Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Societism


 * 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. The consensus of the policy-based parts of the discussion is that while the word itself has been used in various ways for over a century, it has no consistent or firm meaning, and this article in particular is WP:NOR attempting to create a new concept rather than document an existing/movement. Jayjg (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Societism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article has been tagged as problematic for more than a year. Appears to be an attempt to promote a neologism. Primarily written by someone with a possible COI. Many unreferenced statements. I do not think a valid article can be written. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Interesting challenge. It appears that a valid article already has been written. I'm not a philosopher and I don't play one on TV, but it appears that "societism" is the flipside of the "individualism" coin. It's DEFINED IN WIKTIONARY, which might not be impressive in "reliable sources" terms but does get you to the essence of the thing pretty effectively, I think. The term is definitely out there, as exemplified by the book Societism: The Future Government of the United States of America. It's not a neologism, it was a concept discussed as early as 1914 in the work of Georges Palante as may be seen in THIS LINK COURTESY OF MARXISTS.ORG. Where is this challenge coming from? The concept seems a slam-dunk speedy keep from just a quick spin around the Google neighborhood... —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.
 * It was defined in Wiktionary by and this article here was in major part written by . Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The book on Societism was self-published by the author and, as the worldcat link provided shows, held by one library.  RJC  TalkContribs 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let's say the book is out as an obscure self-publication. Here we have AN ABSTRACT TO A JOURNAL ARTICLE in Organizational Studies, which reads: "This essay introduces a new form of social ontology and sketches its bearings on the analysis of organizations. The essay begins by contrasting the two social ontological camps — individualism and societism — into which social theory has been divided since its inception." Thus "societism" is again depicted as the flip-side of "individualism" as a fundamental term. Bottom line for me is this: the term seems to be clearly notable in Wikipedia terms and encyclopedia-worthy in the abstract. If there are COI or Original Essay problems with this article, the place for correction of same is not AfD, but via the normal editing process using discussion on the talk page as necessary. —Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.
 * That abstract does prove that some people use the word "societism" and that one usage contrasts it with "individualism." That might be enough for the Wiktionary, although an entry there would have to take account of other usages, as well (e.g., contrasting it with "statism").  It is not clear from the abstract, however, that is uses "societism" in the same way as it is defined in the article.  The Wikipedia article in question makes it into a creed about the proper relationship between the individual and society; it has nothing to do with ontology.  The article, however, addresses the question of the proper unit of analysis regarding social theory (and sets up this dichotomy as warring straw men against which the author defines his own alternative).  Again, the question isn't whether that series of letters has ever been used as a word in print, but whether there is a core, unified concept that meets the notability requirements.  And the evidence presented for that has been original research.  RJC  TalkContribs 20:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This fresh article entitled, "Individualism and "Societism" from a Vassar College commencement speech given in 1896 and subsequently published in the Vassar Miscellany satisfies the notability requirement by adding further direct historical credibility to this philosophy. This newspaper has been continuously published by its students since 1866. I have to imagine a few hundred students and parents were exposed to the concept then. Lest we forget! Freedom2choose (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is an essay.  While the word has been used before, it does not have a precise meaning.  The article attempts to give it that meaning.  A search of Google scholar shows it used as an alternative to individualism, statism, etc; sometimes it relates to something in Durkheim's thought, sometimes not.  The article as written is clearly intended to lend credibility to a particular political movement.  I don't know how this article differs from communitarianism.  RJC  TalkContribs 05:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The word is not a neologism - the OED has citations back to the 19th century. FWIW, that source identifies the concept with societarianism. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - My use of the term 'neologism' didn't capture precisely what I meant. That the word has existed is of course not in dispute.  It is as RJC put it above: a self-published book and a COI editor promoting a particular view as if it is a broad school of thought is the problem.  The word seems to be not worthy of an independent entry, per WP:NOT.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep.  The articles first reference "Individualism and Societism" written in 1896 introduces the philosophy clearly.  I believe this historical school of thought is returning with momentum and needs to be preserved.   The current Tea Party movement and Campaign for Liberty movement are two clear examples of Societism as non partisan individuals are working together to reclaim their government and their freedoms. Many more want to be involved but haven’t yet found that term or group they are comfortable associating with.  It’s ironic that so many dictionaries have removed “Societism” from their pages – my guess is it’s been for political reasons, but who knows.  Obviously the article is not perfect.  Perhaps others with a deeper understanding of history, philology and the use of Wikipedia can step forward and add the needed clarification and/or references. Freedom2choose (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your views here sound plausible... as original research. I recommend that you write up your views in a comprehensive essay and try to get it published in a reliable source.  