Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Socionics: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:02, 29 June 2009 editTcaudilllg (talk \| contribs)1,051 edits →Socionics ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:08, 29 June 2009 edit undoTcaudilllg (talk \| contribs)1,051 edits →Socionics Next edit →
Line 174:		Line 174:
	::::you're threatening to go rogue if the AfD doesn't turn out your way. I hope you are intelligent enough to realize that you wouldn't be the first one to try that. Misplaced Pages is well equipped to handle even extremely determined trolling attacks. The only thing you are achieving on this page is utterly discrediting yourself as an editor, quite regardless of the status of socionomics. --] <small>]</small> 09:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)		::::you're threatening to go rogue if the AfD doesn't turn out your way. I hope you are intelligent enough to realize that you wouldn't be the first one to try that. Misplaced Pages is well equipped to handle even extremely determined trolling attacks. The only thing you are achieving on this page is utterly discrediting yourself as an editor, quite regardless of the status of socionomics. --] <small>]</small> 09:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
	**So you've just expressed your intention to go against concensus if it doesn't go your way and violate Misplaced Pages protocol. Re-read what you just wrote and try to convince anyone that you are acting in good faith and not using Misplaced Pages as your ] to push your ]. ] (]) 13:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)		**So you've just expressed your intention to go against concensus if it doesn't go your way and violate Misplaced Pages protocol. Re-read what you just wrote and try to convince anyone that you are acting in good faith and not using Misplaced Pages as your ] to push your ]. ] (]) 13:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

			:::If I disagree with it then there is no consensus, is there? I will not tolerate a false consensus, and neither will others. BTW it's socionics, NOT socionomics.

			:::A merge will not happen. If it does, we'll just recreate the articles as stubs. There is no consensus, therefore there can be no action. ] (]) 14:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

	*'''keep ], merge/redirect all others''', lock redirects, then try to fix the single main article. This is a classic "walled garden" situation, and there is no harm in taking it slow. Issues of user conduct on the part of {{user\|Tcaudilllg}} are to be addressed separately. He is being hilarious, but also out of line. --] <small>]</small> 07:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)		*'''keep ], merge/redirect all others''', lock redirects, then try to fix the single main article. This is a classic "walled garden" situation, and there is no harm in taking it slow. Issues of user conduct on the part of {{user\|Tcaudilllg}} are to be addressed separately. He is being hilarious, but also out of line. --] <small>]</small> 07:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:08, 29 June 2009

Socionics

No evidence of real notability has been presented after several requests. This appears to be a Eastern European fringe psychological movement of contested origin, and all material presented is from proponents. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating following derivative articles:

The following already have nominations:

Socionics (esoterism) (discussion) is a content fork.

Information metabolism (discussion) is a WP:COATRACK for socionics.

The latter two should be deleted regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

*Weak keep parent article, merge rest A few mentions on Google. May be notable enough for its own article, however all the "logical sensory extrovert" things should be merged into the parent article. Also, for the record, I think this is a VERY weak keep. Aditya _ß 06:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing to strong delete. Fringe theory with no reliable, third-party sources. And Tcaudilllg, don't bother. I've seen your threats, and your attempts at canvassing and this is one of the reasons I'm reconsidering my vote.
Just to reiterate, delete ALL. Aditya _ß 09:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

~~Keep parent article, merge most of the rest~~ Weak keep parent article, merge rest: External sources found using google scholar search, however, the field is not notable enough to merit the host of articles currently existing. Contrast with Ebonics, which has only one article, but has 4,240 google scholar hits, vs 372 for socionics. LK (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked out the Google scholar references. They are about something completely different, an AI notion related to petri nets. After three pages of results I found only one that might have something to do with personality typing. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mangoe is right, most of those links are about something else altogether. I'm changing my vote to weak keep. Additionally, a new page should probably be created for this other type of socionics, and a disambiguation page made. LK (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Try "Соционика". It has 491 Google Scholar hits. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep For reasons that should be obvious. Stipulation: if you delete socionics, you must delete MBTI as well because they are descriptions of the same phenomena, only with different models. Even if you keep both of them, you still cannot delete the socionics type article without deleting the MBTI type articles as well. It's only fair. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- read Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists and look at the sources on the MBTI article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

read Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. This is ethnocentrism at its worst. See the references in the socionics article. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many theories that treat the same phenomena, some are notable others are not. It's unreasonable to argue that because Misplaced Pages has a page on using chemotherapy to treat cancer, all other proposed treatments for cancer are automatically notable as well. LK (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but, can you really say that the other treatments are better than chemo? Socionics is a much, much better model than the MBTI. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

