Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East-West dichotomy in international relations


 * 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. Per no original research. Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

East-West dichotomy in international relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notable topic, but article seems to be entirely original research. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 08:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure where the distinction is here between this and East-West dichotomy, which is inherently about international relations. If there is sourced content to be added, I believe it should be in the primary article, which is not so large as to require a split. However, I have to agree that what we have here reads like original research, and it is direly in need of sourcing if it is to be kept anywhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems East-West dichotomy is mostly about cultural differences between Europe/North America and East Asia, while this article is more about the East/West divide associated with the Cold War. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment - it is a bit strange that East-West dichotomy makes no mention of cold war era Eastern Bloc-Western Bloc divide. On other hand, it is really questionable if separate article is needed here, especially considering that almost whole text is lacks sourcing currently.--Staberinde (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was originally hesitant to support deletion, as there was possibility that original creator would soon add the needed sources, but reading discussion here this doesn't seem to be the case.--Staberinde (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is entirely orignian research and reads like a paper for a lower division IR class. It has a specific thesis that the E/W can be seen through membership in international organizations and then proceeds, without sources, to try to demonstrate this. This is the definition of what we do not do at Wikipedia. Since there are no sources that demonstrate that the Cold War bi-polarity and the post Cold War alignment of the international system is referred to, significantly, in the literature as "the East-West dichotomy" there is no reason to preserve the article title.  J bh  Talk  18:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although the article was nominated for deletion, the decision needn't necessarily be - to delete or not delete. Contributors have pointed out some problems with the article, namely style and lack of sources, but I'm not sure that this alone justifies scrapping the whole article. I would argue, that at the very least, the tables themselves are of interest and very useful in any discussion of East-West dichotomy at the institutional level. For this reason alone the article should remain, probably in a reedited form. I welcome your suggestions or ideas on this, and thank you for the comments you've provided so far. --Mrodowicz (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the entire thing reads like original research. We do not do that here. Without sources there is no evidence that the topic, as defined, is even notable. The East-bloc/West-bloc divide is typically discussed in IR in the context of Balance of power with the break up of the Soviet Union leading to a transition from bipolarity to either a multi-polar system or a hegemonic one. It is not, as far as I know, discussed in the same context as Global-North/South or Centre-Periphery is in Dependency theory. If the article was written, as it should have been, with secondary reliable sources which were then used to create a tertiary source (What Wikipedia is) then those sources should be cited in the article because without doing so the article is either a copyright violation or worse plagiarism. If it is entirely the product of your own knowledge, analysis and synthesis then it simply does not belong in the encyclopedia.  J bh  Talk  14:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jbhunley, thanks for your comments. So far as I can tell, our positions on this may not necessarily be as far apart as they might seem. I've already indicated in my comment above, albeit vaguely, how the article might be reedited to alleviate some of the concerns mentioned. I will elaborate on this further:

Your thoughts on the process briefly outlined above? --Mrodowicz (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete from the article all reference to Cold War bipolarity/tripolarity and its relation to the present state of affairs, and focus instead on E/W dichotomy in the context of post-Cold War era institutions. This should go some way towards eliminating the sense of original research, analysis and synthesis you allude to.
 * Rescind from the latter half of the article, any points which might be construed as constituting original research.
 * The remainder will constitute the reedited article, which will hopefully be a more satisfactory outcome to all parties involved in the discussion.
 * what you seem to be failing to get is the topic and content are secondary issues that can only be addressed after you have citations . Please read our prohibition of original research. You must have reliable sources which are cited to verify both the notability of the topic and the content of the article. Most particularly all of the assertions and conclusions must be supported by individual sources with no independent synthesis or analysis done on your part. Please see our policy against synthesis. I recognize you have done a lot of hard work putting together the article but as it stands it is not appropriate material for Wikipedia because it makes assertions in Wikipedia's voice which are unsubstantiated by sources or references. What you need to do is:
 * Find some source material that discusses the topic you are interested in.
 * Read it.
 * Write an article summarizing what the sources say
 * Cite the references you summarized.
 * Think more 'high school book report' than 'university seminar'. We summarize, we do not analyze or synthesize. It is great if you want to learn about a new subject but can be frustrating for people who want to express their own thoughts on a topic. I hope this makes my objections to this article more clear. Cheers. J bh  Talk  13:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that's pretty clearly stated, User:Jbhunley. :) Wikipedia exists to neutrally and in due-proportion summarize what reliable sources say about notable subjects. If it cannot be directly and specifically cited to a reliable source, it does not belong on Wikipedia. I'd like to note that in the absence of sources that make this suitable for Wikipedia, it might have a home at one of our sister projects that is more open to university seminars. :) Specifically, this might make an interesting course of study at Wikiversity or a section of a Wikibook. I say might, because I am not deeply familiar with their policies. I have done some work at Wikiversity in basic course material (elementary algebra), but I don't know what their criteria may be for more advanced material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley & Moonriddengirl, thank you for your comments, and for alerting me to these other sites. I respect your positions on this. However, I can’t help feeling that my article is being singled out in a somewhat arbitrary fashion – being required to live up to the highest WP standards, with the bulk of WP articles being subjected to far less scrutiny. If we were all so keen to apply the strictest possible standards to all WP articles, we’d probably find that up to 1/4 of the total output would disappear, much to the detriment of the site. The guidelines are primarily there to prevent abuse, and keep out junk-articles, not out of a need to conserve space or create the maximum number of obstacles to what can be included.

This article is not rocket science - in fact it is almost childishly simple, yet it is constantly being suggested that the article is full of analysis and synthesis. I’ve already conceded that the first part of the article relating to Cold War etc. can be scrapped, whilst retaining the bulk of the article following the sub-title “21st century”. Having done so, I would like to CHALLENGE my fellow contributors to point out where all these alleged instances of analysis and synthesis are present. I’m hard-pressed to find a single instance of genuine analysis or synthesis, in the suggested amended form of the article.

As I’ve just said – it’s a very simple article, which can be easily summarised in a few points:

a. There exists such a thing as the ‘East-West dichotomy’.

b. There exists such a thing as the ‘East-West dichotomy’ in international relations.

c. There is some evidence of the E-W dichotomy in international institutions.

d. The following institutions are generally perceived as being western institutions

e. The following countries are members of these western institutions

f. The following institutions are generally perceived as being non-western or eastern institutions

g. The following countries are members of these non-western or eastern institutions

h. Some countries are not members of any of these institutions, and these countries are as follows...

i. Summing up/concluding remarks

THAT’S IT!

Where is the originality? In fact, it’s all so boringly unoriginal! Yet somehow, I’m being made to feel that I’ve undertaken some gargantuan task of major research (or worse, plagiarised from somewhere else), and that I’m posting the results here for all the world to see. I’ve asked my fellow contributors to make suggestions or amendments, if you have cause for concern with any particular aspects of the article, which we could work on editing. Unfortunately most of the feedback I’ve received so far has been in the form of negative remarks phrased in abstract terms, based on the strictest interpretation of WP rules, with barely any concrete remarks in relation to the content of the article itself. --Mrodowicz (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did this statement in the article come from? "In the 21st Century, the East-West dichotomy is present in the field of international relations, and remains an important division, in the international arena. The East-West dichotomy, can be contextualised within the framework of modern political, economic and military institutions. The characteristics of these can be traced back to the early post-WWII era, concurrent with the onset of the Cold War." Do yo have a reliable source you can cite for that claim or did you come up with that thesis yourself? If you do not have a source that makes the same claim then it can not be in the encyclopedia because of our policy forbidding original research and if must be removed. Let me quote the opening of WP:V "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." and more specificly WP:PROVEIT "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."Since that statement defines the subject of the article unless you can support it with citations to reliable sources there can be no article. Does that make more sense to you? I added citation needed for each part that needs a reference. You also need to find a source that says those facts taken together are important and not just a collection of facts per WP:SYNTH  J bh  Talk  14:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Added material  J bh  Talk  14:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   11:46, 14 September 2015 (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.