Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionics (esoterism)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Socionics (esoterism)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a content fork from socionics (typology), which latter really should be at socionics (currently a disambig). Socionics proper appears to be some sort of fringey personality type system which merits coverage of some sort. The article in question seems to be a mass of original research and synthesis, and it seems to exist because the material was chased out of the main article. I can't tell whether this is the primary author's personal theory or a fringe of the fringe, because some of the sources are in Russian; those sources I can read do in general have nothing to do with socionics. In any case the article titles imply that there is a psychology socionics and an esoteric socionics, when what appears to be the case is that the article in question is claiming that socionics IS esoteric. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Esoteric, in this case, means non-notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with socionics in the case of wikipedia is that its own english development was over the internet from Russian language sources. It has in its original form a heavy esoteric base that included chakras and psychic energy, yet it was later framed to seem something more 'psychological' and similar to something from Jung or MBTI and disconnected from the original esoteric elements that formed the theory, despite the fact that these esoteric things dominated the origin of socionics theory and that there is indeed a split where some people take a mystical and esoteric approach [usually involving chakras and psychic energy] and others claiming a more psychological or empirical approach. There are extreme differences in interpretation and opinions on the usages of socionics. On account of the lack of creditable english sources and that the main sources are all in Russian makes it easy to claim original research on the matter, when these are actual viewpoints within the realm of socionics. There is also the fact that there are people who [usually only after learning just the generalized form over the internet and] are completely unfamiliar with the history of socionics, completely denying the esoteric version and mystical interpretations of socionics that literally exist as legitimate viewpoints within the realm of socionics, and this has caused neutrality issues in the original socionics article where there are people intent on oppressing any viewpoint that claims or shows that socionics has more to do with esotericism and mysticism than it does to something with a scientific approach, when socionics has no scientific validation whatsoever other than perhaps some speculation that 'such and such' about the theory is always the case. And this is the exact problem with the way people are using socionics. They are definitely not totally telling the truth about socionics in the main article socionics (typology) at all in the origination of the theory and anybody who tells the truth about socionics and its origination usually gets ganged up on by people who want to claim that socionics has absolutely no esoteric, mystic, or occult ties whatsoever, and that is how the socionics(esoterism) article came to be. In any case, I agree that the credible information that exists in the socionics (esoterism) article should be in the main article, but as I have said there is a neutrality dispute over the nature of the presentation of socionics and it is a legitimate battle to present the actual factual information without some form of bias. The socionics (typology) article in itself is full of things that can also be considered origional research and lacking credible source materials as well, so it is not just this article, it is socionics in general that there is just not a lot of viable sources that can be cited. It is the nature of the theory at the moment. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am copying and pasting this from the Talk:Socionics_(typology) talk page just to show the extent of this debate:

The rational skeptics are currently investigating socionics to discover the the real truth behind socionics that people are attempting to hide in order to make unsubstantiated scientific and others claims about socionics that is simply not true in light of the legitimate esoteric background of socionics, the mystic interpretations that are present in socionics theory and associated with the founders such as Ausura Augusta, and the substantiated connection between socionics, information metabolism (otherwise known as psychic energy), mysticism, tattwas, chakras, physiognomy and any other connected protoscience or pseudoscience. For this reason, the 'rational skeptic' tag has been added to this article.


