Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionics

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 on main article (thus keep) and I have moved it back to Socionics as there is currently no reason for a dab; delete the dab page; Redirect all the type pages to the main article - if anything needs to be merged it can be retrieved from the page history. I suspect however that since most of the information on the type pages is lifted from Wikisocion, a summary of types - most of which already exists in the main article - with links to that source would probably suffice. Black Kite 08:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

*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 ^α _ß 06:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^α _ß 09:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Changing my vote to MERGE for "Socionics (esoterism)" and "Socionics". Keep all others save the redirect. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and look at the sources on the MBTI article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are many theories that treat the same phenomena, some are notable others are not. It's unreasonable to argue that because Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^α _ß 14:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I endorse tcaudillg presentation of my thesis and motive for what I am fighting for. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've been M-B and K-S typed, and both of them disagree with the analysis you dropped on my talk page. . Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it's clear that you are reacting and not thinking. How about ESFJ or ISFP then? I'm sure it's one of those. Your use of the word "disagree" in that instance (as though instruments could "disagree" or "agree" with each other, as opposed to giving inaccurate results) indicates a preference for Introverted Feeling partnered with Extroverted Sensing: the immediate impression (e. sensing) dictates the attitude (i. feeling); introverted feeling and extroverted sensing modify each other. The more I study them, the more your function values become apparent. (though hmmkr did inform me with his Te or Fi bit; he's good at that). You are concocting an entire argument based on feeling and nothing on fact. My ability to see intuitive concepts in real situations isn't the best... it's not a talent of mine. But I can improve it through experience. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

~~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)[reply]

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

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

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

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 Wikipedia. (hint: it's not ethnocentrism) Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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![reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 Wikipedia 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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Beware, I struggle in life to provide evil and suffering to the world. Muhahahahaha. Fond of Kant's idea of the Categorical Imperative, are we? Well, as I mentioned earlier, I am (or rather I believe I am; I can't be sure) a postmodern, and rather prefer Nietzsche to Kant (the two having very different ideologies). Therefore, your talk of evil is wasted on me; the concept of evil is meaningless, unless defined by whatever strict dogmatic system you adhere to (which one is it, by the way?).

As for biological adulthood, it determines nothing, and it is quite demeaning that you believe I'm inferior because I'm of less age. To tell truth, most of what you call 'evil' in the world, (in my dictionary, synonymous to suffering) has been caused by biological adults. In any case, the fact that you're citing biological adulthood as a factor in righteousness also has a shade of Kant in it.

As much as I'm enjoying the increasingly philosophical discussion, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand (my opinion on which is already set in stone). However, because I enjoy discussing such tangential things as this discussion is coming to, I'll let you continue it on my user talk page. If you do continue it, please don't do it here; we're just wasting space that is meant to be spent on a discussion on socionics. --Slartibartfast1992 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, ~~merge,~~ and complete overhaul. for clarification, merge is not my opinion about what should most appropriately be done, but rather delete all of the type-specific articles, which are so widely disagreed upon and so difficult to source that they aren't worth keeping. keep the disambiguation page to differentiate between augusta's socionics and the AI thing. 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)[reply]

Niffweed, you are a Jekyll and Hyde.

