Talk:Normativity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Normativity is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by Phlsph7 (talk) at 13:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and then save the page. See the good article instructions. Short description: Standards of what should be |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Philosophy split
There is too much emphasis in the article on philosophy; the philosophy section should be split into its own article, Normativity (philosophy). HueSurname (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hello HueSurname and thanks for your suggestion. According to WP:PROPORTION, articles should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. I think that's what the article does. While its true that normativity is relevant to several fields, many only discuss it in passing, so we have to be careful about WP:FALSEBALANCE. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
For the record the revert not only reverted separating philosophy from the rest of the sections, but also removed the standards section for no reason. As for "where philosophy begins and ends" it's pretty much when you use terms like "deontic", "pro tanto", "categorical", "supererogation", "anti-realism", "primitivism", "internalism", "constructivism", and so on. This article is heavily skewed toward normativity in philosophy to the detriment of all other sections. At the very least the philosophy emphasis should be cordoned into its own section, but better yet it should be split into its own article due to WP:DUE, since it is disemphasizing all other fields in favor of normativity in philosophy. HueSurname (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Regarding the "Standards documents" section, the mere fact that the CEN-CENELEC Internal Regulations and the International Organization for Standardization Directives Part 2 use the term "normative" does not justify a standalone section. If you look at book-length treatments of normativity, you will find very few sources that are not related to philosophy in some vague sense. So there is a reason for giving more weight to what they say than to the CEN-CENELEC Internal Regulations and the International Organization for Standardization Directives Part 2. Treating them equally by giving a main section to each violates WP:PROPORTION, I hope that is uncontroversial.
- Our article is based on various overview sources of the subject. Most of them seek to discuss the problem of normativity at large rather than limiting themselves to the philosophical relevance of normativity. Normativity is an abstract subject so the use of technical terms is to be expected. This is not specific to philosophy, but also found in psychology, linguistics, and law. For example, many of the terms you mentioned are used in Plunkett, David; Shapiro, Scott J.; Toh, Kevin (2019), Dimensions of Normativity, which covers metaethics and jurisprudence. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)