Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pariah state

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 no consensus. Editors cannot agree about what to do with this article. This is a plausible search term and we should probably have something here, even if it's just a redirect; but the existing content of this article has a number of problems and it may well be preferable to blow it all up and start again. There is substantial and well-argued support for this view, but other editors mount a spirited defence and our rules against deleting fixable content are on their side, so to close as "delete" would be stretching our rules about rough consensus too far.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Pariah state[edit]

Pariah state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The whole article seems to be an Original Research, since:

  1. There have never been suggested any objective criteria, nor any objective figures / data, for calling a given country "a pariah state". Any person who dislikes a given country, can invent their own (subjective) criteria, in order to justify their feeling about that country.
  2. The articles contains a "list of pariah states", although no international or well-known institiution is known - to have published a list of "pariah states" - nor to support the very concept of a "pariah state".
  3. By googling, one can realize that almost every country in the world is called "pariah state" by its political rivals.

Would wikipedia contain a hypothetical Original Research "Pariah men and women", that gives a list of "pariah men and women", based on how those alive men and those alive women are called by their rivals, although no international or well-known institiution is known - to have published a list of "pariah man and woman" - nor to support the very concept of "pariah men and woman"?

HOOTmag (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The term "Rogue state" is used by well-known bodies, e.g. countries, as indicated in the article Rogue state, while the term "Pariah state" is used by individuals only (towards any country they dislike).
  • The article presents a list of "Pariah states", although this list is undoubtedly an OR.
  • The book you've mentioned states: "What qualifies as a pariah state, however, is not clear. Depending on one's definition, pariah state status can be earnd by different countries for different reasons, including the mere existence of the state...what is meant by the term is far from universally agreed upon...what is clear from this lack of clarity is that the concept of 'pariah state' is metaphorical..."Paria states' thus can be seen metaphorically as...countries that are taboo,...Because of the metaphorical quality of the term, what is taboo is subject to interpretation, leading to...disagreement among scholars regarding which countries fall into this classification of states".
HOOTmag (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am only arguing that the international relations concept of a "pariah state" is an encyclopedic subject with reliable sources and that the article should not be deleted. As to which and how many examples are needed to elucidate the concept, I am agnostic. That is a content editing dispute, not an argument for deletion. As to the additional information from the reference that you've quoted, perhaps you could try adding it at the article in paraphrased form if you feel it is significant? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the third paragraph of my last comment, I just meant that the citation I've quoted proves that any "list of pariah states" must - by definition - be an OR.
HOOTmag (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps what you might really want to do is start an RFC on whether the List section of the article is OR? This is intended to be helpful in resolving what appears to be a content issue rather than an existence issue. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. In my previous comment I was just referring to the "third paragraph" (of my previous-previous comment), which is really related to the list of pariah states only. However, the first paragraph (of that comment) refers to the whole article. HOOTmag (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That reference is itself very out of date. The book is 2011, but in the section on pariah states (in the preview version - that's all I get from that link) the relevant references are 14 years old or older. Academic textbooks are always about 5 years outdated the moment they are published. (And previews are as bad as abstracts as sources - we have no idea how much context we are missing.) If someone has once said no definition exists, that does not mean one cannot exist or accepted at a later time. The scholars are misusing the term "definition", IMO. What they mean is the reason a nation became a pariah state, or who considers them a pariah state, not what a pariah state is.
Look at the article on stupidity to see what I mean. We can not post a list of stupid people, but stupidity is a valid topic for the exact same reason pariah state is valid - we cannot agree on who is stupid, who is the authority for stupidity, or the reason(s) for and implications of stupidity (which is what the scholars are hung up with concerning state pariahood). There are many reasons and thresholds for stupidity, and we used to have designated authorities - psychiatrists - to declare stupidity in individuals. Yet a simple, non-controversial definition for stupidity is not a problem.