I defend my citation of the work of Aleksandr Boukalov, which you have cited yourself. It is patently unfair to delete the type articles (and unwieldy), and don't wiki lawyer me about OTHERSTUFF, either. This is the biggest REGION BIAS sham I've ever seen. I got a warning for you guys: I'm gonna arrange the embarrassment of Wikipedia publicly over this later IF you go through with the merge. Wikipedia has a monopoly on the open content encyclopedia market; you can't just get 6 million in non-profit dollars from anywhere. You should act with the responsibility that befits your monopoly. In case, you shouldn't listen to Niffweed, who makes enemies everywhere he goes. I don't know why he's so determined to delete the type articles all of a sudden, but a lot of his arguments make no sense. I affectionately think of him as Dick Cheney's estranged little brother. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of what has gone on in other places I really don't think making threats and general fist-shaking is going to help your cause much. You need to understand that most of us are blissfully unaware of the hair-pulling that you say is going on in the socionics world. Teh Crafty One (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it's a good idea to delete the type articles? Tcaudilllg (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm buggered if I know. Which is why I've not ventured a view on whether to keep, delete or merge, rather I've just offered a comment. This is the problem, as far as I can tell. This socionics stuff appears to be a Russian fringe theory on what I'm not sure, and that's cool. But how is it notable? As I mentioned below the articles as they stand do precious little to enlighten the humble bystander. Perhaps the likelihood of deletion would be reduced if you reviewed Wikipedia's policies on article inclusion (not just notability but other things such as verifiability and the like) and reworked the main article in that vein. You might have to live with a merge of the sub-articles, but surely from your perspective that's better than a wholesale deletion of the entire thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craftyminion (talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i see little reason to respond to tcaud's personal attacks. i would be open to the recreation of the type-specific articles if they can be well-sourced. however, as stated, at the moment there is too much vitriol about specific aspects of type behavior for them to really work effectively; the socionics wikis are a great resource, but their rules for verifiability tend to be by nature of the projects somewhat different from wikipedia, and being able to legitimately source the information that has to go into type descriptions is a really tenuous task. i think they're a better project for wikisocion/wswiki. my opinion on the matter, however, is not a strong one. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the type articles turn out to be deleted for lack of sources, I don't see why an external link to them on wikisocion (or whatever wiki out there is specialized on socionics) can't be included on the Socionics article. Even if just to a disambiguation page containing all 16 types as links. I concur that it's a better project for the wikis on socionics, and if they can do a better job on it there than here, then it's really a win-win situation. --Slartibartfast1992 03:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

external links to wikisocion and/or wswiki with a statement that type descriptions can be found there would be appropriate, in my opinion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niffweed is one of those people who have bought into the western lie that socionics is "something like Jung and MBTI" and has done nothing but intensely persecute those who tell the truth that socionics has an intense esoteric background. When I literally owned the the16types.info forum for 4 straight years, he made a regular habit of following users around during that time who spoke anything contrary to "his opinion on the matter" and harass them. He even goes so far as to commit slanderous and libelous accusations against people such as "calling them insane" or labeling them with "psychiatric disorders" even as such is libelous false. This tactic seems to be his main response to those who disagree with him and otherwise shows that "his opinion on the matter" lacks a high degree of respectability. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i see no reason to give a comprehensive response, but a few facts are in order:

mcnew owned the forum for a period of approximately two and a half years, not four.
i have called a number of users idiots, including mcnew himself; i speak my mind on that forum, this is all true. in no way can this be considered slander or libel. there is one user who i might meet the criterion of "following around and harassing." frankly he deserved it, but it was probably not particularly mature of me to do so. i don't see how that accusation could be made with respect to anyone else.
there is exactly one individual on the16types forum who i positively believe to have a severe psychiatric disorder. i have talked extensively with this individual. i have mentioned the identity of this individual to a few people, but never publicly. there may be other individuals with clinical or personality disorders, though i have no way of knowing this. never have i publicly accused anyone of having a clinical psychological disorder.
your accusation of ad hominem ignores the large amount of substantial work that i have done in clarifying socionics concepts. the entire wswiki (basically), as well as many aspects of wikisocion and other essays and work with individuals too numerous to count are all attributable to my background.
honestly, i really don't care if you disagree with me or think i'm an idiot or a jerk, but in an environment of collaboration such as wikipedia i do demand the same level of good faith and respect that i might attribute to you. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