When someone cites 1 policy, you can't automatically cite WP:IAR and conveniently ignore the cited policy. You do not understand IAR. That's not our fault. Aditya _ß 14:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. I'm interested in seeing how this turns out. It'll be instructive. I'm especially concerned with understanding why you are so determined to deny "the MBTI of the East" legitimacy. They don't use MBTI in Russia; they use Socionics. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion over socionics' origin is not in doubt: Aushra Augusta created it. What is contested is how she created it, which if you think about it, shows just how different a socionics-based point of view is from a typically Western point of view. In Western-oriented sciences, when someone presents a new thesis, people rarely even ask how he came about it or how it was inspired. Reuben McNew, who has a degree in theology, is merely suggesting that Ashura Augusta created socionics as an alternative to traditional mysticism. People don't have to look to mysticism as a source of self-knowledge, because now they have socionics and with it, a realist framework that unites the empirical and the esoteric in one whole.

Socionics is really the great undiscovered science of the modern East. Why it has not been embraced and expanded upon by Western researchers is beyond me; but again, culture clash. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that backs up that statement? A source in Russian would be fine. That would go a long way towards showing notability. LK (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources are in the article. Just look them up and away you go.

Here's a good one. Apparently a report on socionics was issued before the Russian Duma recently.

Another: http://74.125.95.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://socionics.ru/&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhh5SgOkm_FTbJx-eAsOWrjDU9E6pQ Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

These are both examples of the sourcing problems these articles have. Examination of the URLs for the cited pages shows that they come from socionics proponents; they are not third-party references and are not sufficient to indicate notability. Mangoe (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? People just say "you can't prove it because there is no conclusive substantiation via cognitive experiments" and that's it. No one in their right mind disagrees with socionics unless they haven't studied the material. You'd better watch out, I might just type you and watch you explode.... ;) Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. WP:IAR never impresses me, especially when it is being applied to something that doesn't improve WP. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete - per nominator's arguments. ClovisPt (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

~~Delete all~~ or Merge all into Socionics, where the article wouldn't be a redirect but rather one covering all the information discussed in these many articles. The reason I offer two options rather than one is because I'm doubting whether this really is or isn't a notable topic. The sources are there, and they do seem to be somewhat reliable; however, I'm not totally convinced... (Reason for strikethroughs and Merge decision given in discussion below--Slartibartfast1992 21:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Which are more notable: Sonic the Hedgehog characters, or socionics? Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, anybody? (in any case, I might just say Sonic the Hedgehog characters). --Slartibartfast1992 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog characters get my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys are hopeless. I had hoped to actually get the attention of people who would be interested in socionics if they knew about it, but that's clearly not going to happen. So, you'd might as well just close the debate. The conclusion was KEEP, and if you argue with it, I'll get the communitarians on your asses. They apparently haven't noticed that you're doing this yet, but when they do you'll see the ideology that really runs Misplaced Pages. (hint: it's not ethnocentrism) Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the "socionics (esotericism)" article (originally named "socionics (metaphysics)") as a show of openness and fairness to metaphysicians. There really is a slight emphasis in metaphysics in socionics because it offers the concept of duality, meaning that for example, where there is space (processed by the introverted thinking function in conjunction with the extroverted sensing function) there is also a signal. (processed by extroverted feeling with introverted intuition) The CMBR reading recently proved this without a doubt: at every point in the universe there is some kind of background radiation. The relationship between signal and space is light. You can take it a step farther: warp the space, and you warp the signal vis a vis relativity. So you see, the postulate socionics makes that there is an a priori reality independent of human experience is valid, and the socionics model is full enough to categorize all the relationships between reality in a coherent dialectic. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand what Misplaced Pages is about. It was not created to advertise novel theories. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Says you. And who else? Will you stand against progress? Do you think there is an authority that decides which justified progressive movements die and which thrive? Pfft, senseless bickering... you are not editing in good faith. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be the who else on that one, plus Wiki policy (I guess the 'advertising novel ideas' bit applies to WP:SOAP). Now, I have to say I disagree with you on many points, Tcaud. First off, you called me an ethnocentrist. Now, this revelation came rather as a shock to me; I had often viewed myself as more of a postmodern. In fact, I had given the option of merge as part of my opinion about what should be done with these articles, on the off chance that I might have been wrong in suggesting a delete. Frankly, I don't know much about the notability of socionics; that being the reason why I gave two options.

