Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Human Union


 * 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 of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Human Union
Bizarre social theory, strongly connected to OS 0 1 2, which was deleted and protected against recreation last year. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NN political/philosophical movement.  Apostrophe abuse, and inability to spell "principle", are _not_ good starts on the path to total world domination... Tevildo 11:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tevildo's opinion directly above... and remember kids, there is only one e in argument!--Isotope23 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ""Keep"" just clean it up. First off 'bizarre social theory' is a personal opinion, and if you think a personal opinion about it being bizarre is a new standard for wiki, then you might as well delete a few thousand more entries. Secondly, 'the human union movement' is outlined in an offical peer reviewed publication and academic argument. Thirdly, spelling errors are not grounds for deletion, and since this is a wiki, you can correct them. It's called a cleanup. Fourthly, OS 0 1 2's deletion is being challenged as we speak and a hearing is forthcoming. I imagine that the wiki standard would insure you address these points rationally and this hearing would not succumb to rhetoric, which apparently is all some of you supplied. User:Tumbleman
 * Delete unless Tumbleman comes up with said peer-reviewed publications. Note that self-publication by groups consisting solely of the idea's adherents doesn't qualify. Gazpacho 18:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to his website . The publishing company publishes the book soley to academic institutions, and is an academically accepted publisher. I am not Lyndon, so I hope he can attend this hearing. That should provide you what your looking for until Lyndon can attend.User:Tumbleman
 * Not really, but perhaps it would be appropriate to reorient the article toward the book until the idea is more widespread. Dr. Lyndon should skim our No original research and Wikipedia is not a soapbox policies. Gazpacho 23:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really what? Is that a 'keep' with a clean up?' Look, you cant have it both ways. An academic peer reviewed publication is an academic peer reviewed publication. I agree the article should be cleaned up. Lyndon is NOT the first person to use this particular phrase either, he only created the academic argument. The phrase is self defined and the ideal has been discussed historically is some shape or form for millennia Tumbleman
 * That will be a "move" if and when I strike my original comment. I don't see anything indicating that this book was screened for publication by other international relations experts, which is what "peer review" means. The book's existence is easily verified, but your assertion that its idea is widespread (when the book was published 5 months ago) is not. As for the idea being "discussed for millennia," that's a point of view unless supported very specifically (e.g. a quote from Plato that defines a term exactly the way Storey defines "human union"). And if there is such a quote, there are probably many more people who have used the earlier writer's term than Storey's. Gazpacho 02:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Peer review does not mean 'screened for publication by other international relations experts' it means 'peer reviewed' by academia, in this case political science academia, i.e. the book was published soley by a institution that publishes for universities, Lyndon has his Ph.D in Political Science and his argument was also his thesis. Secondly, now your changing your argument to something else. I said the phrase 'human union' is self defined, but the concept of a governing body of co-operating humans HAS been discussed for millenia, so the concept is not new, the phrase is. Shall I list the wiki pages that already list this concept using other signifiers? really, I think your being unfair here.Tumbleman
 * Delete per nom. When the idea that bit torrent technology is going to take over the world grabs me, I reach for the silly novels, not half-assed dialectic. (I want to confirm that, per above, I do not "want it both ways", and do not believe a theory that cites P2P networks has been "discussed for millennia".) --DaveG12345 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, rhetoric is a poor way to have a discussion regarding this issue. If you can define or argue that this is a 'half-assed' dialectic, which I hardly think your qualified or able to do with me, I suggest you strike your comment, it bears as much wieght as a Fox pundit's commentary. Again, I did not say that a P2P network has been discussed for millenia, rather the concept of co-operative human beings has. Wikipedia itself is a perfect example of this process, and in case you havent noticed, Open Source P2P concepts ARE redefining the world. I dont think your informed enought to have this discussion. Try making a rational comment, and then will see if your qualified to discuss dialectic or any other concept that is on this page.Tumbleman