- Um, yeah.....I corrected my typo within moments of making it. Relax dude. To the rest, someone please notify me when this editor ends up in an AN/I or something over his incessant personal attacks. I don't want to miss it, but I'm done commenting here. The drama is making me ill. I can say this, after observing the conduct of some editors here, I have even less interest in fonding out more about the topic than when I started. Good job. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a statement that if there is a decision you don't like, you will ignore it? Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not. I'll alert a sympathetic admin who doesn't like your attitude and they can reverse you. Not only that, we'll lobby for your dismissal the next time you're up for re-approval, because no organization needs stupid people and only a stupid person would delete the main article on a topic that has become bigger in Russia than communism (see the russian version) because it's "not notable". Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well if it's a dispute between you and me, we'll take it to ArbCom. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is between you and WP:DISRUPT. These usually don't go to arbcom but are handled at admin level. --dab (𒁳) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main article, and merge the rest of them into the parent. Far TMI. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment i noticed that another part of the nomination is that socionics is of disputed origin; this is clearly not true, and while User:rmcnew seems to dispute the origin of socionics, there is otherwise widespread consensus on the issue, as every single source referenced (including the ones that mcnew added himself) attests to. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both the main article and the forks but reunite the two articles about socionics. Of course it is a fringe theory but it's very well-known at least in Russia. The presentation would be too long in one article. There are critique by non-proponents (here there are sources from both sides). Andres (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion I noticed something The type articles are incorporating text from Wikisocion, which require an explicit attribution. Isn't that against Wikipedia's rules? It is copyrighted. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Right, but those articles have more than a citation; they have a disclaimer with THE OFFICIAL SLOGAN of the copyright holder. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so what? sure, the GPL license allows free redistribution, but what's wrong with the attribution? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

These references come back to the problem that prompted me to propose this in the first place: they are almost all from proponents. I am not getting any confidence from these various investigations that anyone outside cares about socionics. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

think WP:Pokemon test. So this is some cranky scheme from the old Soviet days. I find it interesting, and a credit to Wikipedia to be covering it. Also, regional bias, we aren't exactly drowning in Soviet era pop culture.

the irony is, of course, that we have a huge library of articles on "socionics", while the properly notable Psychological Types, Jung's book this is apparently all based on, has a dilapidated stub article. If this is really and truly unnotable, we can still merge socionics into a section at personality type at some later time. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in response to mangoe's comment, i largely understand your concerns. it's true that socionics sources are largely from russian proponents of the theory, and for certain many people see it as generally pseudoscience and not worth spending time on. there are a couple select cases of it being used for external applications (for example, the russian military has played around with it, and there's an article on it by some brazilian lawyer, recommending it as a tool for law enforcement (article in portugese)). granted, these are extremely obscure applications. unfortunately, i don't personally know the extent to which it's used for applications of industrial psychology in russia and ukraine in a similar way to what MBTI enjoys in western nations, though i have heard of it being used for these features as well. i think also the multiplicity of primary source materials and people interested in it in russia may also qualify it as notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Russia there are also notable factions that consider socionics a pseudoscience and even go so far as to debunk it scholarly and in public universities. The scholars in the russian speaking world tend to have better ideas on how to criticize socionics. Mostly in part to the fact that they have a better idea of "its foundation" and therefore even the criticism of socionics is mostly in russia. Basically the only people who speak on behalf of socionics in the west are those who are proponents of the theory and unfortunately as it seems that only the proponents speak, there tends to be a fairly large amount of unsubstantiated inference on the nature of socionics, causing false information about socionics that gives false positive highlighting to the theory that actually should not be said at all. For example, the fact that socionics is being falsely presented as something "scientific", "psychological" or like "MBTI" when in the east it is a common thing for practitioners to mix chakras, new age thought and practices in with their socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

while fraudulent and incorrect, i fail to see the relevance of this point in regards to socionics' notability. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on why the Socionics article deletion would potentially be a good thing taking the circumstances

First off I should probably state who I am. I am officially recognized in Russia and the United States as a practicing socionists. I studied Religion, Theology, Metaphysics, Biblical Languages, at a University in Texas for 4 years, and the German language at a University in Northern California for 3 years, where I had the opportunity to exchange to Tuebingen University in Tuebingen, Germany to study Theology, and improve my Greek. I have studied socionics since 2003 and was the owner of the largest english speaking socionics forum the16types.info since 2005 (bought from Jimmy Caretti) until I sold it in late 2008. Since that time I formed the forum metasocion.com in order to present socionics in its natural form, as I found the "the the16types.info" crowd to be both extremely ignorant and prejudiced against presenting socionics the way that the founders had originally presented it. You can see some of my socionic credentials below:

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reuben_McNew http://www.typelab.ru/en/1.begin/index.html http://www.socioniki.info/index.php/2008-11-05-20-39-51

It is my personal opinion that all socionics articles should be deleted until it is agreed by everyone that it is a good idea to give a neutral presentation of the origin of socionics that discusses its esoteric development and gives mention to the fact that esoteric interpretations of chakras, tattwas, and psychic energy and mysticism in general were the main basis that the founders of socionics based their theory upon, and that from this socionics was formulated and later "framed to appear to be something like Jung or MBTI" and that "mystical interpretations of socionics type theory have descended directly from the founders and exist to this day" and that "there is a split between those of the opinion that socionics is something empirical and that socionics is something mystical." The multitude of sources that have been presented have already shown this. However, taking that there are people who would rather take unneutral views of socionics and present socionics in a way contrary to its origin [meaning in a frame which presents it as a form similar to MBTI or Jung with no mention of its esoteric background] I would be in favor of deleteing all socionics articles. I think that those who are opposed to an esoteric presentation of socionics should either come to terms that it would be correct to allow some information in some form to neutrally portray socionics esoteric background or to be content with the deletion of the whole of all of the information. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by the above editor to comment. Here, as in similar cases, we can not make a judgment about who has the authentic tradition. But a desire to have an article eliminated because it does not express one's own views is antithetical to the entire idea of the encyclopedia, DGG (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to happen because even among metaphysicians there are disagreements with your stance. You'll never get a blank check with that thesis. Now you can say, "The information element system is a modern incarnation of the ancient technique of intuitive abstraction, which was earlier used to create the tattvas", because that would be true. I suspect that's what you are trying to say, but you're not using the right words. You need to work on your delivery. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I would rather seek a compromise where the esoteric nature and therefore mystical approach that exists within socionics theory become recognized along with the empirical approach. I am simply against "hiding this information" in order to make false claims and spread false origins about socionics, which is technically what the proponents of socionics have been doing all along to make it appealing to the west, and it seems no one else except for my self have been doing any amount of speaking against it. I don't actually want all the information deleted, but deleteing all the information would be better than to have a biased article defended by a bunch of people unneutrally calling a legitimate view in socionics "unneutral" when in reality a form of recognition to the esoteric nature would give socionics respectability even among the critics. That is besides the fact that there is a legitimate socionics subculture decending from the founders which does indeed use mystical approaches with socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In consideration to what tcaudilllg just said concerning the tattwas, you can state it that way and you would be correct. But it is also correct to state that there is undeniable evidence to support that socionics is a plagiarization of knowledge that use to be keeped secret by magic orders, such as the golden dawn and roscrucianism, and it would be true. However, I don't think that a balsy statements such as that would really go over well with people who want to think socionics is something useful to them and despise the thought of practicing anything that was ever involved with a magic order. So yeah, it is probably an issue with wording. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep parent article Socionics per reasonable source merge all others. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe pointed out on my talkpage that the book is discussing an alternative meaning for the word. I'll therefore make no judgment on the notability of the parent topic, but recommend that all the articles be merged. No objection to a new AfD after that has been done. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is too complex for one article. Truthfully speaking, there is enough material and enough differences of opinion to make each type article as long as the main article: in the context of the theory itself, there should be a plethora of different views (16 in fact) with respect to each idea. Socionists hold themselves subject to the central axiom of the theory, the concept of type, which explains many of their divergences in emphasis quite well and, in fact, predictably. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My understanding of an encyclopedia is that one of it's role is to illuminate and educate. The delete-worthiness or otherwise of these articles to one side, I have to say that none of these articles seem to me to be either illuminating or educative. The subject matter may be important and the references sufficiently lofty for inclusion here, but I as a layman have garnered no real insight into what socionics is from reading these. Forgiveness please if my comment is not helpful to this process. Teh Crafty One (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on the contrary, i think this type of comment is perfectly legitimate and helpful feedbackt. personally, i agree with you, and i think the page needs a major rewrite. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is difficult for those who have steeped themselves into the "lore" to remember how difficult it was for them. :) Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Socionics: there appears to be enough third-party material for an article on the topic. As a side note, the individual type articles are unreadable if you don't have an images-enabled web browser. --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into two articles: Socionics (sociology) for the concept developed by Germans since 1980s and Socionics (psychology) for all post-Soviet psychological and semi-psychological concepts related to interpersonal compatibility. These two are of completely different origin. As for various clones of the post-Soviet socionics, they do not deserve special articles and must be merged into one. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off there is quite a bit of information (RS) on Socionics just not that much in English. It is generally recognized that the two theories that came out of Jung's typology were Socionics and Myers-Briggs. There wasn't very much cultural exchange between the society union and the English speaking world around WWII and thereafter so Myers-Briggs took root here. So deleting this article in my opinion would represent very strong bias towards English language / western sources. As far as the 16 type articles (Ethical Intuitive Extrovert, Ethical Intuitive Introvert, etc..) I wish this had been a separate discussion. My feeling is right now they don't have enough content to justify their existence; but I don't think such content is unachievable. I'd lean towards keep in the hope that they start to evolve to actually have independent information and at worst are harmless; but have no real objections if they were deleted, so on these I'm a weak keep Finally on Information Metabolism I don't have an informed opinion so I'm not offering one, neutral jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to get pretty frustrated at having to belabor this, but "generally recognized" by whom? Look, I would back down on this if people could give me good citations on this, but what I'm getting instead is material about the unrelated German development, and endless articles from a socionics organization which apparently nobody but its proponents care about. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll give you one. Keirsey (#1 most read MBTI author) who in several articles specifically mentions he is using the "western Jungian theory based on MBTI" with the obvious implication there is an Eastern theory (Socionics). jbolden1517 ^Talk