"... any "list of pariah states" must - by definition - be an OR." This is incorrect. The citation proves nothing of the sort. Lawal[2] provides (non-comprehensive) lists of nations that have been pariah states, classified by reason for pariahood (p. 233, 8th page of this 16 page pdf). Citing his work would be WP:RS, not WP:OR. We've got plenty of options.  :)
I agree with our ip friend, that this is a content issue rather than an existence issue, but I disagree that an RfC is the best option at this point. The edit war is too fresh, and it's been going on in one form or another for so long it seems. I think an RfC will only revive the bickering. After all, we're only here as a result of that edit war. A proposal for deletion was threatened and carried out. I think mediation is needed. Dcs002 (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But mediation or arbitration is necessary. This article's current form is unacceptable. I don't see how a topic that is not defined can be evaluated for notability. But looking at just a few earlier versions of the article and the edit warring and vitriolic bickering, I wonder if that's what has caused this article to be in such a sad state after six years. I think we tend to close our eyes and our minds when we get angry, and I think that is what's wrong with this article. Has anyone really been looking for a definitive definition? Has anyone mentioned the Penguin Dictionary of International Relations? or this[3]? I think this article might well be fixable. The real problem, as I see it, is that there are some sources that say there is no definitive definition (though are they themselves authoritative enough to say there is none, or there cannot be one?), and that seems to mean that no one is thinking about proposing something as an unambiguous, definitive definition based on what is actually out there today. But at least those two sources I mentioned both purport to have one, and one (an academic expert synthesis - the kind we like in WP - from a social sciences journal) cites the other (the actual dictionary). Lawal[4], which was published four years after this article first was, says the concept is quite old - that of being an outcast nation. What is new is the basis for pariahood. It's as simple as that. A pariah state is an outcast state. (He explains even the words have the same origin - the Pariah are a people in Tamil Nadu state in India, and they are one of the historically "untouchable" peoples from the old caste system - the outcastes.) The reason for being outcast or the authority for designating a nation as such is not part of the definition of being an outcast. Lawal says that today pariahood implies lack of compliance with international law leading to global ostracization, but that's an implication, not a definition. It's like something having a stigma. (A stigma being attached to having schizophrenia does not change the definition of schizophrenia, but a guy with schizophrenia is still going to get funny looks when he talks to himself on the bus.) And check this out: From Lawal - "Random House Word Menu (2010) has provided evidence that the word Pariah has become truly a universal word. All cultures seem to have accepted the usage of the word to mean outcast." Maybe with all the edit warring and pillar 4 problems editors at some point just gave up on really re-working this article? Would a participant in one of the edit wars have even a small hope of having such a major revision taken seriously? (Reason #792 why edit warring is bad.) Dcs002 (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! After such a long post I forgot to mention the real gem that Lawal offers - Pariahood is not very useful as a yes or no question. He says, "What comes with this analysis is that the 'term' Pariah is used in comparative analysis," or, to what extent a nation is a pariah state. Is North Korea more of a pariah state than Iran? That's where the term becomes useful, not whether a nation is or is not a pariah state. Think about the bickering that might have saved... Dcs002 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In light of Lawal's explanation of the origins of the term "pariah state" and the internationally unambiguous meaning of the word "pariah", another viable alternative to consider changing the title of the article to "Pariah (state)", focusing the topic to pariahood in international relations rather than the states themselves, which might or might not qualify under various definitions and designating authorities. My !vote now is to keep. Dcs002 (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The dilemma described by the nom was illustrated for me just a moment ago. An editor just added Ukraine to the list. Interestingly, I note that Russia doesn't appear in the list, though given recent events it probably should by the same criteria, perhaps supported by this citation (U.K. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond warns Russia "risks becoming a pariah state if it does not behave properly"). I strongly suspect that the editor was expressing a non-neutral POV related to the current conflict in Donetsk, etc., not reporting that Ukraine has been added to some formal list of countries "labeled or treated as pariahs in the international system" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but without the existence of any formal list, how can I challenge this edit? Dwpaul Talk 04:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please understand - this is a disagreement about what should be included in the article, not whether the the subject merits an article. For that reason, I believe this whole deletion discussion is inappropriate. Adding Ukraine is probably wrong, but that is not a reason to delete the article, nor is any of the content bickering. The way to fix that is NOT to kill an article about a notable topic. It is to stay clear of the veterans of the edit wars and ask for help from the mediation cabal or something higher. And as I've been saying, there ARE RS for a universal definition, and there is at least one RS with a list of pariah states (without Ukraine). Content disputes can be settled, and nominating an article for deletion because of content disputes and edit warring is IMO inappropriate. Look at the resources I provided above. This is not a hard problem to fix. It is made hard by resentment, bickering, and edit warring, for which we have more appropriate remedies than deletion. Not everyone is going to get their way here, but that's no reason to delete the article. Dcs002 (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a discussion about the conditions under which this article would perform a useful function and be maintainable. In that sense, it is a deletion discussion; if none could be found the article should be deleted. I assume we got here because none has been found to date. Dwpaul Talk 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. First, your assumption is exceedingly generous - we got here because of edit warring and a threat made by one of the opposing parties that he or she would nominate the article for deletion if his or her wishes were not carried out concerning the inclusion of a certain table in the article. I actually agree with that person's position - that the table in question should not be part of the article, but a nomination for deletion to enforce that position? I think that is an abuse of this process, using it as the ultimate weapon for an edit war - the so-called "nuclear option". That is the sad level of the discussion in the article's talk page. It is also reflected in the language used to nominate this article, which reflects a lack of effort to actually find new and universal definitions that could bring consensus. A universal definition does exist, even though universal criteria for designation do not exist.
Second, performing a useful function here means providing encyclopedic information. That is our only function. This article has not been well maintained (as the battleground of a prolonged edit war), but it is definitely maintainable once the warring parties either call a truce or have one imposed upon them. We have very effective mechanisms in place to stop edit warring, but it is clear none of them have been attempted. I think that happens when both sides are afraid they might lose, or when both sides are so narrowly focused on winning that they see nothing else. We have mediators and arbitrators who can restrict and ban the edit warriors if they insist on continuing to damage this article. They do a good job. I have seen it work even in the most desperate cases. Someone will not get their way. It must be tried before deletion, IMO. Deletion would seem disingenuous to me without trying to fix the problem first, and again, I see that problem as nothing more or less than edit warring, not something inherent in the subject. We must not delete an article because it cannot be edited or maintained to meet our own individual standards. It must meet WP standards, though well intentioned editors might disagree on how to apply them. Again, mediation and arbitration addresses those issues. If the warring parties don't want to allow that kind of settlement, it can be enforced upon them. Maintainability is perfectly viable. No one has bothered to try yet. Dcs002 (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You claim: "I see that problem as nothing more or less than edit warring". Really? I see no edit warring, and it seems like you confuse two different issues with one another. The first issue is absolutely hypothetical, and is concerning the two reverts of the stable version (of 21.7.2014): I tried twice to put back the stable version (not including this edit because I had immediately self-reverted it) - within more than 24 hours between my two edits - and with my opening a discussion on the talk page between my two edits, but when I realized that the editor - who had reverted it twice - reverted it a third time, then I gave up - just in order to avoid edit warring, and the edit-war was really prevented successfully (actually it was prevented by me rather than by the other editor). This is one issue, and you should not confuse the second issue - of my deletion-request, with the first hypothetical issue mentioned above - which is quite another one - and has nothing to do with any hypothetical edit war (after everything was carried out - successfully - in order to avoid edit warring).
