 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
dashboard.
- 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 Delete - Hammered. The Bushranger One ping only 17:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Christina Aguilera's seventh studio album ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article should be incubated or redirected to Christina Aguilera as it does not have a confirmed title or release date. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, textbook WP:HAMMER. All information so far is mere speculation. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, Rumor. HelloSk8 • ( Na veia) 19:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, single has been confirmed, and shes has confirmed a release of the album later this year, possible title news and artwork for both album and single THIS SEPTEMBER. valued info in here, i think its stupid to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.64.20.135 ( talk) 08:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC) AND KESHA HAS ALSO GO TO KEEP HER PAGE ON HER UNTITLED ALBUM, SO WHY NOT XTINA!?
- Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not an acceptable argument for why this page should be kept. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect, as per above. The album is going to be released later possibly in 2-3 months time. Bleubeatle ( talk) 10:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete or Incubate Fails WP:NOT. Vapid topic without an encyclopedic purpose. We don't need to guess about the future, we can wait for it. We also are not a bulletin board to post future events, nor a newspaper gossip column, nor a press-release reproduction house. This won't even be the title. Unscintillating ( talk) 03:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -
Stop.
WP:HAMMER time. Although I'll be happy with Userfy if we can work out who wants it in their userspace, The sources talk more about
Your Body (Christina Aguilera song) than the album. --
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
13:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie ( talk) 19:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:HAMMER Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Hammer time. This article also fails WP:NOT as well. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete no title, no release date, no tracklisting... it's too early. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 13:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Delete. -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 20:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
AfDs for this article:
- Constitutional republic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
None of the words in this article are supported by the references. This article, in a best case scenario, may constitute original research, however, more likely constitutes no research at all and is pushing a pop culture meme that doesn't exist in any normal understanding of political science.
(1) The line "In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers must be separated into distinct branches" is not supported by the reference and should be deleted. The citation refers to a short essay on the Kids Page of the Truman library in which the United States specifically is addressed (also, the Kids Page on a library website is probably not up to snuff in terms of the academic validity of sources).
- That's true and but it is nonetheless produced by the Truman Library though taking information from a primary source (if we consider the Truman Library in that context) would constitute original research. Not a great reference (and I contend there are better ones) but probably not a deal killer. I certainly don't think it falls into the category of "made-up". Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I never said this was "made-up." Please make the choice not to derail the discussion through distraction and obfuscation. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, you said, "this entry is based on sources that have been made-up" and I argued this particular reference did not fit into that category. I'm not trying to "derail" anything and you should assume good faith as I have by discussing the issues rather than lumping your nomination in with the other politically motivated attacks on this article in the past. I have assumed from the start that you have made this nomination to better WP but attacking editors rather than addressing issues does not help your case. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. The words "based on" do not indicate a holistic intent, but that a cursory review of sources indicated they were fiction and I stand by that. I never indicated this *specific* source was "made-up," I was clear that this particular one communicated erroneous intent. I stand by the statement that the entry is "based on" fictionalized sources - one source ("The Christian and American Law") referenced a passage on a page of a book that did not exist (I'm glad you found it on a different page), another quoted Karl Marx, when there's no evidence he made the quote referenced, etc. Can we agree to dial it down a notch with regard to trying ot catch each other in "GOTCHA!" moments? Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nor did I. You used the term "made up" to describe references (without specifying which ones) and I simply contended that this reference did not fit into that category. I have been, from the start, happy to accept that the article needed improvement and that references could be improved (and said so in my very first note). It took only a couple of minutes to find the quotes referred to by the original author, cite them properly and fix the relevant links. My suggestion (from the very start) was that this is what was needed, rather than an AfD prod. Given your want to insult people by suggesting they learn how to source properly or by sarcastically suggesting they have a "firm command of Google", I would have thought a quick Google search, on your part, to check if some original sources were mistakes rather than "fiction" would have negated the need for this AfD in the first place. That is, in fact, exactly what WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM suggests. Happy to "dial it down". Hell, happy to dial out altogether. No-one is trying to "get" anyone and the purpose of an AfD is to reach a consensus by discussing the merits of an article (and its sources) against WP:N. You made your points, I made mine, you accused me of "derailing" the discussion and followed that up with personal insults. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(2) The line "that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic" has no source at all (and is not supported by any normal understanding of constitutional theory) and should be deleted.
- I agree, it is unclear where this quote came from. So many mirror sites now quote WP that it has become unclear which sites are citing the original quote and which are a copy-paste of WP. If it is unsourced then it should be removed. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm unclear why you are having difficulty in making an affirmative statement that it is unsourced and have to fall-back to an ambiguous position of "if it is unsourced." The entry is easily viewable and the lack of citation for this passage is, likewise. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, because I assume good faith - both with regard to the original article and with regard to your nomination. I don't think it is ambiguous to say that if something is unsourced, it should be removed. That's pretty clear cut - I can't find a source, you can't find a source and no-one else has offered to find a source. The original author has not commented as to what their source might have been. If it is unsourced it should be removed. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. I'm glad you agree this passage must be removed. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
(3) The line "Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population." refers to a book called "The Christian and American Law" (erroneously cited in the source as "Christian and American Law" but obviously the former title as the title "Christian and American Law" doesn't exist in WordCat). I have obtained this book and posted the cited page here - http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/6209/50725626.jpg - which clearly makes no mention of anything that would support the line in the entry.