The post-Soviet socionics is by far not scientific and contains IMHO a lot of pop-psychological garbage, but at least it is a significant cultural phenomenon in the former USSR, with numerous books published on this topic. The German socionics has nothing to do with this phenomenon and with psychology in general; as far as I know, it's a method of computer modeling of social networks. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all and rename the page. No need for all the spin-off pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have a discussion of whether or not to eliminate the MBTI type articles, as well. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure, why not? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, people need to know about this stuff. The people at the16types.info are not wackos. They have discovered this system, and applied it meaningfully in their own lives. There is clear utility in teaching people about socionics. Moreover, there is immediate utility for the Jungian analyst: a leading socionist, Aleksandr Boukalov, has created the Model B to reconcile socionics with apparent discrepancies between Augustinavicute's ideas and Jung's. In so doing he has not only clarified the meaning of Jung's work, but has designed the first system to model consciousness in an intelligible manner. (see http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=ru%7Cen&u=http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/t/as696.html&rurl=translate.google.com&client=tmpg) Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reigning criticism of socionics is | here. It is considered authoritative and is referred to the defining statement among analytic psychologists. (Socionics is really a branch of analytic psychology, as all Jungian-derived typologies are). Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the ideal means of introducing people to socionics. Wikisocion is not. The site has a behaviorist tone which is contrary to mainstream socionics opinion. When these criticisms were pointed out | by dissenters, the admin, Rick DeLong, argued that there was room for multiple perspectives and multiple paths. Consensus is not a priority for him. Finally, those who cross DeLong will find they are unwelcome at Wikisocion: | as I found out. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: which does Wikipedia recommend: individual articles for the socionics types on Wikipedia, or their inclusion in a wikibook? If the wikibook is a better option in Wikipedia's judgment, then I will side with the "merge all" argument. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (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.