You seem to be taking it the other way, however; I have doubts that these articles should be left alone, so you very naturally try to convince me. This is sometimes referred to as badgering, and I don't like it. Furthermore, you achieve nothing by trying to convince me to change my opinion, as I am a very arrogant and stubborn person. Of course, being arrogant and stubborn would be unbecoming of a postmodern, but since you've discovered I'm an ethnocentrist, I can now exhibit my arrogance freely. Even if my mind were as malleable as putty, though, you would be achieving nothing; we have discussions to build concensus, not as a vote (see WP:VOTE). It is also taken to be very against good faith to badger fellow editors in this way.

My final point is in that you, in a previous paragraph, somehow related socionics to general relativity. I am ashamed to even think of the possibility of comparing the great work of Albert Einstein to a social theory, the notability of which we're not even sure about.

Regards after writing a couple paragraphs curiously written like a letter, --Slartibartfast1992 07:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Bring on the communitarians!

Rick DeLong knows information metabolism better than anyone else in the west. See his page: http://www.socionics.us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Words like yours, Slartibartfast, suggest to me that if you had lived when Einstein did, you would have been a naysayer, not a supporter. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Words like yours, Tcaud, suggest that if you had lived when George Parker lived, you might own the Statue of Liberty. Anyways, Einstein didn't need supporters. He was a scientist, not a politician. I'm not a naysayer of socionics in any case. I don't know much about socionics. I frankly don't care about socionics. What I care about is that policy be followed, and as a derivative of that, that this series of articles be either merged into one or deleted entirely. And I would advise you to desist in your campaign to convince everybody that these articles should be kept; in my case, such an attempt is futile unless a reliable source is provided, showing that socionics has a degree of notability at least as large as that of its Western counterpart, MBTI. --Slartibartfast1992 22:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an ad hominem attack. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, Einstein didn't need supporters. He was a scientist, not a politician. I'm not a naysayer of socionics in any case. I don't know much about socionics. I frankly don't care about socionics. -- Then, you should not be party to this discussion. You have violated rule 5 of WP:BEFORE: read the article. You have not read it because you "do not care about it", meaning that you are disinterested in personality psychology. If you were interested in personality psychology -- and it is not lost to me that all three of the persons posing arguments for the deletion of these articles are, in fact, not the least bit interested in the psychology of personality -- then you would be defending the article as an important resource in the ambiguous world of human intention. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack? You don't say? Could you point out how I've personally attacked you, because it's less than clear to me. Personally attacking is, after all, practically the definition of ad hominem. As for "violating rule number 5 of WP:BEFORE", is it this one?: Click "what links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Misplaced Pages. That's the fifth one down, but somehow I don't see the relevance to the situation at hand. In any case, you provided the rationale before nominating an article for deletion; I'm not nominating here, I'm arguing in favor of Delete or Merge.

As for the whole situation on me not being interested, you couldn't be further from the truth. I am in fact somewhat interested in personality psychology, and have identified myself as an INTP in the case of MBTI. But as for you; you've just identified yourself as "interested". This is to say, you can be considered a party with your own interest in this discussion, and maybe are regarding that interest as higher than Wiki policy, hence your invocation of WP:IAR. I ask you to please read WP:COI (from which it may be surmised that to be uninterested is actually good).

Third, I find it extremely offensive that you believe I should not be party to this discussion (you might call it an ad hominem attack). Furthermore, I find it hilarious that you think you have the right to kick me out of a discussion. All Wikipedians can participate in discussion, and the outcome of the discussion is determined according to their arguments and Wiki policy, regardless their interest on the subject matter. Your really should assume good faith in me; I'm discussing on this because it's what I believe complies with policy, not for my own evil agenda. --Slartibartfast1992 02:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I, too am an MBTI INTP/socionics LII. We shouldn't even be discussing this. The very notion of such an important article being up for deletion is senseless.

Policy should be applied with discretion. That's why we have admins instead of robots.

All people have an interest in socionics. Everyone. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an interest in it. Zero. Zip. None. I tend to not be attracted to fringe theories. Just my pragmatic nature I guess. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(eliminating the tabs; I'm getting pressed up against the side of this page)

Oh, awesome! I wish I wasn't arguing with you now that I know you're an INTP. And I'll be a monkey's uncle but I think I'm starting to get interested in socionics. Must be strong... must hold point of view...

Now, I'm of the opposite end of the whole spectrum of opinions on policy. While I agree that it can be overrided in some cases, the policy is so accurate that maybe only one in a million cases can override it safely. That's why I choose to follow policy so rigidly; first of all, I agree with it (I wouldn't follow it if I didn't, of course), and second, it has described all cases I've ever encountered with fantastic accuracy.