  • You claim: "a nomination for deletion to enforce that position? I think that is an abuse of this process, using it as the ultimate weapon for an edit war - the so-called nuclear option". What are you talking about? "to enforce"? "weapon"? "edit war"?" I get the impression that you have totally misinterpreted other claims of mine which I have presented on the article's talk page. So let me explain myself: I really think (as I have always thought) that the whole article should be deleted - because of three considerations I've presented at the top of this page, although I sincerely respect your opposite opinion; Furthermore, I really think this deletion is "inevitable" (as I have already claimed on the article's talk page), although I think that the stable version (as opposed to the current one) which included the table - could weaken my considerations for deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my first consideration (of my three) could be irrelevant if the stable version were adopted; So yes, adopting the stable version could defend the article from deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my last two considerations wouldn't then be supported by the first one, but the current version - which doesn't include the table - makes my first consideration (of my three) relevant as well ! That's why I indicated (on the article's talk page) that the current version made the deletion "inevitable" (IMO). Got it now? You are surely allowed to present your own considerations against deletion, but again: don't confuse two different issues. HOOTmag (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have stated my position correctly. You made it clear on the article's talk page that you were proposing this deletion because someone had undone your edits, and you interpreted your edits as proper according to WP policy. Here is what you said in that regard:
  • "However, if Henley's table is deleted again, then a request for deleting the whole article will be inevitable, on the ground of Original Research. HOOTmag (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)"
  • "Note that adding Henley's table, is intended to save the article and defend it from deleting. Anyways, since you changed again the stable version of 21.7.2014, a request for deleting the whole article is now inevitable. HOOTmag (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)"
You then nominated the article for deletion, carrying out those threats. You are not the only one involved in what I am calling an edit war. These controversies are all over the talk page history, going back for years. Your involvement in what I am calling an edit war included the nuclear option of nominating the article for deletion based on one person reverting two of your edits. The proper response to repeated, inappropriate undos is not deletion of the article, but seeking help. You did not make a WP:RfC on the issue, nor did you seek mediation or arbitration. You did not follow the guidelines in WP:Deletion. You acted alone. Dcs002 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are allowed to present here any argument against deletion, but again - do me a favor: please don't confuse two different issues: The decision I made - many months ago - to ask (in the unknown future) for deletion - is one issue, which preceded - by many months - both the omission of the table and my other decision to put back the table! Yes I have always - for many months - thought, I had rather strong arguments for deletion! however, I was not sure whether they were strong enough, as long as the article contained (for more than a year) the table - which included strict objective figures and strict objective data - which could (maybe) logically weaken the reasoning I had for deletion (by their making my first consideration irrelevant), and that's why I hesitated - for many months - in deciding whether or not to ask for deletion. In other words, this logical weakening (of my considerations for deletion) - caused by keeping the table, is another issue - which has never been discussed in my three considerations for deletion.
"Threat"? What are you talking about? I get the impression you may have not read my previous response: If you did, then I really can't understand, how your quoting my logical claim from the article's talk page, adds anything new, after I had elaborated (in my previous response) on this logical claim - which you had misinterpreted as a "threat" - rather than as (correctly) an argument intended to be logically inferred from the influence the table had had on creating the hesitation in deciding whether the article was an OR or was backed by objective data clearly-related to it! I can't understand where you see any "threat" in my logical argument presented on the article's talk page, unless you have misinterpreted me again!
