Talk:Normativity

Normative example
Can somebody add an example. this is jibberish to me. what does it mean in plain english?


 * Normative is when its the right thing or what is supposed to be or be similair to. same latin roots as normal.


 * That was a definition of normatiave, not an example. A good guide is that descriptive statements are like facts or statements which can be disproved, but normative statements are like generalisations or opinions. They cannot be 'proved' or 'disproved', they may only be agreed or disagreed with.
 * An example of a 'descriptive' statement is: "Wikipedia is free."
 * An example of a 'normative' statement is: "Free information is good."


 * This page http://www.ingrimayne.com/econ/Introduction/Normativ.html has good description of normative from the context of economics.


 * I've added some examples in the text of the main article. Thomasee73 (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Example or no example I believe that the Plain English comment needs to be addressed. There's currently too much legalese in the article. --Kvng (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

suggested rewrites
aziz@ideayayinevi.com (istanbul)

The term "normative" is a neologism for the non-existen "conceptual" in contradistinction basically of "positive." This is a biassed essay inserting pro-positivist Hume into a place he does not deserve. It must be rewritten according to its place in the totality of the philosophical process.

I think it should be rewritten as "descriptive", instead of "positive", because its more widespread this way and less ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.131.250 (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I've put this in the right place, but I don't see a button for starting a new comment.

Norm, Normal, Normalcy and some related words should include a couple of concepts. One is the statistical definition of normal, meaning "typical" or "modal," or in the greatest number (a plurality or majority.)

It should include a sociological concept relating to the most common practices or beliefs. Commonly, a thing is ethical or unethical in relation to the beliefs and preferences of the greatest number of people (in a region.) Strongly-held attitudes may be opposed by attitudes of other groups, having other standards which they consider normal.

Thus, heterosexuality is often called "normal" because it is the condition or practice or belief of the greatest number. Once a majority believe that homosexuality is not deviant or evil, then it would become "normal" in that sense. Similar statements could be made in regard to racial segregation vs. integration.

It is also statistically normal that people should die or age, because those are universal conditions.

Normal can also refer to perfection, as in a "normal kidney," meaning a kidney without defect. If most 50-year olds have defective vision, that would be statistically normal for them, and the 50-year-old with perfect vision would be statistically deviant, though his vision would also be "normal" with respect to the perfection definition.

Common speech may refer to norms as socially agreed standards, such that it is the norm to accept a certain practice. There is a command element involved, but a greater suggestion of agreement by the greatest number.

As it stands at present, the subsection on Law is redundant on the definition in first subsection in philosophy. I suggest that the content be deleted or substantially rewritten.Thomasee73 (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "International relations" which I added and populated
I added the following in my own words with citation:
 * In the academic discipline of International relations, Smith, Baylis & Owens in their Introduction to Smith, Baylis & Owens (2008)[2] make the case that the normative position or normative theory is to make the World a better place and that this theoretical worldview aims to do so by being aware of implicit assumptions and explicit assumptions that constitute a non-normative position and align or position the normative towards the loci of other key socio-political theories such as political Liberalism, Marxism, political Constructivism, political Realism, political Idealism and political Globalization.

This is my reading and interpretation of this text and I have reservations with my mediation and comprehension of the writer's tenets. I feel the article is stronger with it than without it even though it requires additional citations from other works to balance its view. My inclusion isn't as keen as I would like. 49.3.29.32 (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
I don't have the time to properly address this, but recent edits by User:Quantuminformation concern me in that, at the very least, they are dramatic changes and the new lead begins in an unencyclopedic way. I'm tempted to just revert for that reason but instead I'd appreciate if someone with more time would take a look to verify that these big edits are good ones. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm a philosophy phd at princeton so am confident this new introduction is more accurate to the meaning of normative and normativity in academia. If you have concerns about the tone, I'm happy to make some changes. But I intend to rewrite most of this page one way or another as I don't think in its previous state it offered a good encyclopedic introduction to normativity. --quantuminformation
 * I'm mostly concerned about the tone and style, yeah; I saw that you had sourcing which is why I hesitated to just revert. It reads like an essay more than like an encyclopedia article. It looks like you're new to editing Wikipedia so I'd suggest mimicking the style of other articles and reading the manual of style for more specific guidelines. Wish I had more time to give more specific constructive criticism myself but I'm too swamped with life these days. (Also, remember to sign your talk page edits with four tildes (~) which automatically puts the link to your username and the timestamp and everything, like you see here). Glad to have someone else editing philosophy articles here at the wiki. :) --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I immediately noticed these issues, as well, . I have largely restored the lead as of this version by, though I have also largely retained 's changes after removing some problematic content and a reference to a source that does not really talk substantially about the subject., I appreciate your interest in contributing to Wikipedia; however, your writing very different from the sort of tone and style that is used in Wikipedia. To better understand how to speak in WikiVoice, please read our documentation on how to write better articles and our style guidelines on the lead section of articles. Perusing some of Wikipedia's Featured articles may also help with understanding how articles are frequently written on Wikipedia. While I have no reason to believe that you are not a competent and astute writer, writing for Wikipedia is probably unlike anything you have ever done, not least because this is a particularly alien environment for anyone coming from an academic context.On the latter point, you may find the essays on expert editors and Wikipedia's relationships with academic editors to be informative. Also, if you haven't already, I recommend exploring Help:Introduction and Help:Getting started. If you need help with anything, visit the Teahouse or help desk; alternatively, just ask me on my user talk page. I understand that Wikipedia's documentation is labyrinthine, so you are likely to learn more about the norms through bold editing and cycle that usually follows (like now). Nonetheless, if you want to minimize error during your trials, taking some time to familiarize yourself with that labryinth will likely help. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)