Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture defines politics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE (18:7)

Its talk page Talk:Cultural imprint on politics is preserved, for more arguments of the discussion. Mikkalai 23:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cultural imprint on politics

[edit]

((I have changed the title to Cultural imprint on politics))

Delete. Original research. 172 00:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and rewrite. This is definitely a personal essay, but I think it has potential as an article. At the very least, merge with Antonio Gramsci. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 00:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) On second thought, knowing absolutely nothing about Antonio Gramsci or his ideas, I really don't feel qualified to vote either way. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 06:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and re-title Culture-defined politics, to accord with Wikipedian style. This offers a sensible axiom to hang more facts and interpretations on than merely Gramsci's own. I'm at a loss why this entry should have been selected for deletion. Links pointing to this entry need to be written into a number of entries. --Wetman 01:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't see how any article with a title even close to this could help but be original research. RickK 05:18, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, since all of the radical inclusionists are coming out of the woodwork to vote keep on this ridiculous article, I'll actually vote. Delete, inherently POV. RickK 00:13, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Me? A radical inclusionist? Just for that I'm withdrawing my keep vote. :) -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 06:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki to Wikinfo (as is being discussed on Talk page). Original research; personal essay. If you do not know Gramsci, do not make the mistake of thinking this article says anything credible about him simply because it claims to do so. Nowhere among its citations is a credible source for information about Gramsci; it does not quote his work directly even once. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The title has to go, definitely. Maurreen 06:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) Neutral. I don't know enough about the topic to feel comfortable voicing an opinion on the topic either way. But I think the new title, "Cultural imprint on politics", is quite appropriate. Maurreen 06:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe this is a keep vote and can we count it as such. And Maurreen, I am working on the title such as "Cultural determinates on politics" or "Cultural effects on politics". I like the former. WHEELER 18:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed the title to "Cultural imprint on politics". I think that this will suit you. I think that this is a beautiful compromise and does justice to the subject matter. Thanks.WHEELER 20:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 06:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, Malachi Martin refers to a John Dziak. This is not original research. This needs to be looked under intelligence operations. Fr. Martin refers to "professional intelligence experts", that is where we need to look for this information. Thanks.WHEELER 15:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. – Kaihsu 15:52, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 00:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This needs to be re-worked from "culture defines politics because X, Y and Z" into "X, Y and Z said thatculture defines politics." History of an idea, not argument for it. The sourcing is there, the form needs to be re-cast. Bacchiad 06:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 00:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Clearly original reserach, and at any rate, highly innaccurate polemic which –grossly– misrepresents well-known apsects of Gramsci's views; references section rely more on Plato than anything; form is peculiar and idiosyncratic; content is phrased in highly biased, POV terms. El_C 04:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mark K. Jensen 09:11, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, personal essay. Not encyclopedic. --BM 22:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. —Korath (Talk) 06:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP, altho a change of title, and wider range of editor involvement could be good. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 13:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and delete - David Gerard 22:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp 15:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a personal essay --Neigel von Teighen 19:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV essay. Gzornenplatz 19:51, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Somewhat interesting, but original research. older≠wiser 19:56, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite to conform to standards, otherwise Delete. This is a heavily slanted version of the concept, designed to promote particular versions of what is a broad paradigm. User should integrate material on the relevant pages in wikipedia in an NPOV manner. There should be an article on Cultural determinism, which is a term that people might actually look up, and which could use with a thorough, NPOV article. As a side note, the level of hostility over this VfD is far too high. The contributor should not be censured as heavily by those supporting a delete, but should, instead, be given a chance to write an article which conforms to wikistandards. Since the concept is documentable, and recurrant, it should be included. However, the current article is clearly "Gramsci's theory of cultural determination of politics" and not a general article. I hope users can back off of the personal on this one and realize that the goal is to create an encyclopedia, and not engage in turf wars to advance particular versions of ideas. Stirling Newberry 20:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS. I have added this article with some examples, it should be clear that the concept can, and should, be documented, and that the effort spent on arguing over this could be better spent producing a much better article. Stirling Newberry 20:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal essay. --Michael Snow 22:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • POV personal essay. Merge anything salvageable into Cultural determinism and then delete. RadicalSubversiv E 15:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • move to a subpage and rewrite to conform to standards, otherwise Delete. As such move it to a temp subpage and rewrite first. As it is it is an unnaceptable essay. - Taxman 19:33, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Personal essay. The author might want to consider trying to rewrite it with references if that can be done, but as it stands, it's original research. Smacks a little of Montesquieu. SlimVirgin 05:05, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A chaotic and contratictory exposition on a vague topic. Also, a wrong title for a wrong subject. Politics as a specific type of social behavior is part of human culture. So the title smacks of tautology as well. Mikkalai 22:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the Administrators. I like the idea of Stirling Newberry. I have asked him permission to move his contribution into my article and then rename it Cultural Determinism. My comments are here at his page. please read and help me with this. I am also prepared to remove the "Cultural Revolutionary techniques" and move those to wikinfo. Thanks and let me know okay. Give me time and this depends on Stirling Newberry. I would like the honor of starting this article for Wikipedia. Thanks.WHEELER 00:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the material and have reorganized it and taken out the material. Would like to change the title again to "Cultural imprinting on politics". Furthermore, I think it deserves a seperate page just to concentrate on the political side of things. This is important for Classical studies! People need this. Is this okay by wikipedian standards. I hope I made enough changes to suit everybody and it looks good. I am not an expert at this--I just know the idea and concept well enough--I don't have access, due to my poverty, of going to a university library. I am doing all this with relative meager resources. If someone can help and smooth things over it would be a great help.WHEELER 15:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My philosophical basis for this work: Greeks are realists; we are lovers of nature. As Socrates says in the Republic. We must see things as they really are not as we wish them to be. Greek philosophy is based on seeing nature as is. As much as my detractors hate this material, it must be presented. Communists socialist, liberals et al., want to change reality according to their ideology. Greek thought is different. We accept reality as is and don't attempt to change it. We accept. We don't see reality through ideological lenses of political correctness. There is a big difference here. I am a Greek--- an ancient Greek. I see reality as is not the way I think it ought to be as so many others do. They butcher reality to fit their ideology. WHEELER 15:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the administrators I ask you for some intellectual honesty because there seems to be absolutely NONE here. All I have to say is a lot of bad words right now. PLEASE LOOK UP Critical theory (Frankfurt School) AND read with me please :