- That is almost word-for-word what that author says in that book - see this search. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- So is it, or is it not, on the page that is being cited in References? Because the page I posted - the page that is cited - contains nothing of the sort. Did you find a similar statement on a different page? This is rather aside of the fact anyway that the book - as cited - doesn't actually exist. I'm AGF that the book I discovered is the same one the editor intended and simply mistyped (what seems to be a disastrously common occurrence for this entry). Finally, a book produced by a small publisher that publishes books "for the spiritual needs of evangelical readers" ( http://www.kregel.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=A12DB34B70B34EA28EA748A96CD5AEFE&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=A615A3BFB3EA496C83F0F4CFDCBE387D) and by an author who has no publishing credits in political science or law (aside from this) but who teaches at a law school that is not accredited by the ABA (Trinity Law School - http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/aba_approved_law_schools/in_alphabetical_order.html) cannot objectively meet the standards of WP:SOURCES. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what you're getting at... That quote appears in that book on page 101. I provided a link to the book on Google Books with search parameters to point to the page in question. If the original reference included a bad link (I think that is what you are suggesting), then feel free to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. I also have no problem with you arguing that the source is not reliable or not independent. If that is your suggestion then we should have that discussion. But you suggested the book contained nothing that supported that line which is not accurate - that quote (word-for-word) appears in that book. Happy to have a discussion about the source itself. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. Page 101 is not the page originally cited in the references which is what I was addressing. I'm glad you changed it to correct it. Let's agree to delete it now since the source is invalid. Thanks BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you contend the source is invalid, as per WP:BURDEN, you are welcome to remove it. In making your decision, given your contention above, it might be worth noting that while Trinity Law School is not accredited by the ABA, it is, "accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California". I don't imagine this will alter your opinion of the source and that's perfectly fine. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(4) Reference #7 is to page 5 in a book called "The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom." Page 5 is previewed at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Thirteenth-Amendment-American-Freedom-Constitutional/dp/0814782760/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346483432&sr=1-1&keywords=0814782760. On this page the words "constitutional republic" aren't mentioned once but the book is, nonetheless, used to support the passage: "Alexander Tsesis, in The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom: A Legal History says, to him, a constitutional republic means "a representative polity established on fundamental law, each person has the right to pursue and fulfill his or her unobtrusive vision of the good life. In such a society, the common good is the cumulative product of free and equal individuals who pursue meaningful aims."
- Those words most certainly do appear - that is a direct quote from Preface | 5 - and can be read in the preview provided in your link. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, this is a patchwork of words from the author, stitched together without the aid of ellipses, in such a way as to communicate an intent that does not exist. A critical evaluation of the passage reveals it is simply an aside, mentioned in passing, not an exploration or explanation of the term "constitutional republic." BlueSalix ( talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, sorry but that quote appears word-for-word on the page in question. It's not a patchwork or a reinterpretation of a quote, it is a quote lifted directly from that page of that book. In the context of the article it was provided as someone's opinion or interpretation of Constitutional Republic and that is exactly the way it appears in the book. The quote begins, "Within the context of a constitutional republic, by which I mean...". Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. Quote marks indicate a verbatim recitation of cited text. Omissions of words within it require ellipses, provided those ellipses do not change the meaning by assigning a context that does not exist. Thanks. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I can't see that anything has been omitted, altered or misquoted. I would suggest the quote was, in fact, cut-and-pasted into the article by the original author. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(5) The entry says "In "Outline of the Critique of Political Economy," Marx's stated that "All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than e.g. on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their 'constitutional republics' as well, only in another form." - a CTRL+F search of the full text of this treatise (located here: http://archive.org/stream/acontributiontot00marxuoft/acontributiontot00marxuoft_djvu.txt) does not find the claimed passage appearing in any of it.
- No, that's right. But the passage, "The bourgeois economists have a vague notion that it is better to carry on production under the modern police, than it was, e. g. under club-law. They forget that club law is also law, and that the right of the stronger continues to exist in other forms even under their "government of law"." does appear. I contend this is a difference in translation and that "Government of Law" and "Constitutional Republic", though differently translated, are one in the same. I would need to see other translations (there may be some original research in there) but fundamentally I believe this is what the original author was referencing. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- As a reader of German I can tell you right now that this is absolutely not a question of translation differences. And it is distracting to this discussion for you to introduce that claim in the absence of an alternate translation that supports it. I don't mean to sound snippy, but simply conjuring "translation difference" out of the air is not a productive use of the space on this page. If you need to see other translations then check them before introducing this argument. Please don't simply dismiss a valid point with a vague note that, at some point in the undetermined and shortly to-be-forgot future, you might attempt to double-check this unverifiable quote but, in the meantime, it should be left up. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you know that is not at all what I said. Again, I am more than happy to assume good faith on the part of the original author and you. You said the passage did not appear word-for-word in the text, I agreed but stated that a very similar passage (uses many of the same words) did appear and that the difference may have been a matter of translating. I am more than happy to accept that what appeared in the article is not an accurate translation (or interpretation in any context) of the original text and even suggested that the difference may have been a matter of original research. If it is inaccurate or has been incorrectly or inaccurately translated or interpreted then that should be rectified. If the author has misinterpreted or misrepresented that passage then that should be rectified. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. Misquoting is not a synonym for misinterpretation. Quote marks indicate a verbatim recitation of cited text. Thanks. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- And so that should be fixed either by removing the quotation marks (if it is not an accurate quote / translation of a quote - whether intentional or unintentional) or by introducing an accurate quote / translation of a quote. If having done that, the source does not support the assertion in the article then it should be removed. But again, all of these are things I think should have been addressed before an AfD prod. If you don't wish to address them before AfD then you should expect them to be discussed at AfD and your suggestion that such a discussion is "not a productive use of the space on this page" is entirely contrary to WP:CONSENSUS. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(6) This article has been nominated for deletion once before and achieved, not just consensus, but unanimous support, for deletion --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constitutional_republic. It's back. BlueSalix ( talk) 07:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Regarding item (6), the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional republic in 2005 was considerably different from the version that exists today. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
DeleteFor the fact that at least half of the content in this entry can be documented as having been manufactured and is unrelated to the sources being cited, and the presumption that the limited number of contributing authors makes it reasonably assumable that this would be a trend discoverable in the rest of the sources were they to be closely examined, I vote Delete. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not vote in the discussion itself. By nominating the article for deletion, it is already implied that you are voting delete. Doing it twice will just confuse the closer. Silver seren C 01:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I can understand the AfD nom, believe it was made in good faith and I think as the article stands a Delete argument could certainly be made. The term, though, outside of the US, has been and is fairly widely used and there are a number of sources which could be cited. Could the article do with improvement? Certainly. Is deletion justified? I contend, not. Part of the problem seems to be that the article is written from an entirely US perspective. Widened to include other countries and other political discussions in those countries, references can be found:
- The Cambridge History of China - Chapter 5: A constitutional republic: the Peking government, 1916–28 by Andrew J. Nathan ( Cambridge University Press, 1983)
- United States Was Founded as a Constitutional Republic and Not a Democracy by Alex Epstein (Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 2008)
- Democracy, Republic, Constitutional Republic, Federal Republic, or a Constitutional Federal Republic. What are we? by Sean Ham (Education & Liberty (blog), 2010)
- Are We Losing Our Constitutional Republic? by Janet Levy ( American Thinker, 2012)
- That said, the last three do focus on the US. In addition, though, it's a term used by both the
CIA (
here) and the
US State Department (
here) to describe foreign governments. Surely those references and the fact that it is a term accepted for use by the US Government is enough to consider the term itself to be notable. The article certainly needs work but I don't think deletion is justified.
