But additional sources were found at the AfD, right? I don't see why those and others can't be added in the meantime. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And in my somewhat extensive experience of few k AfDs, ONESOURCE is generally not a sufficient reason for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most up-to-date, concise version of the article is at [7].

Nihil novi (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihil novi Per the discussion in the section just above, I think it would be fine for you to copy it over here. Hopefully this will mark the matter as resolved (the article can still be improved further, of course). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Thank you to all who helped bring this article to a more satisfactory form. Nihil novi (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the reinstatement of the content attributed to Tatarkiewicz I've placed this template in place and am making this section as is required when using said template.

The overarching COI issue has been done to death at this point and has been raised at COIN where you can dive into the details of it but regarding this specific article Nihil novi has/had an undisclosed (academic/professional?) relation with Tatarkiewicz in that he has elsewhere on Wikipedia self-identified himself as the same person who is credited as the translator of Tatarkiewicz's work in the Dialectics and Humanism source.

ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToeSchmoker: Seeing this article expanded like this again feels like an insult. Is there anything we can do about this? MediaKyle (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle Potentially you could take it to the administrators' noticeboard at this point given other dispute resolution methods have just sort of petered out and the offending conduct has continued?

Unfortunately it just seems like this article is destined to be crap, for lack of a better word. I'm almost feeling inclined to just wash my hands of it at this point. I've had recent grammatical & MOS related copyedits reverted by Nihil novi which to me smacks of Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR. One can see above that the article's being regurgitated from a single source was raised in 2006 and you can see the same tired, biased spiel about the author's being a 'highly respected historian of ideas who literally "wrote the book" on the subject of perfection', etc. etc. As much as I'd like to see it be not crap, we have a largely uncompromising editor with a history of honestly quite laughable conduct and I reckon it's going to be a Sisyphean task getting this article into a state befitting such a supposedly notable topic. ToeSchmoker (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now also realise Nihil novi removed the COI template in his same revert of the copyedits and did not mention this in the edit summary. I'm really thinking this needs to go to ANI at this point because this is ridiculous. ToeSchmoker (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking the same thing, I don't think this can go anywhere else but AN at this point. The misconduct here is severe and we clearly just can't deal with it, this article shows us that very clearly. You might be in a better place to start the thread than I am, since you have all the background, but I'll certainly be there. MediaKyle (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]