Talk:Proposition
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proposition article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 5 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Proposition (logic). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Proposition equals implication?
[edit]When I looked up "inverse" in WP, the article begins immediately talking about implications. So I wondered "Are all propositions implications (because it seemed to me that all propositions should have an inverse)? Elsewhere on the web I found propositions being discussed as implications. If philosophy (does it?) commonly uses this equality ("All A are B" is the same as "If something is A then it's B" or "C implies D for some C, D"), or whatever, should that be discussed somewhere here? -lifeform (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Lesser of Two Equals
[edit]Much of this dicussions deals not with a word but more like an anti-statement made by people who find out that they themselves deal with the proposition but are not targeted by the proponent. What you have thus is a antagonist/protagonist article reffering to the discourse of human kind. As a whole people, this is very suspicious and not to the point of fact. A proper way to put it is that the word deals with risk, not value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:863:41AF:35BC:9314 (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Accessibility of the lead
[edit]I wanted to start discussion on the lead. As stated in my edit summary, my goal was to make the text more accessible to readers without background in the subject, in particular by adding "for example" text. I'm not at all wedded to the particular text I put there earlier today, and I'm very happy to discuss. Botterweg14 (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 5 May 2023
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 18:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
– There does not seem to be a primary topic for this term by pageviews or significance, when compared with referendum (also often called a "proposition"). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Firstly, the article Proposition is not restricted to logic, as it considers also linguistic and philosophical aspects. So the disambiguator "(logic)" is too restrictive, and therefore confusing. Secondly, none of the items in the dab page can be reasonably considered as a primary topics. The page referendum mention "proposition" as the term used in some countries for "referendum". This is a regional use, and cannot therefore be a primary topic. D.Lazard (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- All the articles on propositions in Encyclopedia Britannica are categorized under "logic". I'd say it is the primary way it is described. While referendums are only called propositions in the United States, that doesn't disqualify it from being a potential primary topic. An audience of the entire U.S. is a fairly general audience, even if it doesn't reflect the global name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Proposition and referendum are not synonymous. A proposition (a proposal, as to a change in law) may be subject to a referendum (a vote, to accept or reject the proposition). Station1 (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- All the articles on propositions in Encyclopedia Britannica are categorized under "logic". I'd say it is the primary way it is described. While referendums are only called propositions in the United States, that doesn't disqualify it from being a potential primary topic. An audience of the entire U.S. is a fairly general audience, even if it doesn't reflect the global name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per D.Lazard. Botterweg14 (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Proposition for March indicates that the hatnote was 10th most commonly clicked link here, with 136 visits out of a total incoming traffic of 33.1k (< 0.5%). I think you need a stronger argument to refute the presumption of primary topic by usage here. --Joy (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- C-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class epistemology articles
- High-importance epistemology articles
- Epistemology task force articles
- C-Class logic articles
- High-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- C-Class philosophy of language articles
- High-importance philosophy of language articles
- Philosophy of language task force articles
- Articles with conflicting quality ratings
- Start-Class Linguistics articles
- Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
- Start-Class Theoretical Linguistics articles
- Theoretical Linguistics Task Force articles
- Start-Class philosophy of language articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles