 | Normativity is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by Phlsph7 (talk) at 08:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review this article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor. When complete, this review will be closed by the reviewer. To view the review and add comments, click discuss review. |
 | Normativity was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 12, 2026, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Philosophy split
editThere 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)
- Since 'normativity' is a high-level concept in so many fields, it seems pretty clear that the philosophical concept of normativity is the primary topic here. What would a broad article about "normativity" as a concept even be if it were not rooted in philosophy? It would just be a bunch of sections on unrelated concepts mushed together. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
GA review
editThe 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Normativity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 13:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Z. Patterson (talk · contribs) 02:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
I would have reviewed the article, but there is a banner on the page saying a move discussion is in progress. For this reason, I am going to quick-fail the article until the move discussion at Talk:Normativity#Philosophy split is resolved, either by keeping the information on the page as-is or splitting the information in question out to a new article called Normativity (philosophy). Once this is done, you can resubmit this article for a GAN if you choose to do so. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Z. Patterson: This was a bad quickfail. The GA criteria specifically mention proposals to split or merge content as edits which do not apply to the stability criterion. Phlsph7, if you nominate this again I will happily review it. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
GA review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Normativity/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 08:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 14:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
I aim to review this in the following days. Thank you as always for your great work on these broad concepts! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Generalissima, thanks for jumping in to do this review! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)