Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture war in Canada


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Culture war in Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Page features neologism, original research, is highly US-centric, a highly selective review of what it claims to describe, and flat-out wrong about both the concept and terminology in Canadian politics, at least at the national level. Previous proposed deletion was contested. Peter Grey (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. TFD (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Political Culture of Canada, Canadian Nationalism, or similarly themed article. I think it has use as a search term, but as an article it has sourcing issues.  A cursory google seach shows that the term has some use by editorialists, pundits, and bloggers which may lead to it becoming a "real" political concept in Canada, therefore the history should be preserved.  Movementarian (Talk) 06:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, a mish-mash of issues with dubious connections to each other. Calling any of this a "culture war" paints a thick layer of POV over the whole thing. Hairhorn (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Counter-Argument
I would question your motives in deleting an article like this. Consider the argument that most Left-wingers deny a culture war exists, whereas right-wingers are heavily involved in the debate on culture. From this stand-point, just because one side thinks it doesn't exist, does not mean you can delete the article. The Culture War in Canada is a major topic in conservative circles, and the media attention recently brought to it justifies having an article on this issue. If this bothers you so much, edit the article as you see fit, or add an alternative viewpoint. User: Matthiasobrien, 27 June 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Neologism - a new word, meaning or usage. This is not new. This has already been reported in Canada's major national newspapers (read the links on the bottom) as well as on Canada's major news broadcasters (CTV and CBC).
 * Original research - is this not the point of wikipedia? I don't see "original research" sources anywhere. Everything is a compilation of news journalists and authors who use the exact term "Culture war" within this same context.
 * US-Centric? Please point out anything American about it. Every single section has to do with a Canadian case. In fact, the Canadian article is longer than the American article.
 * Flat-out wrong? And you decide this? That's completely subjective on who decides when to use the terminology and where. This article ONLY uses sources that make the Culture War part clear. The two major authors, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levent, dedicate their careers on research on the culture war.
 * I think you should familiarise yourself with some of the content policies on Wikipedia. In the instance WP:RS, WP:NOR,WP:NEO, WP:V, and WP:GNG.  I'm not trying to overwhelm you with policy, but I think you might have a better understanding of why the page was nominated for deletion if you look into it.  If you still disagree, you can try to make a convincing point by showing how the article is in compliance.  Movementarian (Talk) 08:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Original Research/personal essay. Be in Nepean (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * delete - agree with Movementarian that this would have use as a category; but the present article itself seems very much like a synthesis (a specific kind of WP:OR). More than that, most of the sections in this article have absolutely no mention of "culture war", and seem to be inserted just to illustrate a left-right divide or something; that suggests to me that this is just a political opinion piece dressed up as a Wikipedia article. Specifically, it looks like a right-wing opinion piece: I'd counter to User: Matthiasobrien that the radical left also believe in something similar to a "culture war", they just don't call it that, and that makes it difficult to write a good article on this topic. A good article can indeed be written, I think - perhaps you can start with Marci McDonald's new book. But as far as the present article stands, you may as well nuke it from orbit and start a new one from scratch. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Historical context is necessary to get an understanding of the topic. For example, the Great War lasted from 1914-1918, but would you not agree that the 10-15 years previous to that war are vital in understanding it? Now the Culture War is not a literal war in any sense, but information about human rights, protests, and unions that clearly depict a huge left/right divide are necessary in understanding the Culture War. Now as for Marci McDonald's new book, I agree (it's mentioned at the very bottom as a Further reading). If adding a section on that is necessary to add balance, I'll most certainly do that. But again, I don't see much of a point in deleting a topic that is clearly gaining momentum in Canada, and has more media exposure than ever. And with the new Sun Media TV station about to debut, I can guarantee the "culture war" is going to be a major topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthiasobrien (talk • contribs) 07:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Culture war" does not mean any political difference, even if US (very rarely Canadian) media incorrectly use the term that way. Political or socio-economic distinction is not a conflict of culture the way, say, an English-Canadian/French-Canadian clash would be.  There have to be historians or other reliable sources that 1) recognize the phenomenon, 2) agree on what events, persons, etc. belong to it, and 3) apply that terminology to it. If "culture war" becomes a mainstream concept in national political discourse, then it would have encyclopedic value, but until then it's neologism and original research (not to mention factually incorrect). Peter Grey (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are some third party sources for you to consider. These sources connect all said events, including the coalition rallies and the G8/G20 summit with a culture war.:
 * http://thesheaf.com/2010/06/the-culture-wars-in-canada/
 * http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/deciphering-sides-in-canadas-culture-wars/article1584647/
 * http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/07/canada-enters-the-culture-war-over-abortion/
 * http://montrealsimon.blogspot.com/2010/04/are-you-ready-for-culture-war.html
 * http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-accuses-tories-of-dividing-canadians-with-hot-button-politics/article1572326/?cmpid=rss1
 * http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/parties-05-17-2010
 * Again I would question all motives relating to deleting an article on subject matter like this. The point of wiki is to contribute. Simply deleting topics you don't like doesn't add much quality. I refer back to the comment on merging, on how the topic is frequently mentioned by newspaper editorials, bloggers, journalists, and the soon-to-be Sun TV. I would accept a merger, but a deletion only seems to provoke the culture war hypothesis. Matthiasobrien —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC).
 * We're not deleting topics we "don't like". We're saying that this article should be deleted because it has no reliable sources, and because the article is original research. You should read the rules (especially on original research, on verifiability, and on reliable sources) before contributing. Also, we have rules against casting aspersions on editors' "viewpoints": this is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia and not a place to pick political fights. If you want the latter, go hang out at Conservapedia and see how long you last there before they ban you. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW: re the Globe and Mail articles, that's good... 2 journalists using the word "culture war" in a sentence. I don't see a real analysis, though, just bald assertion. You won't be able to source an article from those two little sources. As for the rest: leftist blogs and rightist blogs are not reliable sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - massive example of original synthesis. Unless there are sources specifically describing these events as part of a 'culture war', we can't do so ourselves. Robofish (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! That's exactly the point, here. All we're seeing is an article that asserts there's a culture war, whose sources rarely even use the word "culture war" except in passing or as an accusatory note. This doesn't even measure up to the US-centric article culture war, which itself is a poor example of a Wikipedia article with very few scholarly sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a book pitch, not a valid encyclopedic entry. I fully agree with Robofish above: this article is speculative interpretation of disparate and arguably unrelated citations. Unless a substantial body of references to an actual "cultural war" could be established, I vote to delete. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.