My primary point of view on Socionics is to merge all sub-articles into an article named Socionics (except, maybe the information metabolism one, which I prefer to leave alone since I don't know much about it). Why I prefer this to the many articles is simple: my ultimate and maximum objective is that all Misplaced Pages articles be featured. All efforts must be made for everything to be featured (call me a WikiPerfectionist or a WikiElitist, if you will). Those articles which don't have a snowball's chance in hell of turning featured (or at least 'good'), whould be deleted. Of course, I can't exert the latter part of my ideology, because it's not official Wiki policy. But I can do my best to have all that great stuff out there concentrated into their own articles, rather than dispersed into many; the one article has a much better shot at featuredness.

There's where this series of articles comes in. We get all the good stuff in the articles and merge them all into an article called Socionics; as an article covering the subject of Socionics, with valuable details on all the socionic types (is that what you call them? Like ethical intuivite extrovert?). This whole mass of stuff has a way better chance of achieving featured status, not to mention that most of the articles may not be notable enough to be stand-alone articles.

There's the small problem of notability, though. For the condensed Socionics article to exist, you need to prove, with reliable, third-party sources, that it is indeed notable. Do that, and my opinion is the merge justified above. Don't do that, and it's an impending delete. --Slartibartfast1992 03:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Please excuse the fact that I write so much. I get carried away.

Well I've already offered you those (remember those little notes at the bottom of the page?) and you ignored them. So why should I believe you're in good faith? If you choose to delete this article, it won't be fine with me but... I really just want to know how much this demonic paradigm can take, where we cowtow to these unabashed egotists and generally have an entire culture of people who think they have to look to a bunch of delusional, belligerent nutcases for a sense of self-identity. I was hoping maybe the culture would crack... but no, not yet. It's gonna need a deeper shock to stage the intellectual revolution we require.

By the way, Slarti, you wouldn't have voted for Bush by any chance, would you? I'm just noting that you're really closed-minded and there was some research by David Amodio not too long that showed that conservatives aren't as good at dealing with change as liberals. I think conservatives can get a clue, actually, but they've gotta believe in it first! Tcaudilllg (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So you have! Merge it is. I'll strikethrough the upper part of my statement which says delete. Why should you believe I'm in good faith? Well, why would I have bad faith? A pretty sad life I might lead if I specifically editted Misplaced Pages to cause mischief and suffering. No, I do what I do because I think it's right. As for the rest of your first paragraph, I don't really know what you're talking about, but if it's against a government or pop-culture, then I agree.

To answer your second question: NO. NO. Absolute NO. A NO so NOlike it challenges the very fabric of causality. I have three reasons. Reason one: I'm under 18. Reason 2: I am not a U.S. citizen. Reason 3: I would rather be tied to a rock and have my liver eaten out several times by a ravenous eagle, than vote for either of the Bushes (you see, I don't know which one you're referring to). "You just notice I'm really close-minded"? I can smell the stench of ad hominem from three miles away. Call me arrogant all you want. Call me stubborn as a mule. But do not call me ~~a conservative~~ close-minded. I actually like the term arrogant. I don't mind being called arrogant. See, my theory is, everybody's arrogant; it's just that most people don't realize it. --Slartibartfast1992 05:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Read WP:CIVIL before somebody less understanding than me comes along and gets seriously offended

I see... you don't know who you are, do you? But I would keep reading the ol' Jung, because he does have the answers. Did you know that socionics can help you understand Jung? Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I know who I am. You can't ever be completely sure, though. No time for getting philosophical, however. Conclusion: Merge. You can do nothing to change that. It's been pleasant arguing with you, but it has come to an end. And do read WP:CIVIL; it really is an enjoyable bit of text. Good luck in all future matters of arguing, --Slartibartfast1992 06:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You cannot fully know yourself because you have not come to grips with your own capacity for evil. Nor can you before reaching the age of transcension to biological adulthood. (23) Instead you try so much to avoid evil in yourself, that you are blind to your complicity in efforts to destroy some good things. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

weak keep, merge, and complete overhaul most of the type-specific pages were created by me, mostly as an attempt to differentiate them from the MBTI articles like ENTP etc, which had separate sections for socionics, keirsey, and MBTI types. i would grant that most of them are not well enough sourced to merit their own pages, but they should not be integrated with pages on MBTI types, which represent something completely different. getting rid of them and integrating more functionally related information in the main page would probably be appropriate. on the issue of verifiable sources, i believe that socionics is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in wikipedia, based on reference materials in russian, which probably wouldn't show up obviously on a google scholar search. i have stayed away from trying to really use them because i don't speak russian and am really not the person who should be making these attributions. any attempt to search for sources in english only will fail. unfortunately, tcaudilllg and rmcnew have been fighting over the page recently and have included a bunch of execrable sources, and i don't know if the original ones that were here at some point are still here. neither tcaud nor mcnew are neutral parties and both seem to be advocating their own brand of socionics. i have not enough interest or energy to devote to fighting them over the state of the page, and nobody else in the community of people who talk about socionics seems to wish to deal with them either. neither of their contributions are generally verifiable, and they should be gotten rid of. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

