Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in governance

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 - 4 keep/15 delete (78% to delete) Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in governance

Irreparably point-of-view and intrinsically useless because none of these problems can be objectively "solved" like in other "unsolved problems" articles. Any material of this type can go to an article on social issues. Neutrality^talk 00:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originally filed under delete, to clarify

The title alone is POV and the content is even more so. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originally filed under delete, to clarify

Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The degree of development of a subject can be assessed by the list of items which the practitioners admit are unsolved. Thus physics and mathematics have a large and growing list of unsolved problems. Assuming that governance is a proper concept or subject of study, like physics or control theory, then it should be possible to state a list of the objects of study for the subject. If some item of the list currently cannot be solved, as in physics, then a description of that item can be added to this article. It's like the description of an addiction; the first step toward recovery is to admit you have a problem. Even the concepts of physics were once controversial. People have been burned at the stake for stating a principle of physics. So too for this subject. Ancheta Wis 01:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC) This is not to say that the items in the list might not be POV. But that is an agenda for discussion of each item. Note that there has been theoretical progress in this subject. See Nash equilibrium and Iterated prisoner's dilemma for solved problems in this subject.[reply]

Comment, not a vote. I'm not sure if these two solved problems are properly considered part of governance. I think the real concern is that "problems" are not adequately specifiable in this domain that would allow someone to decide if a problem is solved or not. In physics there is experimental data that is either accounted for by the theory or not (yes, yes, I know there are fuzzy boundaries to this problem). In this sense its clear when a problem is solved. But, what exactly is the problem of "war"? And what sorts of things would lead the relevant scientific community to consider the problem solved? If there aren't undisputed answers to these questions, there is some serious worry about POV. I think this is a serious concern here since we don't have a large number of scientists as contributors and so we could easily be the place for one or two scientists to POV push. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your "solved problems" in governance are really solved problems in psychology, no? Neutrality^talk 02:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More than anything, they are solved problems in mathematics. Whether the Nash equilibrium and prisoner's dilemma are in fact related to human behavior is itself an unanswered question. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from Nash equilibrium (NE) article: However, as a theoretical concept in economics, and evolutionary biology the NE has great explanatory power: Ancheta Wis 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's sometimes a useful model for human behovior doesn't answer the fundamental questions of when, where, and to whom it is most applicable. And certainly, for the behaviors modeled under this sort of game theory there are other competing explanations. The point I was trying to make is that the only sense in which Nash equilibria are a "solved problem" is that we have worked out the mathematics. The application of this branch of game theory to political science questions remains at issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thus Nash equilibrium is a model (abstract), an idealization which can make scientific reasoning about the subject easier. That is, governance is a subject which can be modelled. That is an advance in the art. Ancheta Wis 07:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV but more importantly apparently original research. Looks terrible in comparison with the analogous articles for computer science, mathematics, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the state of development of this subject looks terrible. You have to start somewhere in a wiki. Even the concepts of mathematics were primitive and undeveloped at one time. But the statement of rules of the game is an important part of the subject. The word governance and the root word for cybernetics are part of control theory. Ancheta Wis 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who is from a country that has been ravaged by war would see that its occurrence is a problem. You can be on the side of the victor in a war and still lose big-time. Ancheta Wis 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there is a competing POV that war can be good, consider Just war theory, but in any case the main point is that this appears to be original research. I'm happy to change my vote if this turns out not to be the case. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RAND Corporation, one of the original research corporations in the US, was an employer of John Nash, the Nobel Economics laureate. They currently perform studies in governance and social policy, as well as their original charter as consultants to the US military. They were originally a USAF thinktank which was spun off from the aerospace industry in Southern California after World War II. It is quite rational for a military organization to study war and its mitigation, thus RAND can propose solutions for the problems. The unsolved problems list is the obverse. Ancheta Wis 08:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. --fvw * 05:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there's certainly an article in there somewhere and there quite an edit history to this so maybe it will emerge. Perhaps some references to established and published work would be a good step forward. Dlyons493 07:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename List of unsolved problems for Governance or List of unsolved problems in Civics. I have added it to the Civics category where it clearly belongs. As stated above any area of thought benefits from its unsolved problems being clearly stated rather than avoided. The article should remain a list and not become a Forum for discussion of its members ( except perhaps on its discussion page). Where is the research? This is just a list, all lists on Wikipedia could be considered original work. Lumos3 08:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In its current form, the article is devoid of content. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 23 September 2005

(UTC)

Delete Lacking content and it seems that it is itself loaded with unsolved problems of its own. Stu 12:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term problem in the context of social or politics or governance implies unresolvable POV conflicts, as the article itself admits. Thus, the title itself is unresolvable POV, even if renamed. This is different to the definition of problem as used, for example, in mathematics, and the two should not be compared. Groeck 15:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mish-mash MONGO 17:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly POV topic and can really never be more than a matter of opinion. Why are cults a problem for governance in a free society? What's to stop me from removing "war" from the article if I believe my government should grind all others into the ground militarily? This article is just going to spawn an endless edit war as people on both sides of an argument attempt to make a WP:POINT.--Isotope23 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, unless convincing sources supplied. Charles Matthews 19:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopelessly POV. --Carnildo 22:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and intrinsically POV. MCB 01:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay topic. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the delete reasons given above are reasons for the article to be marked {{cleanup}} or {{attention}}, not {{afd}} or {{delete}}. ··gracefool |☺ 08:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an encyclopedia article, no references provided. Quale 07:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.