 * Comment If "rhetoric" is a poor way to discuss, then insulting my intelligence sure doesn't worm you into my good books (it's "hardly think you're qualified", BTW - see how annoying insulting people's intelligence can be yet?). Of course, you don't do it once, you do it multiple times. Please don't condescend to pompously lecture me on P2P and dialectics, you know nothing about me. Wikipedia is the "perfect example" of nothing, as this discussion appears to prove. You will also find that this discussion is completely based on "personal opinion". Learn to accept that other people exist and they have opinions. AfD is a good place to express opinions, otherwise nothing really gets discussed. While you're praising Wikipedia's perfection, you'll also find that my opinion holds just as much "weight" as yours in this discussion. Hope that doesn't shock you too much. Getting back on-topic, this article also insults my intelligence, and - ironically - it's also full of rhetoric. Fox pundits get fired if they spout pure hokum on air. I personally respect Fox for that. Ironically, if Fox had reported on this article's subject, you'd have been in a much stronger position re the topic's notability. Since they haven't, and since I see no evidence here that anyone else of note ever has, I will wait until somesuch evidence turns up before discussing this article any further. I hope I won't be waiting millennia. Why not read WP:AGF with me, while we both wait? --DaveG12345 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment My perception of you was based soley on your comments, and anyone can read this thread and note when your's began and when mine responded. Other than that, I do apologize for insulting your intelligence, that was uncalled for, but your comment about a 'half assed' dialectic surely does not put you in my good book either. I assumed a hearing about a topic would not rely on opinion but rather points addressed rationally in the wiki standard. ANyway, maybe I will join you, and I do agree the entry desperatly needs a clean-up, and I just did. Tumbleman
 * Comment No worries Tumbleman, thanks for responding civily, I will try to respond to you in kind from now on. --DaveG12345 05:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wonderful, same here. See how co-operative human beings can be on a wiki? ;-) Tumebleman


 * Keep. Sure, whatever. By the way, Storey's dissertation says "Discipline of Government and International Relations." Gazpacho 04:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- yet another opinionated movement -- not original really, just idiosyncratically expressed. Amateur in presentation. Must Wikipedia have a page for all the movements of the world? KarenAnn 13:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Karen, if your vote for deletion is based on your comment, which I assume it is, can you further define what you mean by 'opinionated' movement? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the standard of a peer reviewed academically accepted publication. It' not opinion, it is an academic argument, and there is quite a clear distinction. An opinion when voiced does not need to reveal the logical steps and arguments it took to arrive at the conclusion. An academic argument is quite distinct and therefore I suspect you are unfamiliar with this standard and have simply an opinion yourself. If I am mistaken, can you then break down your definition of opinion and show the rational steps you took to come to the conclusion that an academic argument is nothing but? If you cant do this, then I respectfully request that you strike your comment. Thank you User:Tumbleman
 * Comment Tumbleman, in my profession peer reviewed means documented evidence that standards of research in my field have been met by publication in a peer-reviewed professional journal. Some history (concise) of the author's thinking process leading to the current article and how his position fits into or adds to the field's academic history of the topic is expected (even if the position he is taking is new or original). All statements and evidence are referenced (and not just be a link to a vague Wikipedia page with no documentation) but to some verified neutral outside source. Using an unprofessionally-sponsored website as a publication site (a a poorly written one at that) would swiftly shunt you into the quackery bin in my academic area. KarenAnn 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please excuse me if I am screwing up on the wiki format here. I am new at Wikipedia and don't have wiki skills. KarenAnn 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that what I was trying to say is expressed very well by the comment of Tevildo right below mine, such as references to WP:N and WP:V. I would add Reliable sources and Citing sources KarenAnn 12:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. A couple of points.  First, my apologies if you were offended by the flippant nature of my earlier comment, but such obvious errors in spelling and punctuation do _not_ inspire confidence in your readers, and can easily be corrected by a few minutes' extra diligence.  As a show of good faith, I've removed a couple of minor errors from the text myself.  Secondly, the issue here is _notability_, as described in WP:N, and _verifiability_, as described in WP:V.  The article, as it stands, does not present any verifiable evidence of the movement's existence, let alone its notability; the link to its own website, not being independent of the movement, doesn't count towards this.  