Stalwart111
(talk)
02:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Two of the sources you cite are blogs, which are not WP:IRS, are not acceptable sources and could never be incorporated into the entry. The other two simply have the words "constitutional republic" written in them as either titles or index box entries with no further explanation or exploration and could, as a result, also never be incorporated into the entry. In any case, to your more overarching point, I have to respond by noting that an entry can't remain active at Wikipedia when it contains quotations from books that don't actually exist in said books (IOW, have been made up/manufactured). If we only delete the offending passages we've left this entire entry with no sources and the entry itself, therefore, must further be deleted. This entry can't just sit around with a Cleanup tag when it is crediting authors with statements said authors have never made. This is a more serious issue than simply a poorly composed entry. To re-emphasize, this entry is based on sources that have been made-up. BlueSalix ( talk) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —
Frankie (
talk)
19:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think those sources were "made up" - I think you've made a couple of mistakes in your analysis of them (above). I accept that one of the links I provided is a blog (and said so when linking to it above). I'm also happy to have a discussion about the reliability of references from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (which I think is the other one you're putting in the blog category). The other two go into some detail about the concept of a constitutional republic; the article from American Thinker does so by juxtaposing this with actions the author contends are not in keeping with a Constitutional Republic. While this may be more of a "what a constitutional republic is not..." argument, that surely doesn't change its validity as a source. That aside, I said from the beginning that I thought a delete argument could be made and certainly if the sources cited are entirely fictional then that text should go (but I don't think they are, as outlined above). My suggestion was that with a bit of work (maybe quite a bit of work), the article could be fixed - that the term itself meets WP:GNG. I for one would be more than happy to put some effort into a clean-up. It might be worth also looking at:
- America is a Constitutional Republic . . . NOT a Democracy - text of a speech given by Daneen G. Peterson, PhD (2006)
- We the People: A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy by Daniel Horowitz ( RedState, 2011) - arguably a "blog" in the sense it doesn't publish offline but certainly not self-published in the same sense as other blogs.
- America As a Constitutional Republic: When Can the President Kill? by Doug Bandow ( Forbes.com, 2012) - which goes into some detail about the limits of a Constitutional Republic.
- Our Constitutional Republic: Seeds of Birth - Seeds of Destruction by William J. Dell (AuthorHouse, 2011) - a book which clearly defines the scope of a Constitutional Republic and goes into some detail about the history of the concept and the ways in which the author believes the US has deviated from that concept.
- I should also say that the validity (within the scope of political argument) of the term "Constitutional Republic" is one contested by left-wing and right-wing commentators alike. A quick google search will show that the argument, "America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy" (ironically the title of Dr Peterson's speech above) is widely used by right-wing commentators as an attack on the current President and his political program. As a result, some of those on the left would rather the term (as a political neologism) simply not exist (and this is reflected in historical arguments on the article talk page). Whether we like it or not, the term is used and is used by the highest levels of Government. Perhaps not in the same way as some commentators would like to use it but that is not really relevant.
- I note you highlighted three particular passages which you believed needed work (on the article's talk page) then removed that discussion and posted this AfD nom. You should be commended for at least making an effort to fix the article before jumping straight to an AfD nom but perhaps giving more than 48 hours for people to respond to your concerns would have yielded better results. To be helpful I have responded to particular concerns above. Again, the article needs a clean-up but I think the problems are surmountable. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC).