McNew isn't going to give up, and he's probably going to be back with friends. But I'm looking at your talk history Mango, and I'm seeing a great wellspring of trouble for you. I'm betting their opinions would roughly coincide with mine on this.

Niffweed, you are speaking too soon. All I have done is included notes about model B and model T, both of which we have reliable sources for. I also created the mysticism article to give McNew, who is a professional theologian, space to discuss the esoteric socionics movement. (which as you know, has been considered in peer-reviewed journal articles over the years.) That you let McNew twist things out of proportion is your error, not mine.

But I want to say this right now: when some guy on Misplaced Pages starts getting the notion that he is the final arbiter of an entire institution's qualifications, then he's definitely misread the fine print. When you've got people who have professional qualifications getting together to produce articles in a journal, then unless they can be decidedly proclaimed out of the mainstream by a pivotal experiment or thesis disproving their claim, then you can't say they are "fringe". That Psychology Today statement was a red herring: just because you start a magazine about something does not mean that that something is notable, and the converse is equally true.

Intellectual arrogance is unbecoming Misplaced Pages editors. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

as usual, i have no idea what you're talking about or what the bases of your personal accusations towards me are, and i fail to what any of it has to do with the socionics article, or see how i can respond to them in a way at all constructive to this AfD. please try to attend to the matter at hand. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you think they were about you? I was talking about Mango. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

if your comments were directed at mangoe, then they probably should not have been placed under my comment and instead should have gone as an extended response to mangoe's comment. whatever; i thought your response was not very clear, but i see no reason to continue arguing about the matter. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

additionally, strong keep on the information metabolism article, which is actually a well-explained theory in its own right unrelated to socionics. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep for socionics and of course consider whether to combine the others into it. This is not fringe, but a serious psychological approach. It's not the sort of approach i personally think very productive, but that isn't the standard. Much more important in Europe than the US, and a major branch of the Jungian tradition. There are sources enough: there are actually 151 books in google books for "socionics". That's a major amount of literature. I do not see in the least why it is necessary to invoke IAR. The main term is a subject of academic and popular study. Even the others can be sourced to respectable sources. They meet our standard criteria. The quarreling over the various schools of the subject above should be disregarded. It may be necessary for some of us not personally involved with the movement to learn about it in order to watch the article. This being a predominately European topic, the other articles should be compared: the one in the frWP is short and clear, and we could do worse for our article than have a translation of it. The German one is similar to ours, the Russian one seems a considerably expanded version of ours. Translating section of it in Google Translate--rather than attempting to read a long technical article in a language Ii can barely read at all--the explanations given there would add a considerable amount to the diagrams in our article, which are unfortunately not that clear unless you already know the terminology. I have another suggestion if any other admin would like to take me up on it: restart this AfD on socionics only, after a warning to some of the participants in this discussion. DGG (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I see checking the hits, the vast majority seem to be for the German notion, and as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article in question. Mangoe (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The google hits are under "Соционика".

Mango, perhaps we can negotiate. On what level would you be willing to withdraw your argument that socionics is non-notable? Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I honestly hope on no level. Not because of my feelings about socionics or anyone supporting it......but because a lot of people have put in a lot of time discussing it and, despite your ownership of this discussion, it's not really just a matter between you and the nominator at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if it's deleted I'll just put it back. How about that? I've already saved the article's source so it won't be a problem. And it won't be deleted again, because I'll come prepared. I'm good at getting people together. ...I actually enjoy this. You've provided me good entertainment.

But I would be remiss to keep the fun all to myself. Time to give some of my friends cathartic release. :) Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

you're threatening to go rogue if the AfD doesn't turn out your way. I hope you are intelligent enough to realize that you wouldn't be the first one to try that. Misplaced Pages is well equipped to handle even extremely determined trolling attacks. The only thing you are achieving on this page is utterly discrediting yourself as an editor, quite regardless of the status of socionomics. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- So you've just expressed your intention to go against concensus if it doesn't go your way and violate Misplaced Pages protocol. Re-read what you just wrote and try to convince anyone that you are acting in good faith and not using Misplaced Pages as your WP:SOAPBOX to push your WP:POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If I disagree with it then there is no consensus, is there? I will not tolerate a false consensus, and neither will others. BTW it's socionics, NOT socionomics.