Barring that, Wikipedia is not the place to speculate on the intellectual connections between a contemporary political movement and an article in a theological journal more than 100 years old.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – This was actually done more recently (2003) in an essay by Theodore R. Schatzki, Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Kentucky whose thesis is called, "A New Societist Social Ontology" (fee for full text required). He has other recent essays on this subject as well. Obviously the philosophy of Societism continues to evolve but has not died, it just keeps getting removed by the powers in place – precisely what Arpad Korn was addressing in his book on Societism (1979) mentioned above. I am very pleased that Wikipedia uses its independent voting system and open forum that allows these discussions to take place before potentially permanent deletions.Freedom2choose (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: this is the same author as the journal article mentioned by Carrite above; I'm not sure that the fact that this person has published more than one article that uses the word in a way different from the article's topic shows that the article's topic is notable.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Nether of these articles by Schatzki are even mentioned in the article. Freedom2choose (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article has some serious OR issues. Whoever wrote this article clearly sought to "make up" his own definition of the term. All sorts of information were simply gathered and pieced together in order to give an appearance of legitimacy to the author's agenda; yet anyone vaguely familiar with philosophy and logic will notice that it is full of non sequitur fallacies. --m3taphysical (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've been pondering this for a while. It struck me that the common — what's the word, antonym? — of "individualism" isn't "societism," it is "collectivism." I'm not sure how that relates to the price of tea in China, but that is one reason that the individualism v. societism pairing sounds odd to the ear. That said, it's still pretty darned clear that this is a fundamental concept from a previous century and is thus an encyclopedia-worthy topic, with correction of Original Essay concerns of the specific page to be made via the normal push and pull of the collective editing process, if you'll pardon the turn of phrase... Carrite (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Further - Per the above: "I believe this historical school of thought is returning with momentum and needs to be preserved." That's exactly what this article should NOT be trying to do. The historical school of thought needs to be expounded for its own sake. But the italicized type here indicates a pretty clear POV-push. NOW, I'm starting to see the concern... Bottom line for me: Concept is a KEEP, but it may well be time to break out the machetes for reediting. Carrite (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - It wasn't Individualism "vs" Societism. There obviously was a brewing debate in the late 1800’s (and earlier during Durkeim’s time) between the two extremes of individualism and socialism that inspired the need for a higher calling they termed Societism. Some tried to eradicate Societism by comparing it to Socialism (and Statism, Collectivism, etc.).  Others stopped referencing it.  And they essentially made the term disapear.  I agree the article needs help (to eliminate the POV issue, etc...) through the collective editing process. Lets make it more objective and accurate and not simply be deleted from history again. (Freedom2choose) (talk)15:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation - In light of the above I've revisited the article anticipating how one might wield the axe to eliminate the original essay writing and current-politics advocacy while expounding upon the original concept. Bottom line: one can't. Although I really hate having to say this, I now think blowing the mother up is the best approach and have stricken my previous KEEP recommendation. However, I still remain convinced that "societism" is a fundamental concept from an earlier era which could well be the subject of encyclopedic coverage if done correctly, just as other core concepts such as "individualism" and "collectivism" can be successfully treated. —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.
 * Comment - I made an error with the collectivism reference. I was thinking communes and that part didn't make sense - sorry. Still, this could have easily been correction under the normal re-editing without the blowup. Freedom2choose (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentComments from the very first person who started this article. Understanding that the very thought of the concept of societism (especially "God forbid" applied societism in modern culture) might gore some folks oxes and / or threaten sacred cows, I began this article with many modern references. I too am not an encyclopedian nor a sociologist, but thought that Wikipedia would be the perfect venue for the exposition of an oft neglected but most pertinent societal concept even touching Wikipedias' own own core raison d’être. Solely adversarial and limited intellectualized discussion is of very limited efficacy if ego issues are always going to get tied up in things. That is also the very point of this article itself. "We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive," Albert Einstein The charges of original and / or non-published research are completely specious, I have attempted in my own limited way as a practical systems engineer to collect in encyclopedic fashion modern and post-modern discussions of the topic. Merging or cross linking the related political concept of Communitarianism with the broader social phenomena of Societism as applied to political science might benefit that part of this article. In so far, I agree with that comment.  This is not a new idea. The issue that it is currently re-emerging in political, religious, philosophical and social information science frameworks does not diminish it's societal scientific value in any way. Besides the many references already cited from day one, at the very inception of this article, the concepts of applied societism have also been continually discussed since the end of the 19th century in the following additional references to be cited as the work progresses. 1911-1914-1930-1949-1950-1964-1990-1996-2003-2006  That is, if it is to be possibly allowed to continue to progress and is not deleted in it's infancy.
