Talk:Normativity

Philosophy split

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.

---

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)

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)

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.

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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.

• @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

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.

---

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)

Prose

Normativity concerns the standards of what should, ought, or must be the case.

Alright. I'm a bit tired as I write this, so apologizes if I misinterpret any of the prose.-G

• The example in the lede is interesting with the 'smoking' statements, and I'm not saying it's bad, but I'm interested in your thought process behind it. It feels a little ambiguous to me, but maybe I'm overthinking it.

  The basic idea is to contrast a sentence that reports an empirical fact with a sentence that expresses a normative demand. The example is based on McHugh, Way & Whiting 2018, but we could use something different as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is there nothing which works as a lede image here?

  What do you think about should-ought-must image on the right? It's difficult to find a representative image that covers the topic as a whole rather than just one specific aspects. Having no image would also be a viable option. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is there a particular reason to say "ought to" instead of "should"? This could just be an ENGVAR difference, but the latter sounds better to my ears.

  Sources use both, typically interchangeably. I changed it for the lead sentence, but I think it also makes sense for the article to use both. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• The "pro tanto" sentence is a bit confusing to me; I can't tell if it is mutually exclusive with objective or subjective normativity, or a separate category all together. It helps that pro tanto is pretty obscure, and I can't tell if the sentence is defining what pro tanto means or is simply discussing it.

  I tried to simplify the explanation by removing the difficult term from the lead. Generally speaking, the different distinctions can overlap. For example, an objective assessment could be partial (pro tanto) or comprehensive (all-things-considered). However, individual philosophers may disagree about whether all possible combinations are valid options. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Why don't primitivists get a link?

  I'm not sure that we have a good link target. The article Primitivism is primarily about art styles, while for us, it just means that normative phenomena can be reduced to non-normative phenomena. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• You might want to link Fact–value distinction in the lede, like you do in Definition.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Other related fields include economics, medicine, and neuroscience. Related to linguistics or law, or related to normativity?

  Clarified. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Last paragraph of definition is quite long.

  I split it into two paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• MOS says birth and death details should only be included after a name if there is special contextual relevance. While having a rough chronology is helpful here, I don't think specific years are needed; the contrast between antiquity and modernity already mentioned is good enough.

  I removed them. Generally speaking, opinions are divided on this point, and some reviewers insist on birth and death dates whenever a chronology is involved. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• The 'Types' section is really solid. Great job explaining these concepts.

  Thanks! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• For instance, a person may be justified to believe that their bank is open on Saturday if it concerns a minor matter, but not if they risk losing their house by missing a mortgage payment.[22] This example seems a little confusing to me. Are we saying that if they have a mortgage payment, they should confirm this rather than believe it without evidence? Are we assuming the bank is supposed to be closed on Saturday?

  I added an additional explanation. The point is that the normative standards of belief are higher if there are serious consequence: don't simply assume that your bank is open if being wrong means losing your house. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Deontic is a bit of an obscure word and may be nice to link to some Wiktionary page.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• After several sentences on formal normativity, robust normativity is only given a sentence and not really elaborated on, leaving me confused what exactly it means.

  I expanded the explanation. However, this one is tricky and our sources also struggle to explain it, so it's probably still not entirely satisfactory. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Might want to link Linguistic norm and Legal norm when introducing the concepts in 'Others', like you do in the lede.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• I think 'queer' is a specifically-coded enough of a word at this point that we shouldn't use it, especially when odd suffices well.

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is Korsgaard really important enough for a picture here? This doesn't strike me as particularly helpful for understanding the concepts.

  The picture is not necessary, but Korsgaards views on normativity have been influential and the space permits an image. I rewrote the caption to make it more relevant to the text. If that does not work, we could also remove the image. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• "In various fields" is extremely solid.
• Images are broadly appropriate (but see notes), properly licensed, and have alt-text. They satisfy criterion 6.
• Article is stable, satisfying criterion 5.
• The article has a lot of depth without going into the weeds, and is very neutral, good job; it meets criteria 3 and 4.

Sources

Sources consistently use SFNs and are almost uniform in formatting.

• Jaakko Hintikka is the only author wikilinked - this should be consistent one way or another.

  I removed the link. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• The Oxford dictionary online link doesn't have an accessed date.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• You give Springer as the publisher in different ways: Springer International Publishing, Springer Science & Business Media, Springer Netherlands, or just Springer. As far as I'm aware, these are all the same publishing house, and 'Springer Netherlands' is just noting the specific location in an international firm, which the other sources do not do.

  I defaulted all to "Springer". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• In Boghossian, Oxford University Press is given as "Oxford University PressOxford"

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Some cites use 10 digit ISBNs instead of the standard 13.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Spot check to come. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, I came down with a nasty cold and I have not had the wherewithal to do a spot check. I should be able to do it over the next few days, however.

The prose seems fine to me now; I think you're right that having no image might be the best option here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 12:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the cold, I hope you are feeling better now. Regarding the spotchecks, let me know if you have trouble accessing sources. For the offline ones, I can't quote full pages of text here, but I should be able to provide shorter quotes to cover at least the main points of each passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Normative claims can be analyzed in terms of their content, such as a rule that should be followed, and the authority or normative force they carry. For example, some normative reasons merely favor one course of action over another, while others strictly demand a specific conduct. In either case, a normative reason does not coerce compliance: individuals may act otherwise out of ignorance or against their better judgment. Accordingly, there can be a difference between what a person desires or intends and what they normatively should do.
9		Dancy 2000, pp. xvi–xv O'Neill 1996, pp. xi–xv		?	Dancy should be xiv-xv, but checks out. O'Neill is fine.
Edmund Husserl in the 1930s and Georges Canguilhem in the 1940s introduced normativity as a technical term for the power of creating and changing norms, with Husserl focusing on the realm of ideas while Canguilhem explored functional norms and pathologies of organisms.
16		Debru 2011, pp. 1–3		Y	Checks out fine.
It describes what is worthy of approval, expressed through concepts such as good, bad, praiseworthy, and virtuous.
25		Copp & Morton 2022, Lead section Dancy 2000, pp. vii–viii		Y	Copp & Morton checks out, Dancy checks out
Agent-relative normativity encompasses requirements that in some sense depend on and affect a specific person but not others. It may arise from the particular social role of a person, such as standards or expectations associated with being a teacher, doctor, or mother. Previous behavior can also be a source of agent-relative normativity, like when someone should do something because they made a promise. Agent-relative normativity contrasts with agent-neutral normativity, which applies equally to everyone.
40	b	Bykvist 2018, pp. 821–824 O'Neill 1996, pp. xiii–xiv		Y	Good job summarizing this, you make it a lot clearer than Bykvist does. O'Neill checks out too, giving the example you use.
Theories further aim to explain how normative ideas motivate actions and how their demands are justified.
45		Korsgaard 1996, pp. 12–14		Y	Yep, checks out.
Many reason-based accounts aim to provide a unified explanation of different types of normativity, like practical normativity about what to do and theoretical normativity about what to believe. One proposed unification argues that both types are about following reasons: reasons that favor a course of action in the practical case and reasons that support a belief in the theoretical case.
64		Dancy 2000, pp. vii–viii Schroeder 2018, pp. 46–48		Y	Dancy checks out, Schroeder also checks out.
Closely connected to reason-based accounts is the idea that normativity can be defined by focusing on how it guides reasoning and action without directly relying on the notion of reasons. For example, Ralph Wedgwood suggests that a concept is normative if it sets standards of what to think and do.
66		Debru 2011, pp. 4–5 Wedgwood 2007, pp. 6, 9, 82 Star 2018, pp. 3–4		Y	Debru checks out, the description from Wedgewood checks out (though it might be worth introducing Wedgewood as a philosopher?), Starr checks out and describe's Wedgewood's thought well.
Other approaches see empirical observation as the source of normative knowledge or argue for coherentism, according to which normative beliefs mutually support each other by forming part of a coherent web of beliefs.
82		Wedgwood 2007, pp. 8–9, 233		Y	Yep, checks out.
Logic, another connected discipline, studies the standards of correct reasoning and argumentation. It examines rules of inference, such as modus ponens, and fallacies, which fall short of the norms of good reasoning, such as false dilemmas.
92		Steinberger 2022, Lead section, § 1. The normative status of what? Hintikka 2019, Lead section, § N…		Y	Both check out, works for me.
Social norms are rules about how to behave in social contexts, such as waiting in a line instead of cutting to the front.
101		Fagundes 2017, pp. 1179–1180		Y	From an article entirely about that example! Checks out.
Despite the variability, researchers observe universal patterns for how norms are passed on to others, children in particular, as an aspect of socialization. These patterns include steady and consistent repetition to build habits, general evaluative assessments of the learner, and the use of strong emotions to enforce those habits, often negative ones through some form of punishment.
108		Roughley & Bayertz 2019, pp. 40–41		Y	Checks out.
Normative economics contrasts with positive economics, which focuses on empirical description and explanation of economic phenomena.
120		Fleurbaey 2023, § 1.1 Positive vs. Normative Economics		Y	Checks out.-G
Understood in the widest sense, psychological normativity is not limited to cognitions that explicitly address normative issues: there are implicit norms governing the appropriateness of many or all mental states. For example, anger or grief are appropriate responses to some circumstances but not others, and the degree of an emotional response can also be adequate or excessive.
95		Brinkmann 2019, pp. 193–194, 199–200 Wedgwood 2007, pp. vii, 2, 153–154 Kriegel 2010, pp. 185–186		Y	Finishing up on a hard one to check. But it checks out.-G

I had a script check a random sample of cites. All but one (which had a minor page count error) checked out. Once that's done, this should be good to go. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the spotcheck and all the helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Beta Beta Beta (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that normative judgments express what should be, while descriptive judgments report what is? Source: Copp, David; Morton, Justin (2022). "Normativity in Metaethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Lead section. Retrieved 13 October 2025.; Dancy, Jonathan (2000). "Editor's Introduction". In Dancy, Jonathan (ed.). Normativity. Blackwell Publishers. pp. vii–viii, xii–xiv. ISBN 978-0-631-22041-1.
• ALT1: ... that normativity is a quality of rules, judgments, or concepts that prescribe how things should be? Source: Copp, David; Morton, Justin (2022). "Normativity in Metaethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Lead section, § 1.1 Concept vs. World, § 3. Can Normativity Be Given a Naturalistic Explanation?. Retrieved 13 October 2025.; McHugh, Conor; Way, Jonathan; Whiting, Daniel (2018). "Introduction". In McHugh, Conor; Way, Jonathan; Whiting, Daniel (eds.). Normativity: Epistemic and Practical. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-19-875870-9.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Carl Knudsen, Template:Did you know nominations/Martins Sarmento Society Building

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 38 past nominations.

Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC).

• I'll review this. Thriley (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • @Thriley: do you still plan to review this nomination? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hooks are interesting and sourced. QPQ is done. Looks ready to go. Thank you for all your work on this! Thriley (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2026 (UTC)