- I think it's great you've been able to "Google it" and find a lot of WP:USERGENERATED things about "constitutional republic." None of these meet the standards of reliable sources (see WP:USERGENERATED). Of the latest four "sources" you've found, 1 is from Forbes Sites (similar to CNN's iReporter user generated citizen journalism site), 1 is from a conspiracy website called "STOP THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION" [sic] that is apparently owned by the author, a third is a book from a vanity publisher (AuthorHouse) which does not meet WP:SELFPUBLISH ... at this point I stopped checking. It's clear you have a firm command of Google and will be able to produce an almost endless stream of social media sites, pay-to-publish books, and blogs to support your idea that this page should be left up, however, I would ask you make the choice not to continue to post these. Each time you do it requires people go through to check to see if they meet any minimal standard of source acceptability. As you know, it is easier to flood this page with unacceptable sources than it is for an editor to verify each one. I think you've made your point regarding the availability of sources on blogs, social media sites and vanity publishers and further comment at this time may not serve to advance this discussion but only distract it. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- With respect, your attempt to belittle and play the man rather than the ball is not very classy and is fundamentally contrary to the basic principles of WP. I think your branding of potential sources as "conspiracy website[s]" probably says more about why you launched this AfD in the first place than anything else. You basic argument hinged on the suggestion that the article was "based on sources that have been made-up" which is patently untrue. One of the main aims of AfD (and this function is promoted with "find sources" prompts) is to encourage editors to find potential sources and put them up for discussion, the quantum of which should allow consensus to be reached about whether an article meets WP guidelines or not. More than happy for you to critique potential sources but suggesting that editors not contribute to your AfD nomination isn't helpful. The fact that you don't like particular points of view does not invalidate them. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. I'm sorry you feel you're being belittled. I am not suggesting people refrain from introducing material with which I disagree, I am suggesting people refrain from introducing material that doesn't meet WP:SOURCE. You have announced your intent to edit the entry to include blogs, self-published books and posts from a conspiracy theory website called STOPTHENORTHAMERICANUNION.COM. If you believe my requests for you not to engage in this behavior are a violation of WP:AFD, I suggest you raise the issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard. There's nothing more I can do to address your concerns if you believe this is valid material. Again, I'm sorry you're upset, however, the deletion page is not the correct forum to express that. Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Further to the above - I have now fixed some of the reference links and have updated others. Will try to introduce some of the aforementioned links into the article when I have a spare few minutes. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC). Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- PLEASE DO NOT. I'm sorry for the all-caps, but I need to emphasize this point. If you start introducing sources like blogs, WP:SELFPUBLISH books and websites called STOPTHENORTHAMERICANUNION.COM - as you've stated your intent to do - this whole maze is going to quickly become more undecipherable than it already is. As a courtesy to other editors, please don't touch the article with the "sources" you were able to "Google" until this AfD discussion has worked its way through. If you need help learning about WP:SOURCE please feel empowered to ask. Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your attempts to belittle and insult editors because they are moving in a direction contrary to what is (clearly now) you particular political persuasion is unhelpful. From the very top of the AfD page - "[...] including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately". Suggesting others refrain from editing articles because they might introduce material you disagree with is entirely contrary to the fundamental basics of WP. After all that, I strongly suggest you start by assuming good faith. I would suggest that doing so from the start would have resulted in you trying to fix this page rather than trying to have it deleted. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. I'm sorry you feel you're being belittled. I am not suggesting people refrain from introducing material with which I disagree, I am suggesting people refrain from introducing material that doesn't meet WP:SOURCE. You have announced your intent to edit the entry to include blogs, self-published books and posts from a conspiracy theory website called STOPTHENORTHAMERICANUNION.COM. If you believe my requests for you not to engage in this behavior are a violation of WP:AFD, I suggest you raise the issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard. There's nothing more I can do to address your concerns if you believe this is valid material. Again, I'm sorry you're upset, however, the deletion page is not the correct forum to express that. Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I said you had attempted to and that it was unhelpful - it would take a lot more to make me "upset". It simply isn't a good way to go about consensus-building. It took only one comment from an editor with a different opinion of the AfD for you to suggest that putting alternate opinions was an attempt to "derail" your AfD and "not a productive use of the space on this page". You followed that up by sarcastically suggesting I might need help "learning about WP:SOURCE" and sarcastically suggesting I had a "firm command of Google" (all your own quotes). If you believe this is a constructive way to build consensus at this AfD then good luck to you - I would suggest you've done more than enough to ensure no admin will be able to wade through your insults to determine if consensus has been reached. Had you assumed good faith from the start (both with regard to me and with regard to the original author of the article in question) then I imagine we could have worked through most of the issues you raised with respect to the the original sources and could probably have done some collaborative work to determine if some new sources could be found. If nothing else, you were afforded general courtesy as a WP:NEWCOMER and I stated from the beginning that I believed this AfD had been raised in good faith. You have not done much since to justify that belief. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Once again, I'm sorry you're upset, however, the deletion page is not the correct forum to express that. Please limit your comments to the article. Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 08:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete this appears to be a blatant attempt to push POV and use non RS sources for political definition of the US federal government. I noticed that the article
United States government changed the use of the term
Representative democracy to constitutional republic and this does not appear to be accurate. The first source used by the Truman Library is a primary source, a children's edition (or page) and contains no authorship or way to verify the information...but more important is, it doesn't even use the term. This is clear synthesis and a non RS. Other sources may not meet threshold for criteria for use, but article lacks accurate and mainstream academic sources readily available--
Amadscientist (
talk)
17:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think it is worth mentioning that the definition of the US form of government has never fully been defined and in all references I am seeing that refer to "Constitutional Republic" (in academic, peer reviewed book sources) appear to be written as opinion in their prose and leave a great deal of room for interpretation. As another editor stated this article is not really about the US government but about the form of government as established as a Republican. For this reason it is unlikely that the sources for a US form of "strictly interpreted" constitutional republic would be due weight in this article and attempting to interpret the sources outside their context may be viewed as a form of biased or advocacy editing. My reasoning for deletion is simple. This article is already being used for such advocacy changes in other US government articles and looks like it may have been created as a content fork.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 19:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is essential to Wikipedia, in my view, but this article consists of original research. The article can be rewritten, but needs to be properly sourced. I would say that this should be just a temporary deletion. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - While there probably can be an article on the topic -- Texas textbooks calls U.S. a 'constitutional republic' rather than 'democratic -- it seems a better approach to delete and let an article creator present a draft to DRV and request that it be moved to article space. Most news articles that use "Constitutional republic" in the article title are letters to the editor or opinions. However, two articles that might be used for the topic are Through the Lens of a Constitutional Republic and History gets conservative stamp in Texas textbooks Social studies curriculum calls U.S. a 'constitutional republic' rather than 'democratic.'. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 04:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Fringe, POV-pushing article as written, based on a few obscure opinion sources. Fails WP:OR too with a fair bit of unsourced text interpolating between its meager references; the best example of this is the pargraph trying to prove--without any secondary sources--that "The notion of the constitutional republic originates with Aristotle's Politics". (What's next? An article called the greatest country, because there are sources like [41] [42] and I can find the phrase in Google Books too?) Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Tillinghast, KJ. Kittyhawks. KJ Tillinghast. p. 375. ISBN 9781463764456.
- ^ Nick Wynne, Richard Moorhead (2010). Florida in World War II: Floating Fortress. The History Press. pp. n.p. ISBN 9781596299290.
-
^
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123194315.
{{ cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=( help)
|
|
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
dashboard.
