Talk:Value theory

Archives (Index)

2024/June 2024/August

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Proposed merge of Value (social sciences and philosophy) into Value theory

Newer article is three-quarters baked, but really should have searched a bit harder. Remsense ‥ 论 08:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It might be better to merge the content of article Value (social sciences and philosophy) into William Frankena since the article is almost exclusively dedicated to Frankena's view (which seems to be gross violation of WP:BALANCE). If this is done, it would make sense to point the redirect here. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 thank you for the clear perspective. Do you think this article is well-titled as it stands? Remsense ‥ 论 23:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the right title should be. The main discussion is of primary values and secondary values, so maybe the title could be "Primary and secondary values". However, this main distinction for the organization of the article might be original research. The article suggests at various points that it follows Frankena's list of values in Frankena 1963. However, Frankena's list does not include these distinctions. Some individual theorists may use it, but I'm not aware of a widely-used distinction between "primary and secondary values" in value theory. One of the main distinctions in the academic discourse is between intrinsic and instrumental values, for which we already have an article. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Value theory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Acer-the-Protogen (talk · contribs) 20:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

At first glance, it is not eligible for any sort of quick fail. I noticed that the lead section is quite long, which might put it at risk of failing Criterion 1b. It seems properly cited, however. These are just my opening remarks. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 20:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Acer-the-Protogen and thanks for reviewing this article! You are right that the lead is relatively long (currently 375 words). However, it reflects the length of the article and is still within the boundaries proposed by MOS:LEADLENGTH: The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware. However, the lead does seem like it could be cut shorter, especially since this isn't an FA candidate. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 14:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I found a way to further shorten the lead. Regarding MOS:LEADLENGTH, I think it is intended as an ideal for articles in general rather than a recommendation limited only to featured articles. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. As for the MOS, I personally don't interpret it that way, so I appreciate your interpretations, as well as the lead shortening. I'll go ahead and pass Criterion 1b. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 12:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I did some more looking, and in my opinion, this is a good article! The images are licensed and appropriate, and the wording is also good. Thanks for nominating this! :) (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 14:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

So far, this is what I've found. It is the first day as of right now, so feel free to chime in (especially since this is my first GA review.)

I got a spot-check on sources 114, 1, 4, and 212. They all seem alright and paraphrased, and Earwig's only concerns were duplicate titles of the website.

I took a few more looks. This is what I've got from Day 2. I'll look closer at the images and criterions 3a and 3b later.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 13:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that according to some value theorists, nothing is good or bad?

• Source: Oddie, Graham (2013). "Value Realism". The International Encyclopedia of Ethics (1 ed.). Wiley. § Do Value Claims Have Truth Makers?. doi:10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee588. ISBN 978-1-4051-8641-4.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/David D. Demarest

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 27 past nominations.

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC).

• I'll review this. Thriley (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Thriley seems AFK at the moment, so I'll review this. This article, promoted to GA on 20 Feb, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and presentable. No copyvio issues. Hook is interesting, cited, and checks out (the substance of the hook is essentially that there are robust anti-realists, which there are; error theorists such as Mackie are an example discussed in the citation). Good to go. Tenpop421 (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Value theory

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Review by Noleander

I can do this review. Noleander (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Lead ...usually understood as a degree that covers... For "degree" consider "metric" or "measure". Not saying "degree" is bad, the other words seem a bit more natural to me, but I come from the engineering world.

• Term "classification" - This is an important concept in the article:

1. Value theorists distinguish between intrinsic and instrumental value. ... Some classifications focus on the type of benefit,...
2. and Value theorists distinguish various types or categories of values. The different classifications overlap an... c
3. and Other classifications of values have been proposed without a widely accepted main classification....

The first usage of classification (italics above) is confusing because the notion has not been introduced. The 2nd usage (bold above) is a great introduction to the term/concept. Consider moving (or replicating) the 2nd (bold) to before the 1st (italic).

• Lead: Wording The roots of value theory lie in the ancient period as .. "ancient period" reads like a term of art; for a general-purpose encyclopedia (especially in the Lead), consider "ancient history" or "antiquity" or similar.

• Definition: Wording: As the branch of philosophy examining which .. my ears want to hear As the branch of philosophy that examines which ... but that may just be my west coast US dialect.

• Value: Clarify "evaluative" and "evaluative terms" Value is the worth, usefulness, or merit of something.... Many evaluative terms are employed... Evaluative terms are sometimes distinguished from ... The first 2 paragraphs of the Value section may be hard for some readers to digest. The Definition section above it defines "value theory"; okay ... then the reader comes to the "Value" section which defines "value". Alright, those are two different things. The subsections under "Value" section are describing various kinds or categories or flavors of values, okay. But there is something missing: the 2 paragraphs that start the Value section focus on "evaluative terms".

• Maybe add a few words explaining/defining "evaluative terms" before its firs usage
• How do the following subsection terms ("Intrinsic", "instrumental", "Absolute", "relative" ) relate to "evaluative terms", if at all? Are those four words evaluative terms?
• When assessing a value, is there a distinction between "degree" assessments (mearsurements) which can vary continuously in value (good/bad... many degrees between); vs binary (only 2 choices) assessments: intrinsic/insturmental; abs/relative?

Each individual sentence reads fine; I'm just a bit lost about the focus/point/essence of the Value section, particularly its first 2 paragraphs.

• Continuing the above thought on "Value" section: speaking naively: Would it help to create a subsection (within Value) to hold the first 2 paragraphs of Value section? maybe title it "Evaulative terms" or "definition of value"?

• Continuing the above thought on "Value" section: the 3rd paragraph of "Value" Value theorists distinguish various types or categories of values. ... is a great intro to the following 3 subsections, but is kinda hidden. Would the reader benefit if a new top-level "Categories of value" section was created to hold (a) that Value theorists distinguish various types or categories .. sentence _and_ (b) the following three subsections?

• Citation format: Schwartz & Cieciuch 2016, pp. 109–113. This cite has a period at the end (from the "sfn" template); all the other cites omit the period ("harvnb" template). [Personally, I like period at the end of all cites, because it gives future editors the flexibility to add words at the end of the cite (e.g. a minor note or explanation such as "Smith 2016, p. 45. Smith's opinion contrasts with Jones'."). By using "harvnb" throughout an article, it really limits future editors. But that is just me.] Regardless, the FA reviewers will want either all with periods; or all without.

• ... in progress ... Noleander (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RR

@Remsense Fair enough. The policy you linked me to (WP:lead) has a section that does state that the body should be more detailed than the leading paragraphs. In that sense, the leading paragraph is nothing but a summary, and repeating points, which I would normally consider redundant from the leading paragraphs, is technically allowed in the body under the manual of style. Although, just in case, I consulted the talk page there for further clarification on this issue. Senomo Drines (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The idea is usually to have a detailed explanation with sources in the body of the article and a concise summary of the most important points in the lead, which does not require sources if it only summarizes sourced material in the body. You could express this by saying that the right type of redundancy is required in this case, not prohibited. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It does require sources, actually. Nothing in Wikipedia is unsourced. Since the lead is just a summary of the body, however, you can just copy paste the same source from the body its taking that information from. Senomo Drines (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

No. See MOS:LEADCITE. MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Senomo Drines (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)