Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political society (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Most keep arguments weak, appears to have been some sockpuppetry to attempt to influence result (which it didn't, FYI). lifebaka++ 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political society[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Political society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Page recreated after deletion; speedy tag removed because the page looks different and, in opinion of CSD-tag remover, is notable. Originally deleted as bad WP:OR. Page is a WP:POVFORK, attempting to explain a concept found in political philosophy. More appropriate to discuss it in the articles on the philosophers for whom it is important than to synthesize their ideas into a single statement on what political society is. RJC Talk Contribs 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. someone's original idea. Laudak (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- RJC Talk Contribs 02:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- RJC Talk Contribs 02:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful topic with an underdeveloped article. Not original research. See political economy for another example of original ideas developed into their own articles. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important to political philosophy topic. should be expanded --seventy3 06:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventy3 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. See also WP:Articles for deletion/State of society - another weak article by the same author. andy (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Tocqueville is treating it as an important idea together with a 'political association' (there is whole chapter upon it in Democracy in America) --37uk (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I keep asking for clarification of this. Tocqueville does not discuss political society. He discusses political associations, i.e., parties, but these do not include the state or government, which the article does put under political society. If the article's primary emphasis is on Tocqueville, then it is incompetent WP:OR. If it is not, and Tocqueville was simply added by a confused editor, then its topic a) is discussed under state or b) belongs with whatever thinker's usage has a slightly different nuance. RJC Talk Contribs 16:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The reference to Alexis de T looks good, superficially, but the chapter in Democracy in America, Political associations in the United States, deals with very specific activities (for instance, the "Great Convention of 1831 relative to the tariff") of very specific associations, not with the general concept of political associations. If one can talk of an article, it's OR, bad OR. -- Iterator12n Talk 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Better to read chapter on relations between political and civil associations. Best - to do it in original. english translations have some recurrent errors. --discourseur 07:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Happen to own "the Henry Reeve text, as revised by Francis Bowen, now further corrected and edited with introduction, editorial notes, and bibliographies by Phillips Bradley." Anything particularly bad about this version? -- Iterator12n Talk 15:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • for example completely misleading translation of 'sentiments' into 'feelings' instead of 'attidudes' --discourseur 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Given that we were all too ignorant to find the relevant chapters the first time around, could discourseur be so kind as to say precisely which chapter s/he means? Harvey Mansfield's literal translation, published by the University of Chicago Press, does not appear to have steered me in the right direction, either. RJC Talk Contribs 15:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • oh sorry. second volume, second part: Rapports des associations civiles et des associations politiques. at your service. --discourseur 18:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I missed that the first time around. Thank you. It speaks of how civil associations interact with what we would call parties, not political society. How does this relate to the article being discussed? RJC Talk Contribs 18:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • one may easily deduce relations between civil society and political society, and definitions of civil society and political society. tocq did not explain anywhere terms obvious to him, he wasn't wikipedist --discourseur 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • this is also the only chapter tocq is writing bout 'civil association'. that is why his book is not about civil society but about political society --discourseur 19:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - discourseur, as per my request at WP:Articles for deletion/State of society please provide proper references. andy (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is already a good one --77.115.202.99 (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • conditional delete. See my remark in the earlier AFD; if this article is a translation of a copyrighted work without credit to the original, then it needs to be deleted; otherwise, it should be copyedited, expanded and cleaned up. As it stands now it is excessively abstract and, if I may say so, unclear. Bwrs (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Political society" is that part of a polity that is aware and actively engaged in political discourse and decision-making. As Richard Pipes observes, most citizens are too busy keeping themselves fed, clothed, housed and entertained to keep themselves informed about politics. That is effectively the domain of a minority in society. Nihil novi (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Can you provide evidence that this term is frequently used to mean this (instead of having been used by one person)? RJC Talk Contribs 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • your extreme lazyness, see this --discourseur 15:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is unacceptably rude. Please read and follow WP's policies on politeness! andy (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Google search that returns the table of contents from Tocqueville's book? Where does Tocqueville describe what he means by "political society," as he does with "political associations," "social state," and the like, such that we can say that it is a determinate concept in his thought? And even if it were, why cannot this be adequately addressed in Alexis de Tocqueville? And given that primary source research is discouraged under WP:OR, what specific secondary sources confirm your interpretation? RJC Talk Contribs 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • y.e.l. 1. please read more ghits, 2. please go to library and check references given in the article. --discourseur 15:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which article? The unpublished conference papers? Which references in that article do you mean? Or do you mean the Wikipedia article, which has only one reference, and that to a work on Poland (not Tocqueville)? RJC Talk Contribs 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • let me advice you something. when someone advice you to do first this and second that - do it that way. while checking ghits you had to meet this one. so journey in your case to library would be not so neccesary. second, there are books on tocqueville even in poland --discourseur 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This example completely fails to answer RJC's question: Where does Tocqueville describe what he means by "political society," as he does with "political associations," "social state," and the like, such that we can say that it is a determinate concept in his thought?. But let's go back to the original nomination. discourseur, can you give even one example, chapter and verse, to show that "political society" is a general concept in political philosophy such that it deserves an article of its own, rather than a term used in different contexts and with different meanings by different writers? Nobody else can find this evidence. andy (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there are no definitions of political association or social state either. tocq did not define political society in the same way as nobody did it to civil society until end of xx century. thinkers in the past were not wikipedists, they did not define terms obvious to them. --discourseur 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about Tocqueville or indeed any other writer. This is a general question. If we are to have an article called "Political society" then there must be a general concept or a range of not dissimilar concepts that can be brought together in the article. Otherwise what is the purpose? If nobody has defined it explicitly, which is fair enough, are there ostensive definitions? Did writers generally talk about "political society" as if it was a discrete thing? Without evidence the answer has to be no. andy (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as above: please go to library and check references given in the article. --discourseur 17:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of going for a checkuser whatever the outcome - it seems to be allowed under the rules. andy (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
gents. nice talk, but apparently you reached end of arguments. however, could you please provide tocqueville's definitions of 'social state' and 'political association' - as you provided above? --discourseur 18:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
assume that you are unable to give answer to your claims because you were just cheating above --discourseur 14:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
of course above assumption is about content not persons, so don't take it personally --discourseur 15:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_society_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1146310203"