Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formal language (logic)


 * 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. — Jake   Wartenberg  02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Formal language (logic)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Created as a POV fork of Formal language, after discussion at Talk:Formal_language did not support the creator's opinions about article content. I asked about this being a POV fork at User_talk:Gregbard before nominating.

This is a POV fork because:
 * 1) There are no sources that say that formal languages "in logic" are any different than formal languages in computer science and mathematics. The sources from mathematics listed in the article are actually from mathematical logic.


 * 1) Nor is there sufficient agreed-upon material in the formal language article itself to warrant a split because of length.

Per WP:POV fork,


 * "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion."

&mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a complete misunderstanding of what a POV fork is' -- If for instance the claim was that the article is written from a logicist, or diatheistic POV, that would be a legitimate claim. However, Arthur, CBM, and many others in the math department have repeatedly complained about a "pro-philosophy" or ""philosophical logic" POV. PLEASE LET ME CORRECT THIS. There is no such thing as a "pro-philosophy" POV. Just covering the philosophical content, is not itself POV (obviously this would be insane, since all articles under WP:PHILO's scope would be POV). One of the outcomes of this nomination should be to bring an end to the spurious claims of "POV". It really is a fundamental misunderstanding that acts as a big smokescreen to confuse the issue. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The "split" (not fork) is necessary, due to the repeated deletion of material along stark interdisciplinary lines. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (or redirect, without merge, to the parent article). The "theory" sections are not part of "formal language" as used in logic.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment/question I've read this article carefully, and I don't see how the (more vague) definition given in it differs from that at formal language. Furthermore, most applications listed are the same in both articles. I saw on Talk:formal language that there was some disagreement over the inclusion of the image that's shown in this article, because "well-formed formulas" and theorems are not commonly define for formal languages outside Logic; as far as I can tell that image could be placed in a section at formal language instead of placing it at the top of the article. Is there anything else that beckons for a separate article? Pcap ping  01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all the definition given in formal language (logic) is more precise not more vague, it is, however more general and therefore more useful for describing logic, math and computers at the same time. It seems that you agree with me that the content having to do with formal languages as used in logic should never have been repeatedly deleted from the original article. There are many statements of truth made in the (logic) article which had been deleted from the original. It is not acceptable. Perhaps there could be a merge (a good complete merge), which I would support. However, I believe it will continue to be a mess which can be avoided by splitting. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example of a language that meets the definition of formal language (logic), but not that of formal language? Pcap ping  02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge There really should only be one article, but it should contain some of the content from the forked article. I would be opposed to deleting without covering this material. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sort of thing can be argued on the talk page. The information in the fork is covered elsewhere, as appropriate for the topics there. The reason that the fork is inappropriate is exactly that it was created because the author was unable to convince anyone else (via citations, sound arguments, or other means) that the material actually belongs in an article on formal languages, rather than articles on formal systems, etc. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an unfair characterization. Hunter's Metalogic is a reliable source. Even Arthur agrees that it is reliable, but just thinks it belongs on the other side of the street. However when one tries to move to the other side of the street it isn't allowed. This is plain wrong. You can't have it both ways. Cover the material about formal languages, including the fact that a formal language is an idea, that the marks on the page are a token of the idea, etcetera. Otherwise there is no right to complain. I am pretty sure I have determined that none of you guys cares that a formal language is an "idea," (and other facts) so you should be quite grateful to make the split. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hunter wrote a book on philosophical logic metalogic addressed to non-mathematicians; see the preface fo his book (edited: 02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)). With that audience in mind, he was less formal. That does not make his idea of a formal language different. Please see page 4 in his book. He clearly refers to an alphabet just like formal language does. You still haven't replied to my question above... Pcap ping  02:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you agree with me that the idea is not different, and that there should be one comprehensive article. However, the group is not willing to allow a comprehensive article. Hunter's language is more precise on most of the terms being used, and when it is not he says so specifically (see effective method). This actually is the appropriate text to use for clear, precise language, so I have to object to the characterization. Analytic philosophers, and philosophical logicians set out to identify the clearest language as the fundamental job they do. You absolutely should be using Hunter's language over language used in a math text which is more informal (in the sense used in the above paragraph.) I'm sorry, but that is the academic and intellectual reality. It is the proper role of logicians to be telling mathematicians about the fundamentals. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Creating a separate article because you can't get to a consensus on the presentation of the same concept is treading WP:POINT. Immediately changing dozens of links with WP:AWB to point to your favorite presentation is also WP:DISRUPTION. Pcap ping  03:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just a bad attitude. AGF. No it isn't "point" or "disruption". It's diligence. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This isn't a POV fork per se but it certainly is a useless fork. It's the same content with a somewhat different take on the whole thing. But I've read it carefully (I am competent to do so if anyone cares) and it's quite simply redundant. One can write formula instead of word but it's still a finite sequence of symbols (or should I say finite sequence of letters?) The article is also poorly written and unnecessarily confusing. The second and third sentences seem particularly devoid of meaning. Simply saying "a formal language is a set of strings" would carry the same precise idea. Pichpich (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay the problem here is that very often the distinctions that philosophers make appear to be "devoid of meaning", especially in logic, and including when they are actually quite insightful. ("An object is the same as itself") I have a particular interest in preserving the 2nd and third sentences (which are ones which had been deleted from formal language). These are statements which tell us something fundamental about formal languages, and if you do not care to address them, then a split is justified. If you just take the attitude that you don't care then you will never see a need to split the article. I don't care if you care, but do not remove content that others care about (as has been demonstrated by its presence in a reliable text on the subject). With respect, your criticism amounts to a subjective opinion. And no, it is not precisely the same as you have characterized. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a distinction that logicians or philosophers make. Take the third sentence: it's a way to say "a formal language is a set" without using the word "set". It might prove useful if one is worried about the audience being unfamiliar with the notion but it doesn't convey anything else. It reminds me of the good ol' days of my undergrad studies. The math department's logician had retired and for a couple of years the only undergrad logic course was given in the philosophy department. While the textbook said things like "a formal language is a set", the teacher spent significant time explaining that idea for the philosophy department students. Not because the sentence was imprecise but because she wanted to make sure they got the concept. Pichpich (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * keep is it notable? yes.  is it substantive different?  yes.   is it better than the article it split from?  clearly yes.  the original article should be deleted, this one should be kept if there is a choice between the two, otherwise, both should exist.  --Buridan (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The voice of reason as usual. Thank goodness for you. Be well.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What does "notable" mean in this context? Pichpich (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Enough pandering to WP:RANDYs who cannot even explain how the notions differ but invoke WP:NPOV. I will strike this and change my vote if you can answer my question about the differences between these notions I asked above. Pcap ping  03:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't the concept that is different. However, there are obviously many areas being covered in the new article which are not in the old. Furthermore, there is hostility toward such coverage. Choose one or the other. If it's deleted then all of that content is going to be merged into the original.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles here are edited according to WP:CONSENSUS. Willingly creating a WP:CFORK and then demanding in exchange for its deletion that your idiosyncratic misunderstandings of the topic be included in the original article is WP:DISRUPTION. Pcap ping  04:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing about a "disruption" is that there actually has to be something legitimate going on to disrupt... otherwise its an intervention. The whole thing helps to avoid disruption. I don't have any misunderstanding that you have demonstrated, so I will have to identify this as more high rhetoric and bad attitude. The content I am advocating is not idiosyncratic at all, having been addressed by Carnap, Tarski and Quine. Just stop it. Seriously. Call the cops why don't you?! What a drama queen. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV fork. The terms are the same and should be discussed in the same article.  CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, oppose merge if that's not clear. The material is not in good condition and would be better rewritten. Like Hermel, below, I have not yet formed an opinion on the proper mix of content at Formal language, but this material as written is not suitable for a merge. Generally speaking, I welcome the addition of this sort of information; without fully understanding the objections in Talk:Formal language I can't say much more. Perhaps I will contribute to this article in the future to add more logic content to Formal language. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The objections to User:Gregbard's approach can be best summarized by quoting this analogy due to User:Hans Adler, which is over a year old (yes, the POV pushing has been going on for that long):

I have only now become aware of this exchange. To make clear how ridiculous it is, let's suppose an editor has hijacked the article automobile and now it mainly talks about tractors, the only kind of automobile that this editor knows about, and it puts particular emphasis on ploughing. Then we could have an exchange like the following:

I am unhappy to see the article in its present state. There have been many changes that are specific to agriculture; the information provided is useful, but is mistakenly presented as if it pertains to automobiles in general. Perhaps make a separate section about automobiles in agriculture?