A merge will not happen. If it does, we'll just recreate the articles as stubs. There is no consensus, therefore there can be no action. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

keep socionics, merge/redirect all others, lock redirects, then try to fix the single main article. This is a classic "walled garden" situation, and there is no harm in taking it slow. Issues of user conduct on the part of Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) are to be addressed separately. He is being hilarious, but also out of line. --dab (𒁳) 07:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I noticed something

The type articles are incorporating text from Wikisocion, which require an explicit attribution. Isn't that against Misplaced Pages's rules? It is copyrighted. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

not at all; the material from wikisocion and wswiki is appropriately attributed in the articles and is perfectly fine as those wikis are also GFDL or whatever similar free licensing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text

You can't do verbatim copying of copyrighted content. PD is OK, but Rick's made clear that Wikisocion is not PD.

I think we should blank the pages and start over with sources. Stubbify them and work them up.

Or we can write about 'em in the wikibook (which we need to link to), but bottom line is if MBTI can put its types up, then socionics surely should be able to as well. It's only fair to the socionist's standpoint. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

the content is freely redistributable. there's no legal reason why the content can't be massively transferred from one wiki to another, given that it's accredited and sourced. this happens all the time with other specialized wikis. furthermore, i wrote most of the content that has actually been transferred. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

a brief comment on existing sources

stepping away from the name-calling for a minute... the current bibliography of the page is rather terrible and most of it consists of completely inappropriate sources, which do not do credit to the vast amount of russian literature on the topic. and, for what it's worth, tcaud is right: google scholar is not a good place to be searching. here's a bibliography essentially copied and pasted from this article by aleksandr boukalov. many of these are primary sources, written by augusta or boukalov himself, but as you can see from the range of authors and sources, there exists a vast body of work on the subject in russian and ukrainian languages. scientific? no. but probably notable.

