Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of society


 * 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, keep arguments are extremely weak. lifebaka++ 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

State of society

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

Page is a WP:POVFORK, attempting to explain a concept found in political philosophy. More appropriate to discuss it in the articles on the philosophers for whom it is important than to synthesize their ideas into a single statement on what the "state of society" is. RJC Talk Contribs 16:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. someone's original idea. Laudak (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   -- RJC Talk Contribs 02:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.   -- RJC Talk Contribs 02:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep it is important to classical republicanism idea --seventy3 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventy3 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Political society (2nd nomination) - another weak article by the same author. andy (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 'seems that understanding of state of nature idea is not fully possible without knowing what state of society is --37uk (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. While state of nature has entered into English and is a term used by a number of thinkers, state of society is not.  Society, civil society, political society, government, etc. are opposed to the state of nature.  In any event, the importance of what is discussed in this article to other articles (either classical republicanism or state of nature — what is it with these new accounts jumping straight into AfD discussions?) means that it should be discussed in those other articles, not that a separate article must be maintained as a venue for WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * comment. i didn't know that hobbes and locke weren't english thinkers. however there are plenty of other classicist thinkers from whole the europe that use the term e.g. hume, smith, vico, rousseau, kant. --discourseur 07:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. A text search of Leviathan, the Second Treatise, the Letter Concerning Toleration, and Essays, Moral and Political at constitution.org does not turn up a single instance of the phase "state of society" (a fluke, since it is used once in the Second Treatise). Could discourseur be so kind as to say where these other thinkers used this phrase?
 * comment. rousseau A Discourse Upon The Origin and The Foundation of The Inequality among Mankind, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT; Montesquieu the spirit of laws, ferguson An Essay on the History of Civil Society; FEDERALIST; kant The Science of Right; bentham A FRAGMENT ON GOVERNMENT. and two treatises of course. may add 'state of civil society' in grotius On the Law of War and Peace --discourseur 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm sorry, could you provide specific section numbers?  And which French and German phrases in Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Kant do you suggest are translated as "state of society"? RJC Talk Contribs 00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i am sorry for putting that but you seem a bit lazy. État de Societe and Gesellschaftzustand --discourseur 07:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: this sarcastic bickering doesn't help one bit. discourseur - you have been clearly asked for precise references, not just statements that one should read entire books or even an entire oeuvre. Please give proper citations or admit that your claims about these authors are merely your interpretation of what they say, not what they actually say. And how about providing precise citations from commentaries? There are no such references in the article and you're not providing them now either. Do they exist? andy (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * andy, you are wellcome to scan those works in the same way as rjc did with two treatises of locke. simple and easy way. --discourseur 09:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not up to other editors to prove your point. As the creator of the article it's up to you to provide adequate references, and contributors to this afd and the other one at WP:Articles for deletion/Political society (2nd nomination) will note that despite many requests you're not able to do so, and nobody else who knows the subject can either. The only logical conclusion is that they don't exist and both articles are original research (Hume said it better, but you get my point - if it walks like a duck...). andy (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * i did it. can you prove that i am wrong? --discourseur 11:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did what? If you mean that you added references to the article, all you did was dump a reading list there. Please supply proper references per the official Wikipedia policy at WP:PROVEIT: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books". andy (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * they are clear and precise. if you are not able to use them, i am so sorry --discourseur 13:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * delete per nom, and discourseurs all-too-typical failure to provide refs when asked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. it's pity that some wikipedists do not recognize difference between original and secondary bibliographical resources. see as example in locke or in hobbes. --discourseur 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * there are some links to Using Primary Sources. especially at Then Again. you may also look at primary source --discourseur 21:39, 5 August 2008 (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.