Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth theory(2)


 * 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 no consensus. Mango juice talk 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Truth theory

 * Truth theory was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-17. The result of the discussion was "nomination wthdrawn".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/Truth theory.

One person original research essay. Userfy or delete. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes with reasons

 * redirect to Truth Keep : After a quick review and search I was able to find this to be a valid subject of study in philosophy and in the study of learning and education. This search on Google finds about 30,000 entries: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Truth+Theory%22+-Wikipedia Here is top result of the search: http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/truth-theory.php :
 * theory of truth (1935)
 * Semantic concept formalized by the Polish-American mathematician and logician Alfred Tarski (1902-1983), although other thinkers had previously discussed the idea.
 * Truth theory concerns the truth-values of sentence structures in various formal logical languages. Tarski suggested a table by which these values could be determined (although he was less sure about whether the same rules could be applied to natural languages).
 * Also see: correspondence theory of truth
 * In addition, the primary contributor Jon Awbrey is apparently an actual academic with some expertise in the study of education, and I presume has real knowledge in this area. This does not seem to be original research: http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm There was also a previous AfD -- Articles for deletion/Truth theory -- a few months ago where the decision was taken to keep the article. Finally, this Wikipedia article was referred to in the September 2006 edition of the Atlantic Monthly and linked to in the online version of it. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * yep, aware of all of that. The Truth theory you find on the Internet and in books bears no resemblance to this article, which is the one-man-essay by Jon Awbrey, who promised everyone he was leaving (via a very long email chain to the en wiki mailing list) but has failed to keep that promise. Pity, but we're stuck with him; must we also be stuck with his essay? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix, if in error. "Truth theory" certainly exists, though I am only familiar with the term from linguistics, to which the author makes a nod and no more. The answer to an article that's in error is correction, not deletion. "Truth theory" isn't a neologism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bustter (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Truth Theory is dealt with in the Wiki at Truth. This article is a fork, POV or not. Banno 21:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unless the OR can be overcome by the close of this AfD. Failing a delete, the article would need to be massively rewritten as it violates WP:NOR.  Note to BCorr -- Google is nice and all that (although I think this over-reliance on Google hits is utterly ridiculous), but hardly a factor when it comes to determining the disposition of an OR essay.  That the topic exists is not doubted, but what is at issue here is its presentation on Wiki.  The fact that the article essay was allegedly linked in AM is of little importance as well.  That AM failed to see that it was an essay is their problem, not ours.
 * One other point: the fact of something being a neologism (refering to the anon who forgot to sign) is of little importance as well, as all words in every language in the world were neologism at one time.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, you need to narrow your search a bit: while the words truth and theory show up on the same page, they are not adjacent for a majority of the hits you noted. If we try "intitle:"truth+theory"" we get 48 hits, including four about a rock band named, you guessed it, Truth Theory.  See my above point about over-reliance on Google hits.  Unless you appropriately limit your search, and unless you are willing to go through them all to separate the wheat from the chaff, the numbers are often meaningless (as in the case of the 30K hits).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge with Truth: This article simply does not deal adequately with theories of truth. These are dealt with in the main article truth. Our options might be:
 * Move the material at truth to this article - a minimal gain for a great deal of work.
 * Re-write the present article so that it reproduces the material at truth - but what would be the point?
 * Merge anything of value here to Truth and re-direct - my preference. This should be a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. Banno 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Individual theories of truth are dealt with in about 15 different articles: correspondence theory of truth, deflationary theory of truth, coherence theory of truth, pragmatic theory of truth, etc.. The overall, comprehensive summary of theories of truth is (supposed to be) dealt with in truth. Does anyone still think there's reason for another article called truth theory?? This is Jon Awbrey's personal essay. I can also write a peronal essay and I can find many other "qualified" people to write peronal essays on many other topics as well. Hell, I'd love to post my personal opinions on Wikipedia. But it would all be Original Research, obviously. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jon Awbrey makes some fair points below. Besides, this is Wikipedia. It must have somwhere close to 65,535 articles on Pokemon alone. What's the big brouhaha?? I now suspect this may be a personal vendetta (not to say something larger) against the relatively sophisticated style of writing of Mr. Awbrey. I have experienced similar persecution in this forum on many occasions. I change my vote.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * if this article ought to contain anything, it ought to be a brief description of the various theories of truth - roughly, truth. But that section already exists; therefore the material at theories of truth is redundant.
 * Not sure if it is more accurate to describe Jon's writing as "sophisticated" or just "sophist". For example, Truth theory reveals an eccentric map of truthbearers, with an implicit bias towards Peirce's analyse of language and the whole unsupported by citations. Such writing is not suitable for an encyclopedia.
 * If it is I whom you are accusing of a "vendetta", please say so. If others think my objections unfair, I will remove them and abstain from further comment on the AfD and not edit the article involved until the issue is settled. Banno 22:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have some good points. Still, I say the article just needs to be cut down a bit and better-referenced. But this is no reason for deletion. We have 65,535 articles and a whole Wikiproject on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Wiki can handle another one on truth. I was absoltely not accusing you of "vendetta". And "vendetta" was probbly the wrong word anyway. "Crusaders for a minimalist use of English", may be more appropriate. As someone else put it, "business style sheet pushers." Sentences should be no more complex than: "SEE SPOT RUN." The nominator seems to be part of this cabal. I will say no more. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This was originally argued by its primary author to be a useful place to put highly technical theoretical matters related to the issue of truth. It hasn't served this purpose, and appears to hold little promise of serving the purpose in the future. .  ... Kenosis 16:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Personal essay. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge with Truth. Contains good information and a lot of references, though lacking inline citations. Repairable. Also keeping per above and previous keep afd. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you note the discussion of the references on the article talk page? Are you saying it is a worthwhile article simply because it contains a long list of philosophical publications? Fine then, merge it with List of publications in philosophy! Banno 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I note that we have a number of "... theory of truth" articles; so the term deserves either an article or merging with in Truth. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But why "Keep or merge" rather than "delete or merge"? As explained above, the topic is dealt with at Truth. What is worth keeping under the heading truth theory?
 * Because the topic actually deserves a separate article, and now clutters the Truth article, though there it's currently dealt with in a more encyclopedic style. And, in case of deletion, I'd consider Userfy - I'm sure some source like, maybe, Wikiinfo would accept it. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikiinfo is an excellent sugestion for this material. Banno


