- 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The result of the debate was keep, nom withdrawn. Kusma (討論) 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of Truth. See [1]. Tom Harrison Talk 13:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC) See below. Tom Harrison Talk 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Data
editJA: By way of background, here are the previous Wikiquette Alerts:
13 May 2006
- Might help to have an observer at Truth over the next few days, with regard to events beginning here. 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
16 May 2006
- Stemming from an earlier dispute over the appropriate technical level for the article Truth (alert posted above, 13 May 2006), a new article Truth theory was created to cover the subject at a more comprehensive technical level. Would appreciate guidance about the proper use of Cleanup, Factual Accuracy, Merge, and OR tags. 03:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
JA: Here is a sample of data gathered on the division between introductory level and advanced level articles, as the distinction is currently drawn on a de facto basis in WikiPedia:
JA: Jon Awbrey 13:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure
editJA: With regard to the article Truth theory, that was a page that already existed in the form of a redirect to Truth, but which I changed from a redirect to an article in order to add content that was being wholesale deleted from Truth, initially by a single editor who had been away from the page for an extended time and simply started deleting everything that he considered too "abstract", "advanced", "technical", etc., and who objected that the References section was "bloated and inappropriate" to what amounts to his opinion about the preparation and needs of the intended reader.
JA: Thus I believe it is not accurate to describe this page as resulting from a POV Fork. The need for a separate page arises from the need to address a different intended reader, one with more than an initial interest in the subject, and one who will be tolerant of a more abstract, advanced, comprehensive, and detailed technical discussion, with all due "bloat" of the Bib that this entails.
JA: The article on Truth has always been a turbulent site, as anyone can well imagine, but the editors who were doing the actual work on site up until that time had evolved a modus vivendi, involving the excruciating examination on the talk page of every bit of controversial text, that seemed to be working about as well as anyone could expect. All that went out the window on May 12. Jon Awbrey 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
edit- Keep in some form. This can either be a stand alone article, in which case much of the section "Major theories of truth" in the truth article should also come over (with significant duplication acceptable), or get merged back into truth. But this content should not be deleted. GRBerry 02:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. After looking more carefully, I see I misunderstood what was going on. I'm sorry for the inconvenience this nomination caused. Tom Harrison Talk 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Truth as per GRBerry. The content is verbose to the point of incomprehensibility, the topic treated in far too much detail - for comparison, the Britannica article on "truth" consists of a single sentence; the Britannica has no article on Truth theory. Banno 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Electors who elect to read a few paragraphs of the article before voting will know that the The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1996) includes an entry for truth theory which refers the reader in turn to the entry for truth definition.
- Blackburn, Simon (1996), The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1994. Paperback edition with new Chronology, 1996. Cited as ODP.
- I need not remind our crustier scholars that the EB does not count as a fully authorized source, since its entries are not signed by their authors. Jon Awbrey 21:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote: Because I'd need to hear from someone more knowledgeable about philosophy to see if "truth theory" is actually a concept in popular use, but the article by itself is just unfocused rambling, mostly tangential to the concept of 'truth'. Peter Grey 21:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The term does appear to be used by academics. [2] Tom Harrison Talk 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And here is the problem; Jon is obviously passionate about his work. Will he oppose a merge, regardless of the outcome of this process? The material in Truth theory consists at least in part of material that had already been removed from Truth by other editors. Will mering simply result in the same stuff appearing under yet another heading? Banno 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The term does appear to be used by academics. [2] Tom Harrison Talk 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JA: Banno is a party to the dispute at Truth, and has a distinctive POV with respect to the questions of intended reader, level of detail, technical level, and so on. These are not primarily disputes about content, as we had a routine for resolving those issues that was working up until May 13, when Nathan Ladd came back from a long break and simply started deleting text en masse that he said was too "abstract", "advanced", "technical", and so on. If the reviewers will trace the course of the edit history beginning at the link that I posted in my first WQA, copied here, then I think that the record will bear that out. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep: The article truth is both too long and too technical. That article should give a brief discussion of truth in philosophy, with each major school defined, but the more technical parts should be moved to truth theory. On the other hand, the article truth theory should cover a variety of ideas, not just one philosophical specialty. Rick Norwood 13:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.