So yes! I really think this deletion is "inevitable" (as I have already claimed on the article's talk page and in my previous response you may have not read), and I really think that keeping the table could [ logically ] defend the article from deletion (as I have already claimed on the article's talk page and in my previous response you may have not read), however - as opposed to what you had thought and still think, I had indicated all of that on the article's talk page - not in order to "threat" (I personally dislike threats whether posed to me or to others), but rather in order to present a conclusion intended to be logically inferred from the influence the table had had on my hesitation in deciding whether the article was an OR or was backed by objective data clearly-related to it! I have fully described this logical conclusion in my previous response, but since you either - didn't read it - or misinterpreted it again, then I must repeat it! So let me explain again this logical argument, just in order to show you again - that it included no threat:
So I think that keeping the table - could weaken the logic of my considerations for deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my first consideration (of my three) could be irrelevant (from a logical point of view) if the table were kept; So yes, keeping the table could [ logically ] defend the article from deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my last two considerations for deletion wouldn't then be supported by the first consideration ! However, the current version - which doesn't include the table - makes my first consideration relevant as well, so my last two considerations for deletion - are now supported by my first consideration as well ! That's why I indicated (on the article's talk page) that the current version (i.e. without the table) made the deletion "inevitable" (IMO). Got it now? Not threat at all, but rather a conclusion intended to be logically inferred from the influence the table had had on my hesitation in deciding whether the article was an OR or was backed by objective data clearly-related to it! I wonder whether I should repeat that, just in order to prevent you from misinterpreting me again and again (as you did both - when you were reading my claims on the article's talk page - and when you were reading my previous response). HOOTmag (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


HOOTmag, I am sorry we are discussing you rather than the topic at hand, but you are the reason we are here, as your own posts have made clear. Deletion is not inevitable. That is your opinion, and I see no evidence for it other than your actual nomination for deletion, for which we do not seem to have consensus at this point. (I count the !votes as 3-1 to keep, or 3-2 including your nomination for deletion.) That is not a sign of deletion being inevitable. The topic of "Pariah state" is a notable topic, meriting an article. The current state of the article is not a reason to delete it. It is a reason to fix it, which means a drastic re-write, with the assistance of neutral parties. Dcs002 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion against deletion, and you are allowed to present that opinioin freely, but for God's sake: Please don't misinterpret my claims on the article's talk page! For more details - see my previous response I added above in about 25 lines. Additionally please: don't confuse, those claims on the article's talk page (for keeping the table), with my current claims - I had for many months in my mind - for deletion (long before the table was omitted), because such a misinterpretation - and such a confusion - as you have made, may make you think - by mistake - that I am the issue, while two editors here - i.e. I and Dwpaul - think that the real issue is whether to delete! Good luck... HOOTmag (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for Lawal's work - and Lawals' list (on p. 233) - you've pointed at: yes, IMO it's really not an OR, although IMO the current "list of pariah states" in Wikipedia is an OR, just as - IMO - the whole article is an OR. HOOTmag (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of your original three points satisfy any of the WP:DEL-REASON, as far as I can tell. #1 and #3 are IMO items that should be included in the article, describing how pariah statehood can be a politically abusive label. #2 references the table, which IMO does not belong in the article because it is a WP:synth or WP:OR and off-topic without a RS clearly relating visas to pariahood (I don't recall that being in the article, though I might be mistaken), but that is a content issue, not a deletion issue. And I have provided a counter-example to show that academically accepted lists can in fact exist, though they may not be represented as comprehensive or representing the current state in international affairs, nor are they necessarily institutionally generated - all criteria that are not required. Dcs002 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument against my #2 point. It has nothing to do with the table, and please notice that none of my three points are in favor of keeping the table, which is quite a different issue discussed on the article's talk page. As for your opinion about #1 and #3, this is your opinion and I respect it, although it's not my opinion. HOOTmag (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly thought your point #2 referred to Henley's table. However, it is still a content issue, not a deletion issue. All three of your points address the validly disputed qualification for state pariahood. Not one of them addresses pariahood as its own concept. I have read and taken great care to understand all of your posts, and I still see no cause for deletion, nor do I see any previous effort to handle what you consider to be improper reversions of your edits in any way other than nominating deletion of the entire article, as you said would happen on the article talk page, and which you yourself brought about at that time. IMO, the fact that you yourself immediately nominated this article for deletion clarifies any ambiguity as to whether your posts were threats. (We NEVER see ourselves as doing things like making threats, but when you say "If you do A, them B will happen," and "You have done A, now B is going to happen," and then act on your own to MAKE B HAPPEN, you have made a threat and acted on it.)
You cite your own logic now as a reason that deletion is inevitable. I'm sorry HOOTmag, but your logic is not a basis for determining encyclopedic content. It is not a RS, it is not verifiable, it is not NPOV, and it is not an objective criterion for deletion, as listed in WP:DEL-REASON. Your "logical claim" is your opinion, based on your own logical interpretation of the issues. People can disagree about logic, and I strongly disagree that your logic is sound and that it justifies this article's deletion. Your logic fails when you assume we need objective criteria for state pariahood in order to cover this topic in an encyclopedic article. We do not. Please review the deletion policy at WP:Deletion and tell us which of the criteria for deletion this article satisfies. Tell us how it cannot be fixed with a little work and help from a neutral party. Dcs002 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've just misinterpreted me again: I didn't intend to enforce my own logic! I just wanted to convince you that my claim on the article's talk page was not intended to threaten, but rather to present a logical argument; You are not obligated to accept it, but it was intended to be a logical argument.
My claim on the talk page, was not of the type: "If you do A then B will happen", but rather of the type "If A happens then B will happen" (e.g "if it rains then there will be enough fruit next year"), and also of the type: "Since you did A then B is now inevitable" (e.g. "since you broke the bottle, the loss of the wine is now inevitable")! Note that most of the propositions of these two types are not intended to express a threat, and so are my claims on the article's talk page!
You were wrong when you claimed that I'd made no effort to handle what I'd considered to be improper reversions of the stable version! Of course I had made such an effort, by my putting back the stable version - and I did that twice! So how can you claim I did nothing? However, after my two reverts failed, then I gave up: Why did I give up? So let me tell you the truth: because I realized that the editor - who opened with this action of reverting the stable version three times, would not listen, and would not want to reach a fair compromise! that's why I decided to give up! I dislike edit wars! so simple!
You were totally wrong when you thought I handled this issue by nominating deletion of the entire article. The decision I made - many months ago - to ask (in the unknown future) for entire deletion, preceded - by many months - both the omission of the table and my other decision to put back the table! Yes I have always - for many months - thought, that I had rather strong arguments for entire deletion! however, I was not sure whether they were strong enough, as long as the article contained (for more than a year) the table - which included strict objective figures and strict objective data - which could (maybe) logically weaken the reasoning I had for deletion (by their making my first consideration irrelevant), and that's why I hesitated - for many months - in deciding whether or not to ask for deletion. However, once I decided to give up the table-issue (because of the reason mentioned in the previous section), then - logically - my hesitation about the deletion request just disappeared ! Do you really ask "Why this hesitation disappeared, once I gave up the table-issue?" ? I have already explained why, on the article's talk page, and the explanation was totally logical! Should I repeat it the fourth time? Ok, just for you, I will repeat the explanation about - why my hesitation disappeared - once I gave up the table-issue: So I have always thought that keeping the table - could weaken the logic of my considerations for deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my first consideration (of my three) could be irrelevant (from a logical point of view) if the table were kept; So yes, I have always thought that - keeping the table could [ logically ] defend the article from deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my last two considerations for deletion wouldn't then be supported by the first consideration ! However, once I gave up the stable version - which included the table - my first consideration for deletion became relevant ! In other words, I realized that my last two considerations for deletion - were now supported by my first consideration as well ! That's why I indicated (on the article's talk page) that the current version (i.e. without the table) made the deletion "inevitable" (IMO). Got it now? Not threat at all, but rather a conclusion intended to be logically inferred from the influence the table had had on my hesitation in deciding whether the article was an OR or was backed by objective data clearly-related to it! I wonder whether I should repeat that, just in order to prevent you from misinterpreting me again and again.