 * Keep, duh. Exact phrase Google search on "Theory Of Truth" yields 231,000 hits:
 * Theory Of Truth.

JA: Other reasons, as I think of them:
 * JA: Editors familiar with the situation know perfectly well that the article Truth is large already (58 kb), and that it's likely to keep on growing with the inclusion of more and more subsections on individual philosophers. Thus it would not gracefully absorb the material here, a large portion of which was in fact massively deleted once before by a particular editor (and his probable meta-puppets) on the grounds that it was too "advanced", "technical", and so on.  These were his/their words.  He/they further objected to standard scholarly and I daresay WP:VERIFIABILITY practice of quoting original sources, especially if they were Classical or even just pre-20th century.  This made it impossible to maintain a balanced and I daresay WP:NPOV account of the announced subject matter, namely Truth.  Jon Awbrey 03:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) This would seem to be an argument for a merge from truth. Banno
 * 2) JA: I cannot see your reasoning there, as that would do nothing to alleviate the size problem.  Jon Awbrey 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * JA: A cursory scan of the first page of the Google report — as if we needed that Guess for leaven — shows that there are more kinds of Truth in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the current Wikipedia article on Truth. So I can't see why this town ain't big enough for all of us.  Jon Awbrey 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * JA: With regard to the evident imperfections in the current state of the article — what can I say that isn't better writ in the Shade on the Porch beneath the WP:Five Pillars? The Joy of Wiki writing is that you can start from where you are and work toward something better.  That is what Wikipedia is about.  That is what I am about.  Jon Awbrey 16:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * JA: As I have said, this article came into its current state as a salvage operation, populated at first by the orphans of dis-content that were being tossed out of the bathwater and into the streets in the neighborhood of the ostensible Truth. Since nobody else has taken a positive interest in it, and since I have had many other pressing matters, it has not matured as quickly or as healthily as it otherwise might have done if any of us had given it a lttle more constructive time and thought.  To be continued ... or not?  ... that is the question, isn't it?  Jon Awbrey 12:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * JA: A few words with regard to the Citations, References, Bibliography (or Further Reading), and their relationship to each other. I have had many occasions to explain my way of working to Banno, Kenosis, Lacatosias, and the other editors with whom I have actually collaborated on many articles over the past year, but since it does not seem to have been the most memorable of occasions for them, and again for the sake of those who were lucky enough to miss all that, I will try to gistify my methods more briefly here.  I have followed pretty much the same practices since first being instructed in them by my junior high school teachers, when we first started writing sourced research papers, way back when.  Jon Awbrey 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * JA: Woodman! Spare that tree!  (To be continued, Monday, maybe …)  Jon Awbrey 15:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * JA: Monday, already? Anyway, I've explained all this to the usual suspects many times before, but I was taught that it's best to gather your notes and references together beforehand, and get all that picky stuff out of the way first.  So I normally type in the references that I'm planning to use first, then I type in the primary source quotations and triple-check all that mindless verbatim fussiness before I start writing the transitions, as it takes two different cognitive sets altogether to do these two different tasks.  So that is why the References section tends to look "bloated" at the start.  I used to put the meantime uncited references in the Bib (or Further Reading), as it never hurts the reader to know about major works in the topic area, and then move them up to Refs as I cited them.  But that got to be a pain as it made it hard to edit in sections, so more lately I have taken to combining the Refs and the Bib.  The reason why the Refs stay so uncited for so long is — of course — because of all the fights that constantly break out over every little bit of text that one adds to the article, up to and including all the time that we waste on a process like the present litigation.  