 * History of economic thought By Lewis Henry Haney - 1911 books.google.com
 * The Social Point of View in Economics The Quarterly Journal of Economics © 1914 The MIT Press. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1883624
 * The Place of Definition in Religious Experience The Journal of Philosophy Vol. XXVII, No. 21 OCtober 9, 1930 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2015925
 * The Synthesis of Idealism and Realism - CHARLES HARTSHORNE DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-2567.1949.tb00142.x Theoria - Volume 15, Issue 1-3, pages 90–107, April 1949 Article first published online: 11 FEB 2008
 * Toward a Faith for Modern Man - R. G. Wilburn # Oxford Journals # Humanities # Jnl of the American Academy of Religion # VolumeXVIII, Issue1 # Pp. 34-35 J Am Acad Relig (1950) XVIII (1): 34-35. doi: 10.1093/jaarel/XVIII.1.34 http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/XVIII/1/34.extract
 * Philosophies of Hartshorne and Chardin: Two Sides of The Same Coin? David B. Richardson The Southern Journal of Philosophy Volume 2, Issue 3, pages 107–115, Fall 1964 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1964.tb01473.x/abstract Article first published online: 26 MAR 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-6962.1964.tb01473.x 1964 The University of Memphis
 * Tocqueville's Nationalism T Todorov - History and Anthropology, 1990 - informaworld.com http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a921747581
 * Social Constructivism - JIŘÍ KABELE Sociologický časopis, 1996, Vol. 32 (No. 3: 317-337) [PDF] from cas.czJ KABELE - sreview.soc.cas.cz http://sreview.soc.cas.cz/uploads/a8d4b9796abd2eacee415e34c9d59d6b9d78aa21_298_317KABEL.pdf
 * On Durkheim's Religion and Simmel's" Religiosity": A Review Essay AJ Treviño - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1998 - JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/pss/1388037
 * Non-State Actors in Global Governance - A Power Analysis Bas Arts  Political Sciences of the Environment  University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands  e-mail: b.arts@nsm.kun.nl  Paper to be presented at the 2003 ECPR Joint Sessions,  Workshop 11: The Governance of Global Issues - Effectiveness, Accountability, and Constitutionalization.  Edinburgh, Scotland,  March 28 – April 2, 2003
 * ELEMENTS OF A SEMIOTIC THEORY OF RELIGION - Tim Murphy Theory in the Study of Religion, 2003 - ingentaconnect.com http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/mtsr/2003/00000015/00000001/art00003
 * Ziya Gökalp’s political sociology - Ensar Yilmaz International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 2(3), pp. 029-033, March 2010 Available online  ISSN 2006- 988x © 2010 Academic Journals
 * Here is the original research on this topic, as yet emerging -
 * Innovation-as-Practice: Examining the Relationship between Leaders' Espoused and Enacted Innovation, and Innovation Outcomes and Firm Performance [PDF] from uwo.caMG Apaydin, O Branzei, G Rowe, S Thornhill - ivey.uwo.ca http://www.ivey.uwo.ca/phd/IveyPhDStudents/AreaGroups/thesismaterial/ApaydinThesisProposal.pdf
 * Thank You for your time. Steve Frahm - sfrahm1 - formally user sfrahm Sfrahm1 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I fully agree with Carrite. This big sophism is beyond repair. --m3taphysical (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Why? OMG! Yes, get rid of it! It has with not only to do with religion and politics, but philosophy and economics too.  Who has taken the time to read all the references provided? Anybody? Where are the comprehensive intelligent arguments? Here, I'll give it a shot now myself. Please pardon my tongue placed firmly in my cheek whilst I do so.  Problematic -> For whom? Adherents of the so called "Third Way," excuse for socialist corporatism (read big political money corporate fascism astroturfed by Hegelian dialectical synthesis) that does not admit to any sane possible alternatives? I should certainly hope so.  Big sophism -> name calling no analysis  Beyond repair -> more name calling  One of the 29 references is "self-published"! -> "Error. Flaw. Imperfection. Must sterilize." "Search out. Identify. Sterilize imperfections." "Our purpose is clear. Sterilize imperfections. Sterilize imperfections. Nomad. Sterilize. Sterilize." "I am Nomad. I am perfect. That which is imperfect must be sterilized." "I shall sterilize. You must sterilize in case of error? Error is inconsistent with my prime functions. Sterilization is correction. Everything that is in error must be sterilized. There are no exceptions." "Everything that is in error must be sterilized. There are no exceptions."  The word does not have a precise meaning -> Like any other modern word its' meaning in common use has developed over time. Like say over the past 120 years or so give or take.  SOCIETISM: \ So-ci’e-tism (-tiz’m), N.  [Societ +ISM].  [Fr.  Association or tendency to associate, in a society or societies.]  Webster, New International Dictionary 2nd Ed., (1951)  So’cietism. {f. SOCIET-Y + -ISM} Combination in a society or societies.   