HOOTmag (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was the other guy who started the edit war. It's always the other guy when we get stuck in these kinds of disputes. We don't see the fallacies of black and white thinking when we just see ourselves as being right. But you did not "give up" when your edits were reverted. You instead nominated the article for deletion - on the same day you made those two statements that I consider to be threats, all in less than two hours. That stands on its own. Your language was unambiguous. I don't have anything more to add to that. I have seen no claim that this article merits deletion under WP:Deletion policy. You did not cite any policy in your nomination. I wish you had because then we would have something objective to discuss instead of going in circles like this. (I doubt anyone else is reading this anyway.) You mentioned OR in a hypothetical comparison, but any OR in this article can be easily fixed, with the help of neutral mediators. I wish you had tried that before nominating the article for deletion. There was not a consensus formed or attempted about OR, and even that is a content issue - in this case anyway. There is plenty of RS material to make a nice, objective article about this notable topic, but the parties who disagree need to accept the article will not look the way they want it to look after 3rd party intervention. Is that really such an awful outcome that you would rather see it deleted altogether than even ask for help? (Mediation might go your way you know.) Dcs002 (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you insist again on the "edit-war" issue, although I've shown you the opposite? Yes, I tried twice to put back the stable version - within more than 24 hours between my two edits - and with my opening a discussion on the talk page between my two edits, but when I realized that the editor - who had reverted twice - reverted it a third time, then I gave up - just in order to avoid edit warring, and the edit-war was really prevented successfully (actually it was prevented by me rather than by the other editor). Everything was carried out - successfully - in order to avoid edit warring, so please don't mention that again.
You claim: "you did not 'give up' when your edits were reverted". In this personal comment, you've just made a pair of mistakes: 1. What was reverted was the stable version. 2. I did give up.
You claim: "You instead nominated the article for deletion - on the same day you made those two statements that I consider to be threats, all in less than two hours". In this personal comment, you've just made another pair of mistakes: 3. Logical arguments can't be threats, by definition; I have elaborated on that - in my previous response (ibid. the paragraph beginning with the word "My"), but it seems you don't fully read my responses. 4. Two hours - is too late. Actually, the deletion request should have been made within two minutes - rather than two hours! Anyways, your mistake was as following: The decision I made - many months ago - to ask (in the unknown future) for entire deletion, preceded - by many months - both the omission of the table and my other decision to put back the table! However, There is a very simple logical explanation for the historical fact, that my nominating the article for deletion - actually happened just after I gave up the table issue; Anyways, this historical fact does not prove, that my nominating the article for deletion - was an integral part of my brief struggle for keeping the stable version! The logical explanation for this historical fact, is indicated in my previous response (ibid. the last paragraph), and it seems again that you don't fully read my responses.
As for your impersonal claims: they are legitimate (as long as they are impersonal), but I can't discuss them as long as you keep leading this discussion to the personal direction, by your statements about "threats". Once I realize that no confusion is being made between the two issues, i.e. the deletion issue and the "stable version" issue, I will (spiritually) be able to discuss your impersonal claims (Btw my last comment was a spiritual claim about my mood).
HOOTmag (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A "stable version" is not by definition a superior version. Reverting to a stable version does not put your action on superior footing. You have yet to cite a WP:DEL-REASON, or any other policy for advocating deletion. You have not made a case that this article cannot be fixed with mediation or other alternatives. You have not made a prima fascie case. You nominated for deletion, bypassing these policies. I don't see how that is unclear. What WP:DEL-REASON applies here? What WP:ATD did you try first? This is about deleting an article, which needs to be done according to policy. We have not followed WP:Deletion policy in this unfortunately contentious discussion. No one here has cited a WP:DEL-REASON. That is your burden when you nominate an article for deletion - give a policy-based case for deletion. Try alternatives. You did neither of those. Once your edits were reverted, you nominated for deletion. Circular explanations are not going to change that. Dcs002 (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You claim: "A 'stable version' is not by definition a superior version". Again you keep misinterpreting me: By my using the term "stable version", I did not mean it's a superior version, but rather I meant you'd made an error by your having claimed: "your edits were reverted"; So no: what was reverted, was the stable version - rather than my edits. That's what I meant, and nothing else!
You claim: "Once your edits were reverted, you nominated for deletion". This historical fact you're pointing at - is correct, but I have already elaborated on its background, and it seems you keep ignoring my explanation: If you hadn't ignored, you'd have realized that the historical fact you're pointing at - does not prove any threat, nor does what I have stated on the article's talk page.