- 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 Delete - Hammered. The Bushranger One ping only 17:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Christina Aguilera's seventh studio album ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article should be incubated or redirected to Christina Aguilera as it does not have a confirmed title or release date. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, textbook WP:HAMMER. All information so far is mere speculation. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, Rumor. HelloSk8 • ( Na veia) 19:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, single has been confirmed, and shes has confirmed a release of the album later this year, possible title news and artwork for both album and single THIS SEPTEMBER. valued info in here, i think its stupid to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.64.20.135 ( talk) 08:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC) AND KESHA HAS ALSO GO TO KEEP HER PAGE ON HER UNTITLED ALBUM, SO WHY NOT XTINA!?
- Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not an acceptable argument for why this page should be kept. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect, as per above. The album is going to be released later possibly in 2-3 months time. Bleubeatle ( talk) 10:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete or Incubate Fails WP:NOT. Vapid topic without an encyclopedic purpose. We don't need to guess about the future, we can wait for it. We also are not a bulletin board to post future events, nor a newspaper gossip column, nor a press-release reproduction house. This won't even be the title. Unscintillating ( talk) 03:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Stop.
WP:HAMMER time. Although I'll be happy with Userfy if we can work out who wants it in their userspace, The sources talk more about
Your Body (Christina Aguilera song) than the album. --
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
13:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie ( talk) 19:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:HAMMER Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Hammer time. This article also fails WP:NOT as well. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete no title, no release date, no tracklisting... it's too early. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 13:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Delete. -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 20:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
AfDs for this article:
- Constitutional republic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
None of the words in this article are supported by the references. This article, in a best case scenario, may constitute original research, however, more likely constitutes no research at all and is pushing a pop culture meme that doesn't exist in any normal understanding of political science.
(1) The line "In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers must be separated into distinct branches" is not supported by the reference and should be deleted. The citation refers to a short essay on the Kids Page of the Truman library in which the United States specifically is addressed (also, the Kids Page on a library website is probably not up to snuff in terms of the academic validity of sources).
- That's true and but it is nonetheless produced by the Truman Library though taking information from a primary source (if we consider the Truman Library in that context) would constitute original research. Not a great reference (and I contend there are better ones) but probably not a deal killer. I certainly don't think it falls into the category of "made-up". Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I never said this was "made-up." Please make the choice not to derail the discussion through distraction and obfuscation. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, you said, "this entry is based on sources that have been made-up" and I argued this particular reference did not fit into that category. I'm not trying to "derail" anything and you should assume good faith as I have by discussing the issues rather than lumping your nomination in with the other politically motivated attacks on this article in the past. I have assumed from the start that you have made this nomination to better WP but attacking editors rather than addressing issues does not help your case. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. The words "based on" do not indicate a holistic intent, but that a cursory review of sources indicated they were fiction and I stand by that. I never indicated this *specific* source was "made-up," I was clear that this particular one communicated erroneous intent. I stand by the statement that the entry is "based on" fictionalized sources - one source ("The Christian and American Law") referenced a passage on a page of a book that did not exist (I'm glad you found it on a different page), another quoted Karl Marx, when there's no evidence he made the quote referenced, etc. Can we agree to dial it down a notch with regard to trying ot catch each other in "GOTCHA!" moments? Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nor did I. You used the term "made up" to describe references (without specifying which ones) and I simply contended that this reference did not fit into that category. I have been, from the start, happy to accept that the article needed improvement and that references could be improved (and said so in my very first note). It took only a couple of minutes to find the quotes referred to by the original author, cite them properly and fix the relevant links. My suggestion (from the very start) was that this is what was needed, rather than an AfD prod. Given your want to insult people by suggesting they learn how to source properly or by sarcastically suggesting they have a "firm command of Google", I would have thought a quick Google search, on your part, to check if some original sources were mistakes rather than "fiction" would have negated the need for this AfD in the first place. That is, in fact, exactly what WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM suggests. Happy to "dial it down". Hell, happy to dial out altogether. No-one is trying to "get" anyone and the purpose of an AfD is to reach a consensus by discussing the merits of an article (and its sources) against WP:N. You made your points, I made mine, you accused me of "derailing" the discussion and followed that up with personal insults. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(2) The line "that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic" has no source at all (and is not supported by any normal understanding of constitutional theory) and should be deleted.
- I agree, it is unclear where this quote came from. So many mirror sites now quote WP that it has become unclear which sites are citing the original quote and which are a copy-paste of WP. If it is unsourced then it should be removed. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm unclear why you are having difficulty in making an affirmative statement that it is unsourced and have to fall-back to an ambiguous position of "if it is unsourced." The entry is easily viewable and the lack of citation for this passage is, likewise. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, because I assume good faith - both with regard to the original article and with regard to your nomination. I don't think it is ambiguous to say that if something is unsourced, it should be removed. That's pretty clear cut - I can't find a source, you can't find a source and no-one else has offered to find a source. The original author has not commented as to what their source might have been. If it is unsourced it should be removed. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. I'm glad you agree this passage must be removed. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
(3) The line "Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population." refers to a book called "The Christian and American Law" (erroneously cited in the source as "Christian and American Law" but obviously the former title as the title "Christian and American Law" doesn't exist in WordCat). I have obtained this book and posted the cited page here - http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/6209/50725626.jpg - which clearly makes no mention of anything that would support the line in the entry.