If such evidence exists, you'll need to include it in the article - proof that the term has been used by academic or popular authors other than the movement's founder, proof of media coverage of the movement, or something of the sort.  Tevildo 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. No worries on the flippant comments, I can handle them if you can respond back rationally with your actual point, which you have. First off, thanks for trying to make the page better. For sure things like spelling and grammar are always issues, but since this is a wiki, the whole point is we all share in editing. When we see a simple mistake, we don’t delete it, we correct it, right? Secondly, the intention and subject matter of this article meets those wiki requirements you mentioned, and I am monitoring this page until the page reflects that you the wiki standard. Notability and verifiability are very relevant in this article's intention to list the actual argument Lyndon puts forth. I understand that many wiki editors are not as familiar perhaps with an academic standard, so please note that having a political academic argument for the ideal that the phrase 'Human Union' holds is pretty noteworthy. Regardless of Karen's suggestion that this is nothing original, the point is that this is THE ONLY academic and political argument that addresses a very sensitive subject matter, human rights and the human right to bear full potential. It's not some hippy dippy dream like it appears some posters here suggest, it is an actual outline. Dialectical Materialism, for example, is the political and academic argument for socialism and communism, and we don’t say that is just another 'opinionated' movement. If the argument exists on this scale, then it is very relevant, more so considering the sorry state of affairs in the world. The argument is what one would bring to the UN, for example. So please don’t discount the relevancy of what this means, and please do a little more research into political science to verify yourself what I have just stated. Secondly, the argument has been accepted by academic and peer reviewed sources, so that takes care of the verifiability right there. This is not a philosophy entry, it is an entry of political science, and this is the only argument of it's kind in the world, thus making it extraordinarily relevant in this context. Does what I say here make sense?User:Tumbleman
 * Comment. also..the article is not about some 'movement', the article is about the peer reviewed academic argument, which is the foundation for such a movement and such a movement can not exist in the political science sense without the argument. Indeed, the movement is created once the argument exists. i.e. there was no communism before dialectical materialism.....User:Tumbleman
 * Comment Thank you for your reply - it does make your position more clear. Two further pages I'd refer you to are WP:SOAP and WP:OR.  Wikipedia is neither a place to publish original research in any field, academic or otherwise, nor a platform to advance a particular political or social agenda.  Dr Storey may be notable as a person (WP:BIO and WP:PROF refer), in which case this exposition of his views would be suitable for an article about him: his book may be notable, in which case it would be appropriate in a summary of the book in an article about it.  However, as it stands, the article provides no _verifiable_ (and I emphasise that again) sources that show the "argument", if that's how you'd prefer to characterize it, is _notable_ outside Dr Storey's personal beliefs and writings, and, as the article's author, it's your duty to provide such sources if the article is to remain..  If the political views encapsulated in the article ever do achieve widespread notice, then it'll be acceptable - but Wikipedia is not the right vehicle for your attempts to assist it in doing so.  Dialectical materialism is a good example; if we were writing in 1896, before that term came to the prominence it has now, it would be an equally-strong candidate for deletion.  In 110 years' time, "The Human Union" might be regarded as the most important movement of this century; but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can't say that it has any claim for notability _now_.  Tevildo 18:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentTelevido, I actually agree with much of what you wrote. How about this, give me some time to do the proper re-write on the actual argument itself and consider changing your vote to a clean-up. I have a full work week ahead of me as well as playing mr.mom, so I just request some time to do this, as presenting the argument in wiki format is a task. Perhaps the article should also be moved to a proper entry as well. Thanks again for trying to make the article better. I disagree with you on your point about DM, Wiki also encourages us to look at relevancy. We dont just wait for history for something to  become relevant, history is just one of the guidelines. Other than that, your critique is valid and I appreciate your time here. User:Tumbleman
 * Comment I am (I presume we all are) still waiting for those reliable verifiable sources to be cited on this one. No sign of them as yet. Without them, this is surely a WP:NOR/WP:V delete, no matter how eloquent or welcome the interlocutory badinage. --DaveG12345 21:44, 12 July 2006 (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.