Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyranny of the majority

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 20:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tyranny of the majority

Non-constructive page inappropriately written in the project namespace, by an anonymous user who keeps trying to unilaterally change policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Assume that this page was an attempt to add weight to his debate, but it has no place in the project namespace. (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk 19:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to clean up the ranting but it should still go. Not an accepted policy page. FYI this was written by DotSix, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix for more information. Rhobite 19:07, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Agreed, not a Wikipedia policy, has no place in the namespace. I can't understand any of his arguments in the NPOV discussion, but my guess is that any arguments made here should go there. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 19:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there isn't even a policy in it. If anything it should be userfied, but the author is an anon. -Splash 19:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed there is no policy on it. Perhaps a non-policy page about the phrase might be appropriate (the search kept sending me to On Liberty by JS Mill), but as a policy page this definitely is not appropriate. Dot six has had plenty of opportunities to make his minority views known, and to write them as parts of existing articles reflecting alternative viewpoints to the mainstream in those articles. Instead he/she has generally attempted to REMOVE viewpoints other than his own, leaving no discussion. In my opinion, that is just a different kind of tyranny--of the minority. WhiteC 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mill coined the term in On Liberty. It's a well-known concept, perhaps there should be an article about it. Rhobite 19:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Has no content relevant to Wiki policy. Any discussion of NPOV should occur on that policy page. Furthermore a proliferation of pages such as this would be detrimental to the readability and usability of the policy pages. Banno 21:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --63.231.15.66 21:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. Pavel Vozenilek 00:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Must keep, there is no alternative, if Wikipedia is to be true to it's basic principles consistently throughout. As I understand it, a basic Wikipedia principle is that dispute resolution concerning content is not telling the other side anything like, "You are outnumbered here, and the majority rules, so get lost" it is principled negotiation, aka consensus decision making (find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both sides). As this principle is explained by Wikipedia, quote, "Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or 'splitting the difference' is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --67.182.157.6 02:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Font 02:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is uncivil. Robert McClenon 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to VfD etiquette, quote,

Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.

That makes the ad hominem personal attack comments of Rhobite, Asbestos, WhiteC, et al above totally inappropriate here, and each of those writers should take it upon himself to edit them out, if they are principled individuals interested in honoring Wikipedia policy. The policy is comment on CONTENT, not on the contributor.

Such comments about the contributor are in the nature of poisoning the well.

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person writes by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore ANYTHING person A writes or has written is suspect, and should be deleted, even if the thing written quotes Wikipedia policy, and serves as a reasonable expansion of that policy.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject anything he or she writes or has written. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as valid argument against any statements he or she might make. So, Poisoning the Well, a form of argument ad Homimem, is reasonably summarily dismissed as logical fallacy. --172.192.207.229 20:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote is by the author of the page, User:67.182.157.6, of course. Not only is he violating policy by using a sockpuppet to vote more than once, he also removed the VfD tag from the page. But I suppose these are minor transgressions when compared to my blatant ad hominem obscurantist argumentum numerum unprincipled fallacious behavior. Rhobite 01:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

New ad hominem personal attack by Mr. Rhobite deleted. He should know better, being an Administrator and all. The policy is discuss content, not contributors. Shame shame, Mr. Rhobite. -- 172.196.123.246 03:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced my comment and blocked you from editing. Each time you remove a comment from now on I will block you from editing Wikipedia for a period of time. Enough games. Rhobite 03:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Question - Rhobite says, "The above vote ... violating policy by using a sockpuppet to vote more than once." What I am wondering is where does anyone get the idea it is a vote? Doesn't the "Comment" label on it make it clear (to everyone who has read the instructions for VfD) that it is not a vote, it is only a comment? --172.194.206.204 15:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DotSix, I purposely did not mention that you were involved in an RfC. That said, I did think it necessary to mention your exploits at WP:NPOV, as it provides background for the reasoning behind this page you created. Although we have an important principle on Wikipedia to assume good faith, a user's intentions cannot be ignored. If this were created by someone who had already made many good contributions to the encyclopedia, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt for a while and see what they were going to do with the page (though, if they left it in the state this one is in, I'd either recommend they did something positive with it or I'd propose it for VfD anyway — I don't have double-standards). In this case, however, it is clear, from my point of view, that this page was not created in good faith but rather was created as a rhetorical device for your arguments on Truth-related pages and the RfC. Also, as an aside, you keep quoting Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers as a shield behind which you can protect yourself from criticism. You have been around here since April, so you would need a fairly long-view of time to consider to still consider you a newcommer. Not bothering to make a user account isn't the same thing as being new. — Asbestos | Talk 09:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just more lame argument ad hominem/personal attack/poisoning the well, rather than sticking to the relevant policy, "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? --172.194.206.204 15:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The above argument only refers to things you have done which are relevant to the discussion. WhiteC 21:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Canderson7 20:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~ -- I have thoughts both ways, the article as it exists now does not seem very beneficial, but could it be improved? --Mysidia 21:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Now I recognize that the page appears not to belong in the project namespace: Tyranny of the Majority as it is described is a prejudicial term for the concept of Majority Rule or Majoritarian Democracy, but we already have WP:NOT and other articles in the main article space on the subject of Democracy, so the page seems to just inherently pose a certain point of view, namely, an idea similar to Anarchist philosophy where things resembling democracies or ruling by majority (respecting groups of people over the individual) are tyrannical. -Mysidia 04:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- although it needs work. I'm reminded of the gun in the Hitchhiker movie that causes the targeted person to see the point of view of the person (or depressed robot) firing it. A very neat weapon, such a gun. I like to think of wikipedia as a community of fellow inquirers always seeking to resolve disputes by seeing the other disputant's point of view ... and the refusal to do that, the reliance upon numbers as a substitute, deserves some sort of derogatory label, surely! Since we're not an advanced enough species to have invented that gun yet. Also, please note that I've been around since March 2004, made thousands of contributions, and accordingly this vote can't be written off as that of anyone's sock puppet. --Christofurio 23:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Okay, fine. Though I disagree that the arguments here are ad hominem, here is a further justification of my delete vote. This article has two parts:
- - A description of Tyranny of the Majority and its relation to Wikipedia policies
  - A commentary on another Wikipedia policy (here the NPOV rule)
- The first is invalid here because any information on applying Tyranny of the Majority ideas should be in the policy section that it covers (for example, don't talk about the VfD policy, rather, add this to it). However, you are unable to do so because others do not agree with your assessment. Also, because "Tyranny of the Majority" is not a Wikipedia policy, is not meant to be a policy, and is in fact intended as a contrast to an existing policy, it does not deserve its own page, especially not in the Wikipedia namespace.
- The second is invalid here because it is a POV commentary, and therefore belongs on the Talk page of the relevant policy, in this case the NPOV, in an attempt to change such a policy. However, you are again unable to do this, because the people on said page are unwilling to agree with you for one reason or another.
- If you wish to have an article discussing your interpretation, you are welcome to put it in your user space. you can direct people there as an explanation of your beliefs. But it is undeserving of its own article. There you go. Not at all ad hominem. Enjoy. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 19:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tεx τ urε 19:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no purpose in the WP namespace. ~~ N (t/c) 21:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just the final nail in the coffin. Borisblue 08:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's over five days, and 15 to 2 in the votes makes a "rough consensus", I guess. Is there an admin who would lie to do the honours? Banno 07:34, August 7, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.