1. Augustinavichute A. Comment to Jung's typology and introduction to informational metabolism. //Socionics, mentology and personality psychology. N 2. 1995.
  2. Augustinavichute A. Model of informational metabolism. //"Mokslas ir technika", Vilnius,1980 Nr.4
  3. Augustinavichute A. Human dualistic nature. //Socionics...2 NN 1–3. 1996.
  4. Augustinavichute A. Socion. //Socionics... NN 4–5. 1996.
  5. Augustinavichute A. Theory of intertype relations. //Socionics... NN 1–5. 1997.
  6. Augustinavichute A. Reinin theory of traits. //Socionics... NN 1-6. 1998.
  7. Bukalov A.V., Karpenko O.B., Saenko Yu.I, Chykyrysova G.V. Socionics and sociology: спроба comparation of estimationa of post-Chernobyl situation. /Chernobyl and socium (Issue 4). - Kiev. 1998.
  8. Bukalov A.V. Integrated types of collectives, nations, states. Ethnosocionics. //Socionics... N 5. 1998.
  9. Bukalov A.V. Integrated type of USA information metabolism. //Socionics... N 5. 1998.
 10. Bukalov A.V. Some aspects of the Yugoslavia conflict from the viewpoint of integral socionics. //Socionics... N 2. 1999.
 11. Bukalov A.V. A new model of ethnic community and state: psycho-informational space of ethnic community. //Socionics... N 6. 1999.
 12. Bukalov A.V. Interaction between humans and technical systems viewed from point of the theory of informational metabolism. //Socionics... N 6. 1999.
 13. Bukalov A.V. Forming informational metabolism functions in the process of human birth. (Introduction to the psycho-analysis socionics). //Socionics... NN 1-2. 1996.
 14. Bukalov A.V. About four evolutionary steps oa development and the law of quadra interchangeability. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 15. Bukalov A.V. Socionics in collective management. //Socionics... N 1. 1997.
 16. Bukalov A.V. Socionics and types of human cultures. Ethnosocionics. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 17. Bukalov A.V. Quantum changes of informational medium. //Socionics... N 1. 1998.
 18. Bukalov A.V. Psychoinformational environment structuring phenomenon: an hierarchy of human attention, memory and thinking volume. //Socionics... N 2. 1999.
 19. Bukalov A.V. Forming of working groups and collectives (method). — On the order of Siberian commercial fair direction, Novosibirsk–Kiev. 1988. 45 pages.
 20. Bukalov A.V. Ethnic socionics: alcohol and drug addiction, and mentality in ethnic community. //Socionics... N 6. 1998.
 21. Bukalov A.V., Bojko A.G. Socionics: mystery of human relations and и bioenergetics. - Kiev: "Soborna Ukraina". 1992.
 22. Bukalov A.V., Karpenko O.B., Chykyrysova G.V. Biodata of married couples in the light of socionics. //Socionics... N 1. 1999.
 23. Bukalov A.V., Karpenko O.B., Chykyrysova G.V. Socionics, sociology and problem or practical rehabilitation of social conscience of victims of the Chernobyl accident. //Socionics... N 3. 1999.
 24. Bukalov A.V., Karpenko O.B., Chykyrysova G.V. The socionic analysis of colectivies and recomendations for managers. //SRW account. NN 3-45. - International Socionics Institute. 1992-97.
 25. Bukalov A.V., Taratukhin S.A. On Socionic Type of F.D.Roosevelt and its Interaction with the Integral TIM of the USA. //Socionics... N 3. 1999.
 26. Bukalov A.V., Foris Yu.B. The problems of socionics in law. //Ukrainian Law. N 2. 1999.
 27. Bukalov G.K. TIM definition for "human - wear out process" system. //Socionics... N 3. 1998.
 28. Bukalov G.K. TIM of the man-object system. //Socionics... N 1. 1998.
 29. Gindin S. Socionics and medecine. - Report on V International Socionics Conference. Palanga. 1990.
 30. Gulenko V.V. Guarantees of productive training. Temperament and stimuli group //Socionics... N 6. 1996.
 31. Gulenko V.V. Modernization of school lecturing system. //Socionics... N 4. 1999.
 32. Gulenko V.V. First steps: socionics in school. //Socionics... N 1. 1999.
 33. Gulenko V.V., Molodtzov A.V. Introduction to socionics. - Kiev. 1991.
 34. Gulenko V.V., Molodtzov A.V. Base of socioanalysis. - Kiev. 1991.
 35. Gulenko V.V., Тыщенко В. П. Jung in school. Socionics to pedagogy. - Novosibirsk. 1997.
 36. Didenko A.A. Types of the person and forming of the studiing groups. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 37. Donchenko E.A. Societal psyhe. -Kiev: "Naukova Dumka". 1994.
 38. Yermak V.D. Socionics as an effective tool for expertise and consultancy. //Socionics... N 1. 1999.
 39. Yermak V.D. Dictionary of informational aspects. //Socionics... NN 1-3. 1998.
 40. Zabirov M.V. Hysteric or hysteroid? (A systematic approach towards the problem). //Socionics... N 6. 1998.
 41. Ivanov D.A. Thinking particularities in twins subject to psychic infantilism. //Socionics... N 6. 1997.
 42. Ivanov D.A. About successive use and activation corresponding personal factors in the process of the phased psychotherapeutical healing the boundary psychopathology. //Socionics... N 4. 1998.
 43. Ivanov D.A. Particularities of higher nervous activity in sociotypes within the scope of hysterical psychopathy and psychoasthenia. //Socionics... N 1. 1998.
 44. Ivanov D.A. Socionics in diagnostics and treatment boundary psychopathy //Socionics... N 6. 1996.
 45. Ivanov D.A., Ivanov A.A. Socionics and flight security problems. //Socionics... N 5. 1996.
 46. Ivanov D.A., Savchenko I.D.. On particularities of the higher nervous activity in persons with different types of informational metabolism, and on differentiated diagnoses in them//Socionics... N 3. 1999.
