Talk: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)

{{Talk:Value theory/GA1}}

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Value theory}}

{{Wikipedia:Peer review/Value theory/archive1}}

@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)