Critical theory, in sociology and philosophy, is shorthand for critical theory of society or critical social theory, a label used by the Frankfurt School, i.e., members of the Institute for Social Research of the University of Frankfurt, their intellectual and social network, and those influenced by them intellectually, to describe their own work, oriented toward radical social change, And these people tell me original research and that this is POV. I have only to say to you all "Go Jump off bridges"!!!! Screw you people.WHEELER 16:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the Administrators HOW THE HELL IS RADICAL SOCIAL CHANGE ACCOMPLISHED AND WHY ARE THE REASONS FOR ACCOMPLISHING THAT. UHHHH????? Only my article does so and all the little liberals are coming out of the wood work to vote against this. Truth does very well in a democracy. WHEELER 16:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Discussion

I can't believe that we are seeing all these "keep" votes. This page should even be considered a candidate for automatic deletion without going through the Vfd. Are we just going to allow anyone to state a thesis and write a personal essay around it and call it an encyclopedia article. Are we going to allow the materialists to start a dueling polemic entitled 'economics defines politics' and call it an article? 172 00:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks that way, doesn't it? GRider\talk 00:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does it? It's strange that you would support such a trend, User:GRider. As a matter of policy, we only note as encyclopedic those (epistemological and otherwise) intellectual debates and polemics which clearly are –not– the original reserach of the respective editor(s). Otherwise, as mentioned, we risk facing a hegemony of personal essay articles rivaling each other. El_C 12:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The footnote in the Loeb is large. It continues:

"Plato illustrates the commonplace in a slight digression on national characteristics, with a hint of the thought partly anticipated by Hippocrates and now identified with Buckle's name, that they are determined by climate and environment." Cf Newman, Introd. to Aristot. Pol. pp.318-320.

