Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progonoplexia
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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Progonoplexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be a neologism that has gained little traction - most cited sources are referencing the same original use and it has little acceptance elsewhere. The description given it by the creating editor was simply a discussion of the history and prevalence of genealogy itself and not this supposed fixation. Alternative - redirect to Genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete. Not enough sources for a Wikipedia article, which means the term is not notable. Might be suitable for inclusion in Wiktionary if it's not already there. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There were two others from Oxford University and Cambridge University. They have been removed as part of some sort of ongoing harrassment by Agricolae to cover up his forged king lists, that I have recently been correcting for him. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On reevaluation, I see the reason for my confusion with the original use of the sources regarding the term progonoplexia - the majority of them do not relate to genealogy at all, but to obsession of the Greeks with their national/cultural heritage and history. See Talk:Progonoplexia. Note that this does not change the assessment - it is still a neologism. It still hasn't gained traction. It still does not mean what it was being described as meaning (I have tried to fix this) and all of the uses appear to relate back to the single original coining. What is different is that most users of the term are not referring to genealogy at all, so a redirect to that page, as suggested as an alternative to deletion, would not be appropriate. Rather, nationalism might be the better target. Agricolae (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On reevaluation, I meant to call your behaviour annoying, the lowest form of harrassment. No personal attack intended, although criticism of your behaviour. I'll go and sort this article out for you better. The lede is a mess. This word is Ancient Greek, so obviously it's gained some traction and wasn't coined by Richard Clogg as suggested (will be back with a page number for you very shortly). If it had been coined in modern times, it would just have been called Ancestoritis wouldn't it? This does display another major flaw in your consideration and understanding of history. There were archaeologists in classical times too you know. They had a greek word for them too (although I can't remember it). Anyhow, moving on. Can't we just be buddies and create lovely big pages with lovely complete genealogies of the Book of Life of the Lamb on for everyone with Ancestoritis to go and study? It's not about nationalism if we all go back to Gods. It's about uniting the planet with that understanding to bring peace and brotherhood to one and all. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out we were both wrong, it's modern Greek. I've gone with - Progonoplexia, also called 'ancestoritis', is a term originally coined by George Theotokas to reflect the obsession with family history or ancestor worship. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- e/c Stephenson attributes the term to a modern, and applied it toward reverence for cultural forebearers, and Clogg is cited by the other sources in their use of the term. Thus the cited evidence gives no indication that it is anything but a freshly minted word. Given that it is explicitly referring to the reverence of the Greeks for their ancient national heritage, it would hardly be surprising were he to choose to express this with an Ancient Greek word form. Many modern scientific and scholarly concepts are expressed with Greek- and Latin-derived words that have been newly coined for that purpose and do not date to Ancient Greek times. As an aside, the page for an AfD is not really the best place to sort out the fine details of a page. Agricolae (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On reevaluation, I meant to call your behaviour annoying, the lowest form of harrassment. No personal attack intended, although criticism of your behaviour. I'll go and sort this article out for you better. The lede is a mess. This word is Ancient Greek, so obviously it's gained some traction and wasn't coined by Richard Clogg as suggested (will be back with a page number for you very shortly). If it had been coined in modern times, it would just have been called Ancestoritis wouldn't it? This does display another major flaw in your consideration and understanding of history. There were archaeologists in classical times too you know. They had a greek word for them too (although I can't remember it). Anyhow, moving on. Can't we just be buddies and create lovely big pages with lovely complete genealogies of the Book of Life of the Lamb on for everyone with Ancestoritis to go and study? It's not about nationalism if we all go back to Gods. It's about uniting the planet with that understanding to bring peace and brotherhood to one and all. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On reevaluation, I see the reason for my confusion with the original use of the sources regarding the term progonoplexia - the majority of them do not relate to genealogy at all, but to obsession of the Greeks with their national/cultural heritage and history. See Talk:Progonoplexia. Note that this does not