And then, of course, by the time you can get your neck out of hot water long enough to do more work on the article, somebody has gone and been so deleteriously bold as to delete all the references that you busted your Ars to look up.  But some people just seem to prefer that exciting sort of hue and cry to the duller work of writing articles, so we are forced to let them have their fun, even though it's hardly fun for everyone.  And so it goes — mostly nowhere.  Jon Awbrey 13:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * JA: On to the WP:OR question. This is not original research.  It is simply unfamiliar material to a few of the generally unfamiliar readers who have taken over the local lordship of anything they regard as the exclusive domain of the Wikipedia philosophy project.  One tries to be polite, but people force you to the point of having to speak some harsh truths.  I wish they would just quit doing being so obstructive, and adopt an attitude that permits the learning of others, and maybe even their own.  Jon Awbrey 14:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep with massive rewrite/merge-There should certainly be a page on Truth Theory, though it shouldn't be this one. My recommendation would be to take pretty much all of the Philosophy of Truth  section of the Truth page and put it here.  The essay that currently resides here should be pretty much deleted, with just some basic info retained for the section on classical philosophers.  The Truth page is already too big as it is.  I think, conceptually, the truth page should just include the basic info in section 3 plus a paragraph or two on the Philosophy of Truth (linked here, of course).  Beyond that that, I think it would work better to retitle this page "Philosophy of Truth" with "truth theory" redirecting to it. Just a suggestion.  Trnj2000 22:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
JA: We seem to be wandering into issues that are certainly interesting to discuss but that may be more generic than the specific issue to be decided here, so I've added another subhead for that. Plus it helps to edit in smaller sections. Still, I don't really have the sort of full time to spend here that I used to, so I hope that this proceeding will still be around as an open issue next week. Jon Awbrey 16:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Hey! Don't knock La Buffarina! (She might knock you back.) But serially, folks, I would not call it a cabal or a vendetta — yet — but some of the plaintiffs of this action are known to have a distinctive POV that amounts to a categorical imperative about how all WP articles should be written, with regard to their level and style, and I guess "Business Object Style Sheet" (BOSS) is a pretty good name for it. I have betimes made the observation that WP:P&G does not dictate any so restricted a theory about such things as intended reader, reader model, target audience, and so on. Of course we all strive to make information as widely comprehensible as humanly possible on both sides of the human equation, but it is simply not possible to deny the practical limits on the side of the reader and the writer alike. And there are many, many topic areas in WP where the writers do not feel obligated to omit from treatment what they cannot make immediately grokkable by the so-called "generally unfamiliar reader". Jon Awbrey 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The really amusing thing about this reader model issue to someone who knows the full range of my work on WP — for instance, yours truly — is that some of my earliest and most persistent efforts have been dedicated to that elusive butterfly of love's labors lost, the aim of "making technical articles more accessible". For instance, at the article on information theory and the complex of articles relating to relational algebra, relational databases, and the relational model. If you do not see any evidence of my labors there, it is because the techno-purists on the scene at the time and making their entrances later were having none of that dilutionary mass appeal, not even in the introductions. A little more of my efforts do survive in the complex of articles concerned with propositional calculus and truth tables. Still, I find that it is just as thankless a task making tech arts accessible as it is making pop arts like WP Truth more technically challenging than what was standard fare in the 1850's, if not in fact the 1250's, though under a host of other names, of course. Jon Awbrey 00:46, 21 August 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.