- That is almost word-for-word what that author says in that book - see this search. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- So is it, or is it not, on the page that is being cited in References? Because the page I posted - the page that is cited - contains nothing of the sort. Did you find a similar statement on a different page? This is rather aside of the fact anyway that the book - as cited - doesn't actually exist. I'm AGF that the book I discovered is the same one the editor intended and simply mistyped (what seems to be a disastrously common occurrence for this entry). Finally, a book produced by a small publisher that publishes books "for the spiritual needs of evangelical readers" ( http://www.kregel.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=A12DB34B70B34EA28EA748A96CD5AEFE&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=A615A3BFB3EA496C83F0F4CFDCBE387D) and by an author who has no publishing credits in political science or law (aside from this) but who teaches at a law school that is not accredited by the ABA (Trinity Law School - http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/aba_approved_law_schools/in_alphabetical_order.html) cannot objectively meet the standards of WP:SOURCES. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what you're getting at... That quote appears in that book on page 101. I provided a link to the book on Google Books with search parameters to point to the page in question. If the original reference included a bad link (I think that is what you are suggesting), then feel free to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. I also have no problem with you arguing that the source is not reliable or not independent. If that is your suggestion then we should have that discussion. But you suggested the book contained nothing that supported that line which is not accurate - that quote (word-for-word) appears in that book. Happy to have a discussion about the source itself. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. Page 101 is not the page originally cited in the references which is what I was addressing. I'm glad you changed it to correct it. Let's agree to delete it now since the source is invalid. Thanks BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you contend the source is invalid, as per WP:BURDEN, you are welcome to remove it. In making your decision, given your contention above, it might be worth noting that while Trinity Law School is not accredited by the ABA, it is, "accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California". I don't imagine this will alter your opinion of the source and that's perfectly fine. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(4) Reference #7 is to page 5 in a book called "The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom." Page 5 is previewed at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Thirteenth-Amendment-American-Freedom-Constitutional/dp/0814782760/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346483432&sr=1-1&keywords=0814782760. On this page the words "constitutional republic" aren't mentioned once but the book is, nonetheless, used to support the passage: "Alexander Tsesis, in The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom: A Legal History says, to him, a constitutional republic means "a representative polity established on fundamental law, each person has the right to pursue and fulfill his or her unobtrusive vision of the good life. In such a society, the common good is the cumulative product of free and equal individuals who pursue meaningful aims."
- Those words most certainly do appear - that is a direct quote from Preface | 5 - and can be read in the preview provided in your link. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, this is a patchwork of words from the author, stitched together without the aid of ellipses, in such a way as to communicate an intent that does not exist. A critical evaluation of the passage reveals it is simply an aside, mentioned in passing, not an exploration or explanation of the term "constitutional republic." BlueSalix ( talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, sorry but that quote appears word-for-word on the page in question. It's not a patchwork or a reinterpretation of a quote, it is a quote lifted directly from that page of that book. In the context of the article it was provided as someone's opinion or interpretation of Constitutional Republic and that is exactly the way it appears in the book. The quote begins, "Within the context of a constitutional republic, by which I mean...". Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. Quote marks indicate a verbatim recitation of cited text. Omissions of words within it require ellipses, provided those ellipses do not change the meaning by assigning a context that does not exist. Thanks. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I can't see that anything has been omitted, altered or misquoted. I would suggest the quote was, in fact, cut-and-pasted into the article by the original author. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(5) The entry says "In "Outline of the Critique of Political Economy," Marx's stated that "All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than e.g. on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their 'constitutional republics' as well, only in another form." - a CTRL+F search of the full text of this treatise (located here: http://archive.org/stream/acontributiontot00marxuoft/acontributiontot00marxuoft_djvu.txt) does not find the claimed passage appearing in any of it.
- No, that's right. But the passage, "The bourgeois economists have a vague notion that it is better to carry on production under the modern police, than it was, e. g. under club-law. They forget that club law is also law, and that the right of the stronger continues to exist in other forms even under their "government of law"." does appear. I contend this is a difference in translation and that "Government of Law" and "Constitutional Republic", though differently translated, are one in the same. I would need to see other translations (there may be some original research in there) but fundamentally I believe this is what the original author was referencing. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- As a reader of German I can tell you right now that this is absolutely not a question of translation differences. And it is distracting to this discussion for you to introduce that claim in the absence of an alternate translation that supports it. I don't mean to sound snippy, but simply conjuring "translation difference" out of the air is not a productive use of the space on this page. If you need to see other translations then check them before introducing this argument. Please don't simply dismiss a valid point with a vague note that, at some point in the undetermined and shortly to-be-forgot future, you might attempt to double-check this unverifiable quote but, in the meantime, it should be left up. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you know that is not at all what I said. Again, I am more than happy to assume good faith on the part of the original author and you. You said the passage did not appear word-for-word in the text, I agreed but stated that a very similar passage (uses many of the same words) did appear and that the difference may have been a matter of translating. I am more than happy to accept that what appeared in the article is not an accurate translation (or interpretation in any context) of the original text and even suggested that the difference may have been a matter of original research. If it is inaccurate or has been incorrectly or inaccurately translated or interpreted then that should be rectified. If the author has misinterpreted or misrepresented that passage then that should be rectified. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. Misquoting is not a synonym for misinterpretation. Quote marks indicate a verbatim recitation of cited text. Thanks. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- And so that should be fixed either by removing the quotation marks (if it is not an accurate quote / translation of a quote - whether intentional or unintentional) or by introducing an accurate quote / translation of a quote. If having done that, the source does not support the assertion in the article then it should be removed. But again, all of these are things I think should have been addressed before an AfD prod. If you don't wish to address them before AfD then you should expect them to be discussed at AfD and your suggestion that such a discussion is "not a productive use of the space on this page" is entirely contrary to WP:CONSENSUS. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(6) This article has been nominated for deletion once before and achieved, not just consensus, but unanimous support, for deletion --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constitutional_republic. It's back. BlueSalix ( talk) 07:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Regarding item (6), the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional republic in 2005 was considerably different from the version that exists today. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
DeleteFor the fact that at least half of the content in this entry can be documented as having been manufactured and is unrelated to the sources being cited, and the presumption that the limited number of contributing authors makes it reasonably assumable that this would be a trend discoverable in the rest of the sources were they to be closely examined, I vote Delete. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not vote in the discussion itself. By nominating the article for deletion, it is already implied that you are voting delete. Doing it twice will just confuse the closer. Silver seren C 01:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I can understand the AfD nom, believe it was made in good faith and I think as the article stands a Delete argument could certainly be made. The term, though, outside of the US, has been and is fairly widely used and there are a number of sources which could be cited. Could the article do with improvement? Certainly. Is deletion justified? I contend, not. Part of the problem seems to be that the article is written from an entirely US perspective. Widened to include other countries and other political discussions in those countries, references can be found:
- The Cambridge History of China - Chapter 5: A constitutional republic: the Peking government, 1916–28 by Andrew J. Nathan ( Cambridge University Press, 1983)
- United States Was Founded as a Constitutional Republic and Not a Democracy by Alex Epstein (Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 2008)
- Democracy, Republic, Constitutional Republic, Federal Republic, or a Constitutional Federal Republic. What are we? by Sean Ham (Education & Liberty (blog), 2010)
- Are We Losing Our Constitutional Republic? by Janet Levy ( American Thinker, 2012)
- That said, the last three do focus on the US. In addition, though, it's a term used by both the
CIA (
here) and the
US State Department (
here) to describe foreign governments. Surely those references and the fact that it is a term accepted for use by the US Government is enough to consider the term itself to be notable. The article certainly needs work but I don't think deletion is justified.
Stalwart111
(talk)
02:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Two of the sources you cite are blogs, which are not WP:IRS, are not acceptable sources and could never be incorporated into the entry. The other two simply have the words "constitutional republic" written in them as either titles or index box entries with no further explanation or exploration and could, as a result, also never be incorporated into the entry. In any case, to your more overarching point, I have to respond by noting that an entry can't remain active at Wikipedia when it contains quotations from books that don't actually exist in said books (IOW, have been made up/manufactured). If we only delete the offending passages we've left this entire entry with no sources and the entry itself, therefore, must further be deleted. This entry can't just sit around with a Cleanup tag when it is crediting authors with statements said authors have never made. This is a more serious issue than simply a poorly composed entry. To re-emphasize, this entry is based on sources that have been made-up. BlueSalix ( talk) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —
Frankie (
talk)
19:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think those sources were "made up" - I think you've made a couple of mistakes in your analysis of them (above). I accept that one of the links I provided is a blog (and said so when linking to it above). I'm also happy to have a discussion about the reliability of references from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (which I think is the other one you're putting in the blog category). The other two go into some detail about the concept of a constitutional republic; the article from American Thinker does so by juxtaposing this with actions the author contends are not in keeping with a Constitutional Republic. While this may be more of a "what a constitutional republic is not..." argument, that surely doesn't change its validity as a source. That aside, I said from the beginning that I thought a delete argument could be made and certainly if the sources cited are entirely fictional then that text should go (but I don't think they are, as outlined above). My suggestion was that with a bit of work (maybe quite a bit of work), the article could be fixed - that the term itself meets WP:GNG. I for one would be more than happy to put some effort into a clean-up. It might be worth also looking at:
- America is a Constitutional Republic . . . NOT a Democracy - text of a speech given by Daneen G. Peterson, PhD (2006)
- We the People: A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy by Daniel Horowitz ( RedState, 2011) - arguably a "blog" in the sense it doesn't publish offline but certainly not self-published in the same sense as other blogs.
- America As a Constitutional Republic: When Can the President Kill? by Doug Bandow ( Forbes.com, 2012) - which goes into some detail about the limits of a Constitutional Republic.
- Our Constitutional Republic: Seeds of Birth - Seeds of Destruction by William J. Dell (AuthorHouse, 2011) - a book which clearly defines the scope of a Constitutional Republic and goes into some detail about the history of the concept and the ways in which the author believes the US has deviated from that concept.
- I should also say that the validity (within the scope of political argument) of the term "Constitutional Republic" is one contested by left-wing and right-wing commentators alike. A quick google search will show that the argument, "America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy" (ironically the title of Dr Peterson's speech above) is widely used by right-wing commentators as an attack on the current President and his political program. As a result, some of those on the left would rather the term (as a political neologism) simply not exist (and this is reflected in historical arguments on the article talk page). Whether we like it or not, the term is used and is used by the highest levels of Government. Perhaps not in the same way as some commentators would like to use it but that is not really relevant.
- I note you highlighted three particular passages which you believed needed work (on the article's talk page) then removed that discussion and posted this AfD nom. You should be commended for at least making an effort to fix the article before jumping straight to an AfD nom but perhaps giving more than 48 hours for people to respond to your concerns would have yielded better results. To be helpful I have responded to particular concerns above. Again, the article needs a clean-up but I think the problems are surmountable. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC).
- I think it's great you've been able to "Google it" and find a lot of WP:USERGENERATED things about "constitutional republic." None of these meet the standards of reliable sources (see WP:USERGENERATED). Of the latest four "sources" you've found, 1 is from Forbes Sites (similar to CNN's iReporter user generated citizen journalism site), 1 is from a conspiracy website called "STOP THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION" [sic] that is apparently owned by the author, a third is a book from a vanity publisher (AuthorHouse) which does not meet WP:SELFPUBLISH ... at this point I stopped checking. It's clear you have a firm command of Google and will be able to produce an almost endless stream of social media sites, pay-to-publish books, and blogs to support your idea that this page should be left up, however, I would ask you make the choice not to continue to post these. Each time you do it requires people go through to check to see if they meet any minimal standard of source acceptability. As you know, it is easier to flood this page with unacceptable sources than it is for an editor to verify each one. I think you've made your point regarding the availability of sources on blogs, social media sites and vanity publishers and further comment at this time may not serve to advance this discussion but only distract it. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- With respect, your attempt to belittle and play the man rather than the ball is not very classy and is fundamentally contrary to the basic principles of WP. I think your branding of potential sources as "conspiracy website[s]" probably says more about why you launched this AfD in the first place than anything else. You basic argument hinged on the suggestion that the article was "based on sources that have been made-up" which is patently untrue. One of the main aims of AfD (and this function is promoted with "find sources" prompts) is to encourage editors to find potential sources and put them up for discussion, the quantum of which should allow consensus to be reached about whether an article meets WP guidelines or not. More than happy for you to critique potential sources but suggesting that editors not contribute to your AfD nomination isn't helpful. The fact that you don't like particular points of view does not invalidate them. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. I'm sorry you feel you're being belittled. I am not suggesting people refrain from introducing material with which I disagree, I am suggesting people refrain from introducing material that doesn't meet WP:SOURCE. You have announced your intent to edit the entry to include blogs, self-published books and posts from a conspiracy theory website called STOPTHENORTHAMERICANUNION.COM. If you believe my requests for you not to engage in this behavior are a violation of WP:AFD, I suggest you raise the issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard. There's nothing more I can do to address your concerns if you believe this is valid material. Again, I'm sorry you're upset, however, the deletion page is not the correct forum to express that. Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Further to the above - I have now fixed some of the reference links and have updated others. Will try to introduce some of the aforementioned links into the article when I have a spare few minutes. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC). Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- PLEASE DO NOT. I'm sorry for the all-caps, but I need to emphasize this point. If you start introducing sources like blogs, WP:SELFPUBLISH books and websites called STOPTHENORTHAMERICANUNION.COM - as you've stated your intent to do - this whole maze is going to quickly become more undecipherable than it already is. As a courtesy to other editors, please don't touch the article with the "sources" you were able to "Google" until this AfD discussion has worked its way through. If you need help learning about WP:SOURCE please feel empowered to ask. Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 05:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your attempts to belittle and insult editors because they are moving in a direction contrary to what is (clearly now) you particular political persuasion is unhelpful. From the very top of the AfD page - "[...] including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately". Suggesting others refrain from editing articles because they might introduce material you disagree with is entirely contrary to the fundamental basics of WP. After all that, I strongly suggest you start by assuming good faith. I would suggest that doing so from the start would have resulted in you trying to fix this page rather than trying to have it deleted. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Stalwart. I'm sorry you feel you're being belittled. I am not suggesting people refrain from introducing material with which I disagree, I am suggesting people refrain from introducing material that doesn't meet WP:SOURCE. You have announced your intent to edit the entry to include blogs, self-published books and posts from a conspiracy theory website called STOPTHENORTHAMERICANUNION.COM. If you believe my requests for you not to engage in this behavior are a violation of WP:AFD, I suggest you raise the issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard. There's nothing more I can do to address your concerns if you believe this is valid material. Again, I'm sorry you're upset, however, the deletion page is not the correct forum to express that. Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I said you had attempted to and that it was unhelpful - it would take a lot more to make me "upset". It simply isn't a good way to go about consensus-building. It took only one comment from an editor with a different opinion of the AfD for you to suggest that putting alternate opinions was an attempt to "derail" your AfD and "not a productive use of the space on this page". You followed that up by sarcastically suggesting I might need help "learning about WP:SOURCE" and sarcastically suggesting I had a "firm command of Google" (all your own quotes). If you believe this is a constructive way to build consensus at this AfD then good luck to you - I would suggest you've done more than enough to ensure no admin will be able to wade through your insults to determine if consensus has been reached. Had you assumed good faith from the start (both with regard to me and with regard to the original author of the article in question) then I imagine we could have worked through most of the issues you raised with respect to the the original sources and could probably have done some collaborative work to determine if some new sources could be found. If nothing else, you were afforded general courtesy as a WP:NEWCOMER and I stated from the beginning that I believed this AfD had been raised in good faith. You have not done much since to justify that belief. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Once again, I'm sorry you're upset, however, the deletion page is not the correct forum to express that. Please limit your comments to the article. Thank you. BlueSalix ( talk) 08:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete this appears to be a blatant attempt to push POV and use non RS sources for political definition of the US federal government. I noticed that the article
United States government changed the use of the term
Representative democracy to constitutional republic and this does not appear to be accurate. The first source used by the Truman Library is a primary source, a children's edition (or page) and contains no authorship or way to verify the information...but more important is, it doesn't even use the term. This is clear synthesis and a non RS. Other sources may not meet threshold for criteria for use, but article lacks accurate and mainstream academic sources readily available--
Amadscientist (
talk)
17:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think it is worth mentioning that the definition of the US form of government has never fully been defined and in all references I am seeing that refer to "Constitutional Republic" (in academic, peer reviewed book sources) appear to be written as opinion in their prose and leave a great deal of room for interpretation. As another editor stated this article is not really about the US government but about the form of government as established as a Republican. For this reason it is unlikely that the sources for a US form of "strictly interpreted" constitutional republic would be due weight in this article and attempting to interpret the sources outside their context may be viewed as a form of biased or advocacy editing. My reasoning for deletion is simple. This article is already being used for such advocacy changes in other US government articles and looks like it may have been created as a content fork.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 19:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is essential to Wikipedia, in my view, but this article consists of original research. The article can be rewritten, but needs to be properly sourced. I would say that this should be just a temporary deletion. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - While there probably can be an article on the topic -- Texas textbooks calls U.S. a 'constitutional republic' rather than 'democratic -- it seems a better approach to delete and let an article creator present a draft to DRV and request that it be moved to article space. Most news articles that use "Constitutional republic" in the article title are letters to the editor or opinions. However, two articles that might be used for the topic are Through the Lens of a Constitutional Republic and History gets conservative stamp in Texas textbooks Social studies curriculum calls U.S. a 'constitutional republic' rather than 'democratic.'. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 04:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Fringe, POV-pushing article as written, based on a few obscure opinion sources. Fails WP:OR too with a fair bit of unsourced text interpolating between its meager references; the best example of this is the pargraph trying to prove--without any secondary sources--that "The notion of the constitutional republic originates with Aristotle's Politics". (What's next? An article called the greatest country, because there are sources like [41] [42] and I can find the phrase in Google Books too?) Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Tillinghast, KJ. Kittyhawks. KJ Tillinghast. p. 375. ISBN 9781463764456.
- ^ Nick Wynne, Richard Moorhead (2010). Florida in World War II: Floating Fortress. The History Press. pp. n.p. ISBN 9781596299290.
-
^
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123194315.
{{ cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=( help)