1894 Daily News 26 Dec. 3/6 It was a real grievance which hatched secret societism in Ireland.  1896 Bibliotheca Sacra July 545 As the perversion of individualism is anarchism, so would the perversion of societism appear to be socialism or collectivism. Source: Oxford Dictionary 2nd ed., Vol XV, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1989  How this article differs from communitarianism -> That only refers to the political aspect, that I can see in the references I have read so far. Ignoring all of the other published religious, philosophical, social scientific and economic aspects.  Full of non-sequitur fallacies -> Pointless slash, cut and burn editing will certainly help achieve that. By all means. "Must ... sterilize. Sterilize ..."  This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. -> I was working on improving it. I sure could use a bit more help with it and a bit less pointless complaining and depressing calls for deletion.  Its quality may be compromised by peacock terms. -> Yep, I can see that. I'm not blind. Editing out bit by bit, check the progress so far in the history section to see if I am heading in the right direction.  It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.  -> I started the article from day one with many third-party references. It has 29 references so far, I am working on another dozen or so more as we yet speak. Google Scholar has dozens more supporting nearly every one of the statements made to date as far as I can see.  Its quality may be compromised by peacock terms. -> Yes, I agree. I keep editing them out as I am going along. Lets all at least be a bit more specific, so that this problem may more easily be rectified.  Its neutrality is disputed. -> One of the folks editing it may have apparent COI issues. What's the apparent COI with? A non-profit political agenda that is fighting post-modern corporatism driven by unlimited political funding. OK, big whoopee. So, lets all get to work and quit just complaining and nit picking and do something about it. Using the very same societist principles that Wikipedia was apparently founded upon (to use the Geo. Dafermos ref. cited), to turn it into a high quality useful article. Who writes or edits an article that they know nothing about?  Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. -> I linked in from and back to Durkheim. Needs cross links for comparison to Communitarianism, Individualism, Third Way, Socialism, Democratic Socialism, but I didn't want to dig even deeper, without proper references supporting each and every comparison, with all the flack the article has been getting so far.  Is that everything? Have I sufficiently addressed every complaint to date? Can I get back to editing yet, or do I have to keep defending its' very own existence like both Israel or Palestine have to do every day? Time wasting controversy IMHO. Peer review is supposed to imply intelligent editorializing. Not just argument for its' own sake. Pick one issue, build a straw man...  Thank You for your consideration.  Sfrahm1  —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment - Many of the comments to these issues have been extremely valuable and refreshing. Some even passed the sniff test.  But their tags remain!  In Wikipedia we are embraced with the power to lead by example.  Not to be the bully.  But working collaboratively to correct and refine as the role models Wikipedia admires and deserves.  Jimbo was trying by taking the lead civilly to hack out the worst of the unsubstantiated claims and has asked for help to doing this accurately. Your expertise is valuable - so start by correcting a part that most concerns you.  In a year from now, we can all be proud to have shared in a young child’s success that wasn’t meant to survive. Freedom2choose (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting one. The article in its current state is poor. There's too much original research and it reads like an essay. But the depth of sourcing suggests that the topic itself is a valid one. So how about we incubate it for a while? If people really care about writing a decent article on the topic, they would have the chance to and could use this as a basis without leaving it in mainspace. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. By incubate, do you mean userify?  RJC  TalkContribs 14:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you not heard of the Article incubator? Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't. It looks better than userification.  I guess the problem would be identifying what part of the current article would be preserved in the incubator, since it sounds like it is not a place to shove sub-standard content.  Some of the participants in this discussion think an article could be written on this term, but that this article is hopeless.  RJC  TalkContribs 15:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - still a non-notable neologism; all the sources show is that various people have (re-)created this neologism at various times, with no set meaning and no body of consistent discussion of any of them. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  14:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep What an astonishingly over-the-top reaction to a simple discussion of a term, for which the author cites various valid references. What isn't clear from the article is that societism as a self-conscious social movement is a relatively new--four or five years--phenomenon, and therefore the generally accepted meaning of societism is not yet established. Let this historical perspective on the use of the term, societism, stand. I'll try to make some changes to clarify the distinction between the background of the term itself, and the intended meaning and goals for societism as a modern social movement that appears to be essentially "libertarian with a social conscience." I simply don't understand why anyone would dump on an innocuous presentation of a concept, for which the sources are solid and interesting. And I believe the modern idea and movement for societism as conceived by its most recent promulgator, Steven Zimberg, is legitimate and benevolent. In fact, I think the article should contain a reference to societism.org by way of clarification that societism is an older term being self-consciously restored to an "individualism in community" meaning... that may, believe it or not, be salutary. Why on earth would you want to kill discussion or inclusion of such a term (or a description of a political-economic ideology) in a compendium of knowledge? Also neologism means a newly coined word or expression. Obviously, the word societism is not newly coined. Its use goes back to the 19th century, and its been used in many ways, some not along the lines of what its current supporters would define it as. If you don't like its current meaning or where someone wants to go with a social movement in its name, then that's a different issue; Wikipedia is supposed to be about what actually exists--or exists with some evidence of longevity--and is important, not whether someone likes it. I don't like communism and it is certainly a neologism on a scale of geologic time; and it has likewise proven to be ephemeral on such a scale of time. But it's important; it's knowledge to have the facts of what supporters of communism have thought, what they have done, what they have said. An encyclopedia is supposed to be about knowledge, not whether a term rubs some established orthodoxy the wrong way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwisok (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * — Bwisok (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  RJC  TalkContribs 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * clarify - In other words, it's a revolutionary new concept that will change the way people think (while at the same time it has existed for centuries? Yeah, right. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not revolutionary at all. The historical references in the history section are quite clear in illustrating the importance of True Individualism or Societism as a means of protecting against the threat of Socialism and we may again be facing those same crossroads. If I sound POV'ish it's because I see the trend developing Freedom2choose (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Incubate, might have some sources and may be re-created soon, in a better form. Frozen Wind  want to be chilly?  21:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A look at the article's sourcing to over two thousand years of various random speeches shows that it is WP:OR which has only been given the appearance of a sourced article. 61.7.120.132 (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps you should give the article a fresh look and you may realize it is not WP:OR.Freedom2choose (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It absolutely is OR of the worst kind.  If it survives this AfD, which I think is possible but unlikely, I am going to hack it back to a stub and be very firm about keeping the OR out of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree the article is pretty awful, and many of the citations do not document the term or perhaps even the concept. But it is possible to write such an article. The OED gives as a 1994 reference, W. STARK & C. M. A. CLARK Hist. & Historians of Polit. Econ. II. vii. 204 "Idealism he views as generally connected with societism and optimism, materialism with individualism and pessimism." (discussing Lewis Henry Haney--a fuller quote is at in G Books. I think this is sufficient recognition that the term is specific.    DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - That the word exists is not in question. But the mere existence of the word (which has been used in many contexts, with many meanings) does not imply that there is a particular school of thought associated with it (there was not) which was the forerunner of todays Tea Party movement (it isn't).  It's just a word, and that's not enough to justify an encyclopedia article.  (Though it could make a fabulous Wiktionary entry detailing all the varied uses over the years!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:18, 24 October 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.