 * I sympathize with having an article seemingly taken over. I am not really aware of the applications of automobiles in human transport, etc. However, I would assume that the reason that there exist applications in freight traffic, human transport, and anywhere else is because we can use a tractor as a tool for pulling cargo carts.


 * I am curious about the claim "mistakenly presented as if it pertains to automobiles in general." Is there something there that is not true generally of automobiles? It seems to me that these aspects are the most general aspects, while applications in human transport are more specific. I think in all cases the applications can be expressed in terms of the agricultural aspects of the topic. I would like to see all of these aspects covered. I would like to see an interdisciplinary coverage of the topic.

There seem to be no bounds to Gregbard's overestimation of his own knowledge. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See also this "OMG" thread by some unfortunate newbie who stumbled onto the talk page. Pcap ping  10:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm commenting out the RfC tag. AfD lasts 7 days. RfC lasts 30 days. If RfC is necessary, please use the article talk page, etc., not AfD. Tim Song (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - intentional content fork which describes the same concept as the original article. Creating a content fork is not an acceptable way of addressing a content debate. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: this is a POV fork, and an example of why we take POV forks to be unacceptable. The subject matter of formal languages is quite well-defined. If discussions of topic X related to formal languages doesn't belong or fit in formal language, it can be discussed in an article on X, from all aspects. But it really is not possible to argue for an article simply for some different perspective on formal languages as such. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is clearly a POV fork. A rather lengthy discussion about how much weight should be given to logical concepts in the formal language article was started at 23 May 2008 in Talk:Formal_language/Archive_1. In the course of that discussion, the creator of this article already had proposed to start a separate article about Formal language (logic), which was also discussed. See the archived discussion. Here, I do not want to imply anything about the question "How much weight should be given to logical concepts in the formal language article?". I just want to make the point that this is a POV fork.Hermel (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I actually don't entirely understand that discussion and certainly haven't formed a conclusion; I only feel that this article is an unacceptable fork. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. A formal language is the same in all the contexts that have been mentioned.  It is a set of strings drawn from an alphabet.  Taemyr (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV fork. I also agree with Pichpich concerning the "poorly written" and "needlessly confusing" part. Huon (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as fork (Not quite convinced about the POV part). The lead phrase is fundamentally wrong, and of course there cannot be a construct which will satisfy the definition of formal language (logic), but not that of formal language. There is a special viewpoint from which logicans view formal languages. It differs somewhat (in wording) from the mathematical point of view, it differs widely from the linguistic point of view. But this difference must necessarily be pointed out in the main article, not in some half-copied, half-invented fork split from it. --Pgallert (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Logicians use formal languages in two different ways, depending on context: (1) In the standard sense when working in areas close to computer science. (2) In a perhaps slightly more restrictive but ill-defined sense when using them to define the syntax of languages. For (1) a separate article makes no sense at all. For (2) we can't write a separate article because this definition is almost never made explicit. I have never seen an author make (2) explicit, but I would expect that they either use the same definition as (1) or ad hoc definitions that depend more on the author's didactic approach and the precise intended application than anything else, and that any agreement in this area between different authors is the result of accident or plagiarism.
 * For (1) a separate article is completely inappropriate because the distinction logic/not logic makes no sense. For (2) a separate article is inappropriate because the topic is not notable at all. Far from having sources that focus on the topic itself (as required by WP:N), we can't even tell whether any serious author actually intends to make such a difference, as opposed to glossing over potential difficulties for non-mathematicians by means of an imprecise, intuitive approach. Hans Adler 16:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on merging The main article does have a section of appropriate WP:WEIGHT, i.e. Formal language. As you can see, that section defers details to formal system, which is the proper place to discuss most of the issues in the article being discussed for deletion here. In fact this AfD'd article has an obscured form of the definition from formal language, but the body is essentially a duplication of the contents from formal system. Most of the article's body are summaries of other articles with main tags. So, I don't see what's useful here to merge anywhere... Pcap ping  12:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge back to the main article, or delete. POV forking is not an approved method to deal with content disputes. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2009 (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.