Can someone look up Buckle for me and Newman's Introduction. Also Paul Shorey, translator for this edition of the Loeb recognizes this principle. This is not original research but this in information lost due to obscurantism---of the manipulation of knowledge. WHEELER 14:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This is information widely known in the 19th and early 20th century. It is just some people want to cover this information up. If you want more information on this subject pick up Classiciscts books from the 19th century and leave that hooey called "modern", which is code word for "marxist", alone and pick up untampered knowledge.WHEELER 15:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Come to think of it, was Antonio Gramsci familiar with J. S. Mill? There might be a connection between Gramsci and Mill or Spencer or the Classicists in Italy!!!!! Somebody help me with research please. This is another book all in itself. WHEELER 15:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, he was. Whether he wrote anything specifically on these is another matter though. All of Gramsci's works are available here. El_C 22:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Title
    • I like the title because it is short and sweet. And encapsulates the total meaning of the concept and idea But if there is better suggestions, I am all for it. If worse comes to worse "Culture-defined politics" is alright but for establishing the concept---"Culture defines politics is better.WHEELER 20:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • How can the title be NPOV when it is a statement? Maurreen 05:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • All titles are definitions. A dog is a dog. There is no NPOV or POV title of dog. A thing is a thing. Democracy is Democracy. The word encapsulates the character, essense, style, concept of what makes up the idea of democracy and it differentiates itself from other things. Maybe this will help: User Talk:WHEELER/Principles of DefinitionWHEELER 15:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC).
      • "Culture defines politics" is a statement. "Dog" is not a statement. Do you know of any other article titles within Wikipedia that take the form of a sentence? Maurreen 16:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Dog is a statement. For when someone says the word "Dog" we think, "Okay, four legged animal that barks and waves its tail." The word "Dog" incorporates in a single word that one large sentence. In the German language, Germans also coin words for concepts that us in English have to describe using a full sentence or even a paragraph. The German word Weltshangshuch (or however it is spelled) is an example of this. In English, this is not possible. Ask your self, a title of anything must incorporate the essence of the subject at hand. For right now, until something better has come across, I am stumped for a good title that captures the essence of the subject material. Have some patience.

WHEELER 17:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wheeler, you and I have different understandings of the word "statement." I will try to clarify. It has nothing to do with concept or idea or representation in general. Nor does the German language having anything to do with it, because we're working here in English. My trouble is with the sentence form and the word "is", which makes your title read as a statement of fact. Do you know of any similar examples within Wikipedia? Maurreen 18:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, not right off hand. The subject material is about a process. The type of government is determined by the culture. So, the subject (or concept) includes two nouns and a verb.
How about "Cultural-political process"?
Since this was studied by "Counter-intelligence experts" maybe someone should call them up and ask them what they call this. Somebody call their friends in Washington, to Spookville, and ask them. That ought to solve the problem.WHEELER 00:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Cultural-political process" is OK. Maurreen 05:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sure, if it was a construct which, as such, is used notably beyond original reserach. Actually, Maurreen, the current 'Culture defines politics' title (whether it is a statement or not is less releavnt) would also be fine had it been a notable, non-original reserach concept. But neither are. We are interested in what –is– encyclopedic, not what it should look like if it was. El_C 12:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
With this new information, I will hold off a bit on changing the name.WHEELER 15:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore on title name. I have no doubts that some doughty old classical professor in some ivy covered dank hall coined a word for this subject and there is a title for it in Latin or Greek. Would someone please search old English Classicists texts. I don't want to reinvent the circle. Somebody somewhere already coined this term. WHEELER 21:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Epistemology? Frankly, the onus is on you to find a preexisting, encyclopedic term/title – nothing's wrong with asking for help, but this should take place prior to placing a piece on the article namespace, in a draft, for ex. I don't wish to chastise you too harshly, but I nonetheless urge you to be more judicious on this front in the future. El_C
According to El C's own web page, "Nothing comes from nothing" is a statement as a title for an Wikipedian article. I would like to point this out to Maureen.WHEELER 15:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So is In God We Trust. And that is not my webpage, it is my userpage. And unlike Culture defines politics, NcfN (which I authored on my first day on WP, incidentally, and which already existed, albeit was undefined) is a well-known philosophical expression that I did –not– coin myself. El_C 22:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Information
J. S. Mill wrote: "Human beings in society have no properties, but those which are derived from and may be resolved into the laws and the nature of individual man" (7)

Spencer wrote: "Society is created by its units....The nature of its organization is determined by the nature of its units." (8)WHEELER 14:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is more information on the Discussion page that shows where to get more of this information!!!! Please check that as well.WHEELER 14:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this the proper venue for these thoughts? Also, a minor point, there is no need to exclaim so dramatically, if the new information is credible for the purposes of demonstrating encyclopedicity, I am confident that it will be considered and accounted for by proponents of deletion here. Yes, society is comprised by its constituents, and these constituents combined to form society – many thinkres have written extensively on these areas, but I do not see how these passages (nor the talk page where Rbellin's criticism is especially poignant) elucidate encyclopedicity. It is an original research synthesis that draws its own heavily-slanted (towards idealism) conclusions, it is is poorly referenced, and it treats Gramsci (the only person mentioned in the opening paragraph) in a questionable manner which demonstrate a lack of familiarity with his works. I realize people voting keep wish to encourage this editor with his work and reserach, but they are doing so at the expense of the most basic encyclopedic conventions.

