Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panetics

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. No sources, notability not established, even in the stubified form.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panetics

Panetics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Incoherent nonsense. John (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I made an effort to clean this one up, but after finding virtually no significant sources unconnected with the founder or the organisation, slapped a {{cleanup}} on it and left a note on the talk page. As in its current form it seems un-clean-uppable (as per the note on the talkpage, I had to go to the organisation's own website to even work out what this page was supposed to be about), delete unless radically improved by the end of this discussion. Also at present fails to demonstrate that it has any notability outside of its own membership. — iridescent 23:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete fundamentally unverifiable form independent sources, everything I could find tracks back to one man and one website. Virtually nothing on Google to work from, either. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Regardless of the way this article is written, if the consensus decides that the subject matter isn't notable enough to warrant a cleanup attempt, we should probably consider Ralph G.H. Siu for deletion as well, as he doesn't seem to have any assertion of notability outside of this field. I will await the decision on this before starting a debate on him...or alternatively we could just lump it in with this one. Tx17777 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Although Siu's article isn't up to much, his military record looks interesting enough that it could probably pass WP:N. It would probably take someone with specialist knowledge to write it, as Googling his name would probably be swamped with hits from this pseudoreligion. (Of course, expanding the article on him would mean mention panetics... which would create a redlink... which would be filled...) — iridescent 23:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per iridescent and JZG - and delete the other article too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- essentially one person's theory with very limited reception. --Pjacobi (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While much of what the Humanistic Psychology movement generated sounds like nonsense to the average reader, it was a huge deal in the 70s and is hardly obscure. Perhaps an edit with further explanation should be suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ByronHudson (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above; also very, very hard to understand for someone who has no experience in the field to understand. If that could be remedied and sources could be found, sure, let's recreate it... Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no apparent assertion of notability Dlabtot (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. See here for example concerning notability. But of course the article has to be improved. <KF> 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: as it currently stands, the article is nonsensical because it is totally confusing and because it is attempting to discuss what appears to be a psychological, political, physical & philosophical subject with unsubstantiated religious-based implications. If someone can fix this article, I am willing to change my mind to keep. One article that I found that seemed relevant is here: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__cat/_c1836/Culture, but I am not an expert in this subject matter. Mh29255 (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Strangely, some who vote "keep" and others who vote "delete" want the same thing: a good article on the subject. Could we, as a sort of compromise, reduce this article to a stub, add this deletion discussion (which includes some sources) to its talk page and wait for someone knowledgeable to come along and expand it? <KF> 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This topic appears to be notable, but needs to be stubified. If no-one will do it, I will have to say it ca not be fixed and thus must be deleted. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment one man and one website ?? pseudoreligious ?? Siu wrote in 1964 "TAO OF SCIENCE" with one of the top established scientific publishers: Whiley: The Tao of Science: An Essay on Western Knowledge and Eastern Wisdom http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Science-Western-Knowledge-Eastern/dp/0262690047 - or SAGE as mentioned in the refernces - maybe someone can look outside of the box or certain jargon or concepts and bridge concepts and cultures - I feel lost as I have added some links and refences - to well known people like Johan_Galtung [1] - who spoke at Ralph Siu's grave an eulogy.

Siu's work is in the Library of Congress and the volumes are sold by his Panetics Society. So the question is "who can find another expert and can we afford anesthetics of and piecemeal wisdom. Another question would be to revisit groupthink and clanthink. (Warfield [2] - another member and collegue of the late Siu's ISP society) --Benking

• Delete if someone finds sources that show the topic is notable and uses them as the basis of a referenced, coherent article that is 100% verifiable and contains no original research I have no objection. However such an article would have nothing in common with the headache inducing mess that currently inhabits the page.[[Guest9999 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]]
• Delete. The only independent source seems to be the citation noted by User:KF, which is a mention in one chapter in a Ph.D. thesis. If the article is not deleted, it should definitely be stubified. Hal peridol (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and improve and find native editor. The Delete entries above seem strange to me. The PhD Thesis of Goppold is nice but not on the level of life-time contributions of Ralph- GH Siu. Have you ever tried A9 (by AMAZON) [3] or Google Scholar or academic repositories ! References to Publishers like Wiley, Sage, MIT, ... and national sources are included in MY CONTRIBUTION and in entry of Ralph_G_H_Siu but that looks like being deleted last night. Strange procedures and conduct you maintain here in such discussions. I am awfully sorry that i am not a native speaker and have normally no time for exercises such as this !- how should i call it "Deletionism" ?? my advise would be: 1. explicitly display the evidence and reasoning that justifies a particular point of view; 2. refrain from using ad hominem attacks, slogans, epithets; 3. Suspend judgment until after having read the relevant texts, ....

and inform the original author - like me - when people like Siu are deleted without any information or discussion. I met Jimmy Wales when he was in Berlin some years ago - maybe he should revisit the "Deletionism" exercised at his "WIKIPEDIA" - as I feel there are many people with much sympathy but feel discussions like above look strange. This are my 5 cents - maybe some more and diverse reviewers are needed with WIKIPEDIA and laws like requisite variety should be applied, and if the typically user can not judge "a new science" and so stays on the surface and hide so statements can not be seen in context. --Benking —Preceding comment was added at 13:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment I did inform you of this article's listing here. --John (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like nonsense to me Pilotbob (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a stub and Improve. As prominent people like secretaries of state and Peace Studies founder Johan Galtung speak at Ralph Siu Memoriam lectures, this cannot be considered valueless. Comp.: Individual(!) "Human Rights" was introduced to the UN by Mrs. Roosevelt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Roosevelt, and is well known but not well established today. China (focussed on collective service) and Arab world denounce it as being a western idea only, based on values of Humanism and Christianity; there is no "natural" deduction of human rights. Would you therefore consider the philosophical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism as a pseudo-religion? In the "west", the "new" credo of individual human rights of self-development, incl WOMEN and CHILDREN, is so new that Human Rights education is still in its beginnings and the first curricula are now only being tested in European schools. UNESCO's special rapporteur recently complained about human rights daily being abused in german schools and a coalition of 100+ large german organisations is now promotion a change in elarning culture http://www.national-coalition.de/ -- In the East, the reduction of suffering is a central issue, and it was for example a central teaching of the young, future Chinese Emperor to reduce the people's suffering (this was NOT the case in Europe!). In this tradition, we can see Bhutan's governance principle Gross National Happiness, which measures not only economical, but also ecol., spir. and cult. wealth (the Queen held this speech as opened of the "Global Dialogue on Poverty and Wealth" at Universal World Exhibition expo2000 in Hannover, 2000), and thus decided for ecol. protection measures in the constitution. This is discussed as a good practice example in eco-socially responsible governance for sustainable development, internationally - easy to the eastern worldview but not to the western, which is why Siu developed this approach to be further developed in humanist studies and education. A similar "thinking model" is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Footprint, which is also only a general idea (an NO WAY a scientifically viable detailed approach) that indeed functions to nurture perception for global reosurce cycle issues and adopt more sustainable consumption patterns. -- Panetics are a step to "visualise" and "quantify" suffering (for example of Iraqi people vs benefits of getting rid of Saddam Hussein); suffering (not profits) is yet neglected in political decision-making neglected just because it is "out of sight, out of mind". Panetics is an approach to develop such thinking models. -- A problem here is that amateurs without knowledge of deep knowledge of cultures, religions, ethics, values, humanities, worldviews and their VERY concrete implications for governance are judging things inappropriately: pseudo-religion etc., which reminds me of the racist South African government 20 years back. -- My job usually is to bridge cultures and translate between ideas to make things understandable: which is - I absolutely agree - the purpose of an encyclopedia entry. I offer to get involved in developing this STUB into a legible and comprehensible article. I think it makes sense in the world today, to at least get the word and step towards reduction of suffering into the WEST's encyclopedia. Deleting it is quite a symbol! -- SUGGESTION: Give it a month, since this requires research for sources and links to other wikipedia entries dealing with related Eastern philosophy etc issues, and I can work towards an article, - with 1 wikipedia expert to have a look now and again on improvement concerning wikipedia ecycl. code: someone who has appreciation for the article and to see it developed, with some basic competence in intercult., humanities, cultures - not someone denouncing such as babble and nonsense (while admitting not having understood a thing; come on, people...). Well, there are in fact people that understand it. The thing is to rewrite it so people without academic education understand it. I offer joining in, but not tonight. Patience, please, and a contact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weltgeist (talk • contribs)
• Delete As written, it's pretty much nonsensical. The problem with the reasoning of (paraphrasing) "let's keep it, we'll clean it up someday" is that, historically, it rarey if ever works. Wikipedia is a top-10 website with the eyes of the world upon it. There's no excuse for keeping articles this poor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as outlined numerous times above, this article is just so much nonsense. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is a misunderstanding about this article. User:Benking should be forgiven for having created rather clumsily a valid entry on a difficult topic. Panetics, despite its exotic terminology, is not a fringe science but a proposed discipline in social science: as such, it is just an idea among others. Is it an idea 'notable' enough to be included in this encyclopedia? The answer can only be a resounding YES, not because a lot of people know about panetics, but because dozens of highly qualified people have, quite independently, subscribed to it: suffice it to name Kenneth Boulding, Johann Galtung, Anthony Judge, and Ralph Siu himself who is a highly respected author deserving an entry for himself. In addition to Professor Goppold's work mentioned here above, there is a 1997 Ph.D. thesis by Russell Doyle Amerson entitled The universal duty to alleviate suffering: an ethical grounding for Siu's new discipline of panetics. The International Society for Panetics has been founded in 1991 by some sixty scientists, physicians, business leaders, scholars, artists and writers from several countries. The Society is more or less dormant by now, but it was quite active in the nineties. As showed in the article Suffering, panetics is still nowadays one of the few approaches that are proposed in the social sciences for dealing with the phenomenon of suffering in a specialized, specific, or systematic manner. User:Weltgeist volunteers for improving the article. I will help this person (contact me on my user page). And I will 'stubify' the entry immediately. Others contributors are welcome, of course. Robert Daoust (talk) 00:26, 8 January 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.