Talk:Grounding (metaphysics)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

Merge Proposal

I propose merging this article into Metaphysical grounding. The latter is a significantly more rigorous and well-sourced treatment of the topic, aligning with contemporary analytic philosophy and major scholarly sources. The current article lacks precision, depth, and citation. See Metaphysical grounding for the improved version. LogicSoup (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, but in the reverse direction; Grounding (metaphysics) is the simpler topic (WP:CONCISE), and older article. I note that LogicSoup is the author of the new article, and it is a little suprising that they didn't just improve the existing article. Klbrain (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support reverse direction merge per Klbrain: the article Metaphysical grounding was created just a couple of days ago by LogicSoup. It is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and should be merged into Grounding (metaphysics). While it is correct that the established article Grounding (metaphysics) has sourcing problems, the sourcing problems of the new article Metaphysical grounding are even more severe, so care should be taken about merging unsourced passages. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply – I appreciate the procedural concern about article age and merge direction. But this is not a case of content redundancy—it is a case of content replacement. The current article, Grounding (metaphysics), is conceptually confused, lacks structure, and does not cite or engage with the main scholarly literature. It was created as a placeholder and remained underdeveloped for years.

By contrast, the content at Metaphysical grounding is:

Fully cited using <ref> tags and bibliographic formatting,
Structured according to academic standards,
Up-to-date with the main debates in contemporary analytic philosophy, including works by Fine, Rosen, Schaffer, Wilson, and others,
Written with a clear analytic framework and hyperlinked to relevant Wikipedia pages (e.g., truthmaker theory, neo-Aristotelianism, physicalism).

The current title, Grounding (metaphysics), is itself problematic: it is an unnatural disambiguation-page title (akin to Hazard (ethics) instead of Moral hazard). The standard term in philosophical literature is metaphysical grounding. This justifies the current title per WP:TITLE#Recognizability and WP:NATURALDIS. — LogicSoup (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, this is pretty much a standard case of WP:CONTENTFORK. It seems you want to rename the article Grounding (metaphysics) as well as expand and restructure it. I don't have a strong opinion on the name either way. I agree with you that the article should be expanded. One way to do this would be: draftify your article Metaphysical grounding, decide on this talk page about the name of the article Grounding (metaphysics), and then expand this article step by step from your draft. As a sidenote: Your new article is not "Fully cited" and major parts lack references. For example, the main sections "Historical antecedents" and "Applications" have not a single reference tag. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Phlsph7 – You make reasonable points, though I can't say I fully agree. A few points of clarification and response:

This is not a case of WP:CONTENTFORK, which refers to parallel overlapping articles with redundant coverage. Rather, I think this is a clear case of content replacement—comparable to substituting a stub or underdeveloped placeholder with a comprehensive, up-to-date article grounded in the academic literature (with a more apt title).
Re: citations. You're right that the "Historical antecedents" and "Applications" sections are inadequately cited—although I would still maintain that overall my revision is a clear improvement on the original placeholder. I'm happy to provide citations to ensure these sections are fully referenced before the merge proceeds. I'll try to get to it sometime in the next month.
Re: draftification. I understand your point, but I think that would be a step backward. We now have a high-quality, structurally rigorous article in mainspace under a superior title ("Metaphysical grounding")—one that matches the standard term of art in the philosophical literature (compare moral realism rather than "realism (moral)", causal determinism rather than "determinism (causal)", epistemic justification rather than "justification (epistemic)"). Draftifying a well-developed article to retrofit an inferior legacy stub seems contrary to Wikipedia’s emphasis on quality and verifiability.

The right path forward, I believe, is to merge from the placeholder article into the superior draft under its natural name, and preserve the better structure, sourcing, and coverage. I agree (and thank you for pointing out) the flaws in the present draft, which I'll try to address soonish. — LogicSoup (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]