Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bias disorder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep and Improve. There also seems to be a general consensus to rename the article, or at least explicitly state in the article that this "disorder" has been historically called other things. The sources linked here (Washington Post and Blackwell) seem to back up a notability claim. Tagging article for post-AfD cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bias disorder
The article itself notes that the disorder has not yet gained acceptance, neither Google News nor Scholar (the hits are talking about sample bias) are familiar with it. None of the ghits appear reliable -- forums or different context and the sources contained in the article are one that questions whether it could be a disorder, a dead link and one that doesn't mention it at all (full text is available at the link. I see no evidence that this is notable or verifiable Travellingcari (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Psychologists and psychiatrists have been discussing bias disorder seriously for many years now, so I wouldn't dismiss it too quickly as unnotable or unverifiable. I've read articles about it in reputable journals, and it was covered in one of my university courses. It's probably not found in Google Scholar because most of the sources are offline, and because it goes by various names. While one of the sources listed doesn't seem to be about the disorder, another is from the Washington Post, which is certainly reliable. I found an additional source here. Many times, offline sources outnumber online sources but are less convenient to find and post. That seems to be the case here. Valerius (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment where do you see coverage from the Washington Post? I haven't come across that anywhere. I'm not disagreeing because I can't prove it, obviously, but I find it difficult to believe these sources would be all offline since it's a fairly recent phenomenon and Google Scholar has indexed the articles and abstracts in a large number of scholarly journals. The article as it stands is solely Original Research with no sourcing whatsoever. Travellingcari (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note Text of WaPo article here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment where do you see coverage from the Washington Post? I haven't come across that anywhere. I'm not disagreeing because I can't prove it, obviously, but I find it difficult to believe these sources would be all offline since it's a fairly recent phenomenon and Google Scholar has indexed the articles and abstracts in a large number of scholarly journals. The article as it stands is solely Original Research with no sourcing whatsoever. Travellingcari (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Too speculative per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep but needs rewrite/rename. The more commonly accepted term for this proposed diagnosis is pathological bias -- although that phrase can mean things like a bias toward pathology in research. There are already several books that have raised the issue of whether this should be in DSM-V.[1]. [2] professional opinion piece, another. There's an article here, but it would need careful sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The actual condition is just an extreme form of bigotry or xenophobia for which there are numerous overlapping articles already. The topic is just one of classification or taxonomy and so might best go in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders#DSM-V planning. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The links I provided discuss it in greater depth than just as a proposed DSM-V classification. In fact I was wondering whether an article title cadged from one that is already out there, Racism and mental illness, would be another way to pursue it. You don't think the question of whether bigotry is a type of mental illness is a topic in itself? Well, WP:N says otherwise. In any case, your argument above is exactly the heart of the controversy -- that is, whether it is just an "extreme form of bigotry". --Dhartung | Talk 12:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete I sincerely doubt this will get in the DSM. The possible sense in which it could be taken is too politically controversial in itself. It would be like some eras of russian and other country's history, when people with political views not in line with the regime were labeled 'insane' and put in asylums. Perhaps merge a small amount to racism or bigotry or another such article, not saying this is the same as them, but this view could be discussed there.Merkinsmum 13:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- week keep it seems to just about meet notability with Washington Post article, an another radio interviewon Weekend America. The article does need to make clear that it is in the theory stage and several other terms have been used "pathological bigotry", "pathological hatred," "racial paranoia," "extreme racial bias," and "pathological bias." --Salix alba (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2008 (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.