Again, there have been many debates and various concepts accorded to such polemics as the article highlights, but it is not the role of the editor to synthesize these together – the role of the editor is to note how others synthesized pertinent thinkers, debates, concepts, etc., in a notable fashion. This, however, is absent from this article. If the editor in question arrives at a notable concept, etc., they need to outline how it has been approached by others and who they included within the realm of such discussions; it is not the editor's role to pick and choose how to phrase such a concept nor most definitely which notable thinkers qualify to appear in it. Lastly, there is the slant of the debate: if this was an encyclopedic concept and if the thinkers appearing in it were not added merely at the discretion/whim of the editor, in a debate involving the intellectual rivalry between epistemological materialism and idealism, the article still needs to promote NPOV, but in fact, it promotes only one side (which I suspect is the view held by the editor): idealism. Similarly, an encyclopedic article that centres on the presentation of epist. materialism should not promote that approach, rather it should highlight the pertinent arguments and counterarguments in an objective, NPOV way. All of these factors are crucial in whether an article is deemed credible and encyclopedic, which this one falls very shot from, I'm afraid. Sorry. El_C

What El C wants from me, is a complete and finished article. This is not Wikipedian policy. Hundreds of articles have started out as stubs. Wikipedia is a "collabrative" encyclopeadia. What El C is doing is making me having to have a full fledged article. If I don't have a full fledged article, he deletes. I am not expected to know everything completely but this is the standard El C is putting on me because he doesn't like the subject material. He changes the rules to suit himself. WHEELER 15:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I never said that. I never said that because it's untrue. What I want is an encyclopedic start. I don't care if it's a stab. You are distorting my argument and grossly oversimplifying it. Whether I like the subject material (or your bias thereof) is not relavent, and it is quite presumptious of you to conclude what I like and dislike. El_C
Paul Shorey relates that these concepts and ideas "are identified with Buckle's name". I quoted from two modern men Spencer and Mill. Read the talk page Mr. El.C, Fr. Malachi Martin knows very well Antonio Gramsci and as a Jesuit priest I trust him better than I do you. Mr. MacAlveny, William Griggs, and Father Malachi Martin know Antonio Gramsci better than I do. What about their credentials? You dismiss my sources? WHEELER 15:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do they call –it– culture defines politics? Do they call it cultural political process? I could care less about credentials, I care about –notability– (as such, user:WHEELER, as such). Also, why do you call me Mister? Since when did I reveal to you whether I am male or female? And if I am female, I certainly could not be a Jesuit priest (and inherently not recieve the same level of trust from you – "credentials" which therefore cannot be attained by merit alone; but that is entirely an aside to all this). El_C
El C is putting standards on me, that are not required of other articles and stubs. So sex acts and how to do sex acts are accepted all the time on Wikipedia, What professional Encyclopeadia ever included that in their topics? Noone. Mr. El C. Irregardless of the psychobable, Fr. Malachi Martin is pretty clear and concise. So is John Dziak. Wikipedia is a collabrative encyclopaedia. It's a stub to grow on. Understand? WHEELER 15:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I understand that this is your opinion, but it contradicts established policy: a collaboration in the article name space must possess an encyclopedic origin. I place the same standards on your work as I do anyone's. Again, it has nothing to do with it being a stab, it has to do with it being original research (all the other criticisms I mentioned, which I think are important and you should approach constructively rather than defensively, are really an aside to my argument of original reserach). I am unfamilliar with the sex acts articles which you refer to, sorry. El_C
Then the next question is Mr. El C where and what article will describe what Fr. Malachi Martin, Mr. MacAlveny, and William Griggs are talking about? There must be some philosophical, scholarly, studied basis from which they talk from. So what is it Mr. El C? WHEELER 15:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If I knew, do you not think I would have already told you? All I said was that Culture defines politics is your original research, I never professed being privy to a solution which would make your aforementioned piece viable in its current form to be included in the article namespace. El_C

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Culture_defines_politics&oldid=1142968390"