 47. Karpenko O.B. Perception of informatoinal aspects. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 48. Karpenko O.B. Personatily of Peter the Great, as viewed from socionics //Socionics... N 4. 1996.
 49. Karpenko O.B. Structure of "conic" group. //Socionics... N 2. 1995.
 50. Лесиовская Е. Е, Пономарева И., Чижик Е. Socionics and forming of optimal student groups. //Socionics... N 2. 1995.
 51. Lytov D. A. Lingvosocionics. //Socionics... N 3. 1995.
 52. Meged V.V. Purposeful group. //Socionics... N 2. 1995.
 53. Meged V.V., Ovcharov A.A. Theory of the applied socionics. //Socionics... N 2. 1996.
 54. Nemirovskiy A.A. "Высоко несу свой высокий сан..." //Socionics... N 3. 1995.
 55. Ovcharov A.A. Revealing of abilities and their development. //Socionics... N 3. 1998.
 56. Ovcharov A.A. Particularities of thinking process in children. //Socionics... N 3. 1997.
 57. Ovcharov A.A. Personal types and management. //Socionics... N 4. 1997.
 58. Petrova E. Connection of speech styles in Russian language with changing state of human mind (in the connection of Jung psychology types). //Socionics... N 1. 1996.
 59. Pimenova L.V. Informational aspect of psycho-therapeutic influence on the alcoholics. // Socionics... N 1. 1996.
 60. Prilepskaya N.A. Playroom in socionic diagnostics and children consulting. //Socionics... N 1. 1997.
 61. Prilepskaya N.A. Child and gender. //Socionics... N 5. 1997.
 62. Reinin G.R. Typology of small groups. //Socionics... N 3. 1996.
 63. Roslankina Ju.V., Eglit I.M., Piatnitskiy V.V. Some experiences in social rehabilitation of senior years students. //Socionics... N 5. 1996.
 64. Rumiantseva E.A. Socionics and solution of pedagogic problems. //Report on the International science-practical conference - Moscov-Kostroma. 1992.
 65. Румянцева Е. А. Формирование у будущих учителей коммуникативных умений на основе теории информационного метаболизма. Автореф. канд. дисс. / Научн.рук. проф. Л. Ф. Спирин. - Костроме. 1996.
 66. Румянцева Е. А. Формирование у будущих учителей умений общаться с учениками с использованием концепции соционики. - Конаш, ЧГПИ. 1994.
 67. Rumiantseva T.A., Yermak V.D. Моделирование личности и социальной группы. //Socionics... N 1. 1996.
 68. Румянцева Т. А., Ермак В. Д. Организация служб эксплуатации СОТС с использование теории информационного метаболизма. - М.: Машиностроитель. N 11. 1996.
 69. Самойлова И. Г. Интегральный тип информационного метаболизма малой группы в производственной организации. - Диссертация, Ярославский унивеситет, научный рук. д.п.н. Новиков В.В., 1996.
 70. Спирин Л. Ф, Румянцева Е. А., Румянцева Т. А. Socionics - учителям и родителям. (Как обрести взаимопонимание, согласие, дружбу). /Под ред. д.пед.н. М. И. Рожкова. -М.: Международная педагогическая академия. 1999.
 71. Taratukhin S.A. Identifying and analyze of integrated type of informational metfbolism of USA military counter-intelligence. //Socionics... N 5. 1998.
 72. Tikhonov A.P., Lapina I.V. Certain observations on socionics and hiking. //Socionics... N 6. 1997.
 73. Ushakova N.Ye. Identifying of M.Tzvetaeva's type. //Socionics... N 3. 1995.
 74. Ushakova N.Ye. Functional orientation of socionic types in medical science. //Socionics... N 6. 1998.
 75. Fedorov V.A. Difficulties in the using socionics in the work with narcologics patients and ways of there overcoming. //Socionics... N 1. 1996.
 76. Chykyrysova G.V. Identifying of S.P.Korolev's type. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 77. Churyumov S.I. Socionics and philosophy, or the world never changes. //Socionics... NN 1-3. 1998.
 78. Churyumov S.I. Socionics as methodology. //Socionics... N 1. 1996.
 79. Shekhter F.Ya, Kobrinskaya L.N. Small groups in socionics. //Socionics... N 1. 1997.
 80. Shulman G.A. Aspects, functions, TIMs, people. Psychological functions acc. to K.G.Jung in models of human psyche (from integrity fragments cycle). //Socionics... N 6. 1998.
 81. Shulman G.A. К вопросу о "странной судьбе" интуитивно-логических экстратимов. //Socionics... N 1. 1995.
 82. Shulman G.A. Феномен локальной амнестической афазии и некоторые иные сюрпризы асимметричных отношений. //Socionics... N 2. 1995.
 83. Shulman G.A., Kaminsky V.R. Intertype relations in socium and family (or other durably isolated minor group - (DIMG)). //Socionics... N 5. 1997.

as stated above, the page needs a major overhaul and needs to be written in accordance with existing materials. it probably also needs a little bit of leniency in terms of linking to online articles due to the ways that russian socionists have mostly made use of the internet in disseminating materials in english; that's where they've put their articles. while a link farm doesn't have the reputation of a source published in a peer-reviewed journal, there's nothing inherently wrong with links as a bibliographical resource, particularly if they reference articles that are well sourced (which many online articles do).

also of some note; i know of two books in english written on the topic of socionics by julia varabyova and spencer stern, respectively, even though i personally think they're terrible. neither takes a scientific approach.

Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC

right, this would amount to a definite keep for socionics, but still to a merge/redirect/delete for all the others. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: