Talk:Nihilism

Untitled edit request

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Add a sentence at the very bottom of the article stating "In the 2020s, Financial Nihilism has been documented among Generation Z."
• Why it should be changed: This would improve the article by including a single sentence about notable instances of nihilism in the 2020s.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): first source: second source:

Bome sall 1 (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I messed up using the wizard, sorry about that Bome sall 1 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. This doesn't say anything of substance. What even is financial nihilism? What does "has been documented among" even mean? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis

According to the world economic forum( one of the sources I linked) The phrase "financial nihilism" describes the sense that the economic system no longer rewards prudence or long-term planning.

I feel like it is relevant to the article on nihilism to include recent news about financial nihilism in Gen z Bome sall 1 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Lead-image concerns

Copying from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors some unresolved matters during this article's appearance on the main page. DMacks (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The image has poor text-vs-background contrast in normal mode (white background), badly failing the MOS:CONTRAST accessibility standard. DMacks (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It's worse than that. The diagram is original research as its structure and form was conceived by the Wikipedia author rather than being based upon some external source. It is also absurd in that it presents the concept as a specific trinity when the concept is more of a blanket rejection of rules which might better be represented by a blank piece of paper or the null graph used by Nothing.

It would be better to show a portrait of a historical figure associated with such ideas. Britannica leads with Nietzsche, for example.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@TFA coordinatorsUser:Wehwalt User:Gog the Mild User:Z1720 might want to take a look at this. Schwede66 10:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The diagram is original research as its structure and form was conceived by the Wikipedia author rather than being based upon some external source: WP:OR covers the facts we present and the inferences we allow to be drawn between them. It does not cover how those facts or inferences are phrased -- just as we expect the phrasing of text on Wikipedia to be different from that of our sources. The OR concern would be if the diagram is likely to lead readers towards a conclusion that is not stated in or supported by its sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the OR concern, if the diagram is generally accurate. That being said, it is not my field of expertise. Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I would also be happier with a historical figure, or even a blank image, and share Andrew's concerns that this specific inference (that nihilism is a specific triad of negations) might be OR, or at best represent a particular set of interpretations of nihilism. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

After re-reading the lead, I think the image is a good representation of what is expressed, with the caption helping that explanation. I do not think the image is OR because it is supported by the text in the lead. This image was selected because it is the one used at the top of the article, and it provides a diversity of image type as TFA is frequently represented by historical images, especially men of European descent. I think the image is fine to remain. Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

And given the image was created by Phlsph7, the editor who got this difficult topic to FA, it's accurate and I agree is more meaningful to the reader. Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Nihilism is a family of views that reject the existence of certain phenomena, such as meaning, morality, and knowledge. I guess we can agree that this part is not original research. Visually, a rejection can be expressed by striking something out. I hope that in the context of the explanation in the text, this should be intuitive to the reader. The caption of the image says "Illustration of various forms of nihilism". So it does not claim that nihilism is nothing but those three rejections. I don't think that there is a novel claim made by the image that is not in the text.

Concerning the contrast, the image looks very clear to me on white background. It's svg format, so changing the colors would be easy in case they are a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Word	Hex color in File:Forms of nihilism.svg	Contrast ratio vs white (#ffffff) background
"meaning"	#ff33ff	2.92:1
"morality"	#44dd22	1.8:0
"knowledge"	#2080ff	3.75:1

MOS:CONTRAST says to use ≥ 4.5:1. DMacks (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

New version

That's a useful metric, thanks for the suggestion. I adjusted the colors and added the new version, I hope the contrasts are better in it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• No, it's not accurate; it seems to be meaningless. The caption says "llustration of various forms of nihilism". So, what do the arrows mean? Why those particular words? Why three words and not four, five or more. It seems quite arbitrary and intended to be decorative rather than informative and is contrary to guidance such as MOS:TEXTASIMAGES and MOS:IMAGEREL. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW, I'm with Z1720 and Wehwalt on the image -- I don't see a problem under either of those two guidelines. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  An arrow is typically used to indicate a relation of some kind. In this case, it's the relation between nihilism and the rejection of meaning/morality/knowledge. Those three were not chosen arbitrarily but because they correspond to the forms of nihilism that get the most attention in overview sources. If the image really was meaningless and contained no information at all, you probably wouldn't have claimed that it was original research or misrepresented the topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  

  If you showed the diagram to people without a caption and asked them what it meant, you'd probably get a variety of fuzzy explanations. A "relation of some kind" seems quite vague, for example. Such graphical elements don't seem to add anything to the words listed which would be more clearly expressed as a prose sentence.

  I still reckon it would be better to use a respectable external image. Apart from the portraits of people like Nietzsche, consider La Nihiliste by Paul Merwart (pictured). Andrew🐉(talk) 18:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, it's probably not clear to the reader from Paul Merwart's La Nihiliste how the image is related to nihilism. At this size, one can only really see a half-naked woman lying on the floor. Also, we probably shouldn't imply in the caption that the depicted woman is Olga Lyubatovich unless this is certain. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  There were many such female Russian nihilists at that time – see The images of the Woman Nihilist in Russia... – and so Lyubatovich is just an example of the archetype. I suppose the painting is imagined from reporting of the time but I have not located any critical commentary on it yet. It might still be used to illustrate the Political nihilism section though.

  The arrow diagram has been restored but I still consider this to be quite unacceptable and so will be continuing to press for an alternative. An RfC might be started but we should clarify the options for the lead image first as there seem to be quite a few including:

  1. The arrow diagram
  2. Some other homebrew summary of the topic. For example, see the "Types of nihilism" graphic here which lists four major types, not three
  3. An infobox or navigational template which would list related words and articles in a more conventional way
  4. A portrait of a influential person such as Jacobi, Nietzsche or Turgenev
  5. Another artwork such as The Scream
  6. A picture of nothing such as we have at Nothing
  7. Nothing at all
  8. An emblem/icon/logo/symbol such as Nihilism Symbol or Slashed zero

  Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  The image and article linked at 2 seem to be AI-generated.

  For 5, The Scream is associated with angst and existentialism as a whole, and nihilism in particular is not mentioned on the painting's page.

  For 6 and 7, I think the current image is better than nothing. Shogeneral (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  If you want to recreate an image along the lines of 2 so we can assess the suggestion, you can give it a try. It probably needs several sentences of text. This may be difficult to read in a small image. Concerning 3: lead sidebars are generally discouraged per WP:LEADSIDEBAR. For a portrait, it would be challenging to find a representative of nihilism at large. Images of representatives of specific forms of nihilism are already present in the type-specific sections. I agree with Shogeneral on the problems of the The Scream. Concerning 6, the mathematical concept "null graph" is nowhere mentioned in the text, so having an image that says "Figure 1: The Null Graph" is probably more confusing than helpful. Having no image is a viable option for articles on abstract topics, but I prefer the current image.

  I understand that you are unhappy with the image, but I think that the OR maintance tag does not fit. Original research is about unverifiable information. Presenting verified information visually is not original research, similar to how an accurate paraphrase is not original research.

  I agree that we could use Merwart's image for the section on political nihilism. However, we would need a reliable source so we can explain in what sense it presents nihilism without just speculating about the relation. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  How about a Slashed zero? Zero seems the most common symbol for nihil/nothing, which clearly inspired the term. The slashed variation is more distinct from O and adds a bit of the idea of rejection (of meaning et cetera).

  Perhaps it could be accompanied by strikethrough words like meaning / morality / knowledge,/ truth / purpose as a potential compromise to the current illustration?

  I'm not convinced that arrows and different colours can illustrate the "the relation between nihilism and the rejection of meaning/morality/knowledge". Neither am I convinced by the choice for these three. Would just meaning suffice, as it can be argued that the others follow from the rejection that they are objectively meaningful? Or truth, because it's all about rejecting the possibility of objective notions of reality? Or can we choose four rejected terms to place in the four corners of the illustration? I think I'd prefer the latter, with meaning / morality / knowledge / truth. Joortje1 (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about the slashed zero, but an image of several strikethrough words could also work so that each one represents one of the main types of nihilism (I would choose political order instead of truth so we do not have two representatives of epistemological nihilism). The current image makes the relation to nihilism more explicit. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  

  A symbol of nihilism

  As another option, I made a search for icons or symbols of nihilism and found this image on Commons. It seems to have some currency in Russia and so I tried it out. Phlsph7 reverted to the symbol of his own creation, removing the OR tag with the summary not a standard symbol of nihilism; restore previous image and remove tag since the restored references directly support it; see talk page

  I still not accept Phlsph7's position. The sources do not directly support Phlsph7's symbol because they do not show such an image or anything like it. As we have no consensus and Phlsph7 is now removing tags without resolution, I shall remove their image. Let's try nothing for a while as that's an option too. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  If there's no consensus, then the status quo is kept, which is Phlsph7's image. Shogeneral (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

No, the nihilism article was created in 2001 and, for most of its existence, it seems to have had no lead image just sometimes a navigational template. The disputed arrow symbol SVG is comparatively recent and the current version was created just a few days ago. So, that's not the status quo; it's a bizarre novelty. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It was the status quo before the dispute started, and that's all that is relevant. Shogeneral (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Starting Sentence Misrepresents Nihilism?

Nihilism is a broader family than just purpose, morality, and knowledge. I think the starting sentence misrepresents nihilism as being exclusive to these instead of showing them as examples. QuixoticNapoleon (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello QuixoticNapoleon and thanks for your input. The current first sentence is quite broad and covers the most important nihilist views. I think it serves well for introducing the article as a good compromise between being broad and being helpful. You are right that the term nihilism has many meanings and is also occasionally used in other senses. However, replacing it with a very vague formulation that probably also doesnt really cover everything is probably not a good idea. In case you are interested, there were already early talk-page discussions about this point regarding the first sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

My issue is not that the first sentence isn't broad, nor that those topics aren't the most popular formulations. My issue is that the first sentence misrepresents what nihilism actually is. It is not factually accurate. QuixoticNapoleon (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the sentence aligns with how reliable sources present the topic. If you are interested in other meanings of the term, there is a disambiguation notice at the top of the article, which links to Nihilism (disambiguation) and Nihilist (disambiguation). Phlsph7 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)