 * Wrong. It is not just a mystic psychology. It is also a concrete and realist psychology. If you want to focus on the mysticism half of socionics, you need to focus on the duality relation itself. Although Augusta dabbled in mysticism, she was not in herself a mystic. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Mystic psychology" is often indistinguishable from "realist philosophy", as the two go hand and hand. Ontology and mathematics are often used in both separately or together. It is ridiculous to say that socionics is a "realist philosophy" and not also also say that it is a "mystic psychology". Socionics is a realist philosophy and also a mystic psychology. Claiming that "ausura augusta herself was not a mystic" is about as silly as going back up to a couple of debates ago where people were claiming that "you can claim Jung was influenced by hermeticism, alchemy, hindu philosophy, but socionics sure the heck was not" when in fact the basis of socionics is nothing except chakras, tattwas, psychic energy and that it was actually Antoni Kepimski's theory developed from these and hardly Jung or MBTI at all. I am getting so sick of people making these silly unsubstantiated claims and making false claims about its origin in order to frame socionics away from the actual truth about its esoteric foundation. You are just telling mistruths about its origion in order to 'make it seem acceptable' to people who want nothing to do with chakras, psychic energy, or esotericism. In fact, I would call the history of its origin as originally told in english to be a big fat western lie, and it is sad that people believe something to be true about socionics that is false and making it seem like it is something that it is not. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Two points. First, It may well be true what you say. However, Wikipedia is not the place to write your exposé; you need to find someone else's and use it as your source. Second, regardless of how you come up with materal, we cannot have two articles on the same subject which give different versions of what it is. That is precisely what I meant by "content fork". If there is a problem with ownership of the subject there are ways of dealing with that. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Never having encountered this before tonight, it does seem clear that there are two intellectual traditions. My own personal bias is to call one pseudo social science and the other utter nonsense, but I can see that others may evaluate differently; there does seem to be a respectable body of though that would instead use the terms analytical psychology and mysticism. As I understand it, Jung's thought has been susceptible to both tendencies of interpretation. I haven't the least idea howe to straighten it out, but it does seem to be two different subjects. DGG' (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable fringe theory. Verbal   chat  15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose since it seems that there is a movement to delete the article what is credible in this article should be salvaged and placed in the other article ... again. Nevertheless, I am pretty sure the same problems are going to arise with people who do not want to acknowledge the existence of a legitimate mystic approach spawned from the esoteric tendencies of its founders are going to try to keep any evidence of the viewpoint out of the article again to present it as something it is not entirely, causing more neutrality issues in the presentation of socionics where you have a heavy esoteric basis on the theory that carries through even as it is deceptively being framed to seem to be something "scientific" or like "Jung or MBTI". You think a neutral party would allow the evidence that this is the case to be present in the socionics (typology) in some form. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree to a merge of the three articles (including the dab page). I had not heard of it either, and a brief look at the article and in search engines found little in English-language sources.  If anyone can salvage this mess, please be bold. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note I have put all socionics-related articles up for deletion, as further inquiries have led me to the conviction that, whatever its nature and origins, it is insufficiently notable. See Articles for deletion/Socionics. In any case I do not think this content fork should be allowed to continue. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Content fork of a fringe theory. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * delete as an unverifiable and original research content fork. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Niffweed is one of those people who have bought into the western lie that socionics is "something like Jung and MBTI" and has done nothing but intensely persecute those who tell the truth that socionics has an intense esoteric background. When I literally owned the the16types.info forum for 4 straight years, he made a regular habit of following users around during that time who spoke anything contrary to "his opinion on the matter" and harass them. He even goes so far as to commit slanderous and libelous accusations against people such as "calling them insane" or labeling them with "psychiatric disorders" even as such is libelous false. This tactic seems to be his main response to those who disagree with him and otherwise shows that "his opinion on the matter" lacks a high degree of respectability. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * redirect to socionics, protect redirect. No harm in keeping the edit history around. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on why the Socionics article deletion would potentially be a good thing taking the circumstances

First off I should probably state who I am. I am officially recognized in Russia and the United States as a practicing socionists. I studied Religion, Theology, Metaphysics, Biblical Languages, at a University in Texas for 4 years, and the German language at a University in Northern California for 3 years, where I had the opportunity to exchange to Tuebingen University in Tuebingen, Germany to study Theology, and improve my Greek. I have studied socionics since 2003 and was the owner of the largest english speaking socionics forum the16types.info since 2005 (bought from Jimmy Caretti) until I sold it in late 2008. Since that time I formed the forum metasocion.com in order to present socionics in its natural form, as I found the "the the16types.info" crowd to be both extremely ignorant and prejudiced against presenting socionics the way that the founders had originally presented it. You can see some of my socionic credentials below:

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reuben_McNew http://www.typelab.ru/en/1.begin/index.html http://www.socioniki.info/index.php/2008-11-05-20-39-51

It is my personal opinion that all socionics articles should be deleted until it is agreed by everyone that it is a good idea to give a neutral presentation of the origin of socionics that discusses its esoteric development and gives mention to the fact that esoteric interpretations of chakras, tattwas, and psychic energy and mysticism in general were the main basis that the founders of socionics based their theory upon, and that from this socionics was formulated and later "framed to appear to be something like Jung or MBTI" and that "mystical interpretations of socionics type theory have descended directly from the founders and exist to this day" and that "there is a split between those of the opinion that socionics is something empirical and that socionics is something mystical." The multitude of sources that have been presented have already shown this. However, taking that there are people who would rather take unneutral views of socionics and present socionics in a way contrary to its origin [meaning in a frame which presents it as a form similar to MBTI or Jung with no mention of its esoteric background] I would be in favor of deleteing all socionics articles. I think that those who are opposed to an esoteric presentation of socionics should either come to terms that it would be correct to allow some information in some form to neutrally portray socionics esoteric background or to be content with the deletion of the whole of all of the information. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:42, 29 June 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.