Unfortunately, you keep leading the discussion to the personal direction, as you're doing also on the new page of your mediation request - by your quoting (ibid.) my statements from the article's talk page - and by your claiming (ibid.) that those quotations express a threat, although I have already explained those quotations - by showing that they can't express any threat - nor can my nomination for deletion which was made just after the stable version had been reverted.
As for your impersonal claims, including the impersonal claims made on the new page of your mediation request: they are legitimate - as long as they are impersonal, but I can't discuss them - nor can I take a part in the mediation process - as long as you keep leading this discussion to the personal direction by your statements about "threats". Once I realize that no confusion is being made between the two issues, i.e. the deletion issue and the "stable version" issue, I will be in a mood to discuss your impersonal claims.
HOOTmag (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – If the issue is that everyone cannot agree on which countries, if any, are pariah states, that would appear to be a content problem, not a deletion problem. Usurper doesn't list any usurpers, and tyrant is largely devoted to the term's use in the classical period, listing no tyrants under the modern definition of the term. Despite no definitive lists of tyrants and usurpers, and no objective method of determining if someone is one ("King So-and-so did 2, 5, and 7 on the list, but not 1, 3, 4, and 6, so he isn't a tyrant"), and those terms undoubtedly being applied sometimes to people who most would not consider tyrants or usurpers, the terms themselves are still notable, and it is still beneficial to have articles explaining just what those things are and what someone is implying if they refer to a person as one. The same principle would seem to apply here. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting that, to remain, this article should be stripped of its list and only include guidance as to what might be meant by "pariah state"? That would suit me just fine. Dwpaul Talk 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vague term, whose definition we can't seem to agree on. Most of its uses appear to be as buzzwords. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please look over the edit history. The relevant question is not whether we can agree on a definition, but whether reliable sources can, and that's not a problem, IMO. It is an outcast state. The sticking point is what qualifies a state as a pariah, and who has the authority to designate pariah states. That is the disagreement. I gave the example of the article on stupidity earlier. We cannot agree on what makes a person stupid, or say who is stupid, but we can still define it and discuss it. Egsan Bacon made the same argument just above, using usurper and tyrant as more closely related examples. Authoritative definitions exist, though agreement as to who qualifies and why is unsettled. RS have not settled that issue, and we don't have to settle it here, nor should we try. Dcs002 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No semantics, please. We cannot agree on a definition because reliable sources can't. In your opinion, they can--in mine, they can not. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not my opinion, but the RS I found after actually looking for newer sources - one academic review on the very subject and one dictionary of international affairs. Pariah state means outcast state. The criteria for being considered such and the authority to designate such are disputed, and that dispute is content that should be part of the article. Semantics are exactly what is at issue, and semantic arguments are confusing the issue. I say this issue is pretty straightforward. The universal definition is the easy part. The criteria are not, which should be covered in the article. "We cannot agree on a definition because reliable sources can't." Not true. We do not have to agree, and reliable sources DO agree on the definition, not the criteria. Again, look at the articles for stupidity, usurper, and tyrant. Very simple issue here, obfuscated by years of bickering and an irrational belief that RS "can't" agree, as you say.(That is a WP:Crystal issue - we don't know what RS "can't" do.) And we already have a good RS definition. We don't have to agree on criteria to make a good article. Dcs002 (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources use the term. Agree the definition of 'pariah state' is nebulous. My sense is the term differs slightly from 'rogue state' with 'pariah states' being more outcast, a loner, while a rogue state is more aggressive, invasive, troublesome to its neighbors. Yes, there are some WP:OR aspects to the article but that only suggests improvement not deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as an inherently POV term, requiring original research for the construction of the list. Alternatively, I think Egsan Bacon's suggestion is workable - Keep, but remove the list of states that supposedly qualify. Brad Dyer (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for Mediation filed I have filed a request for mediation for this article. I have given my case for this numerous times on this page. There are VERY few things we all disagree on, and I think this article can be easily fixed into a nice, NPOV, non-OR, non-Synth article. I think mediation is far preferable to outright deletion. Dcs002 (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2014 (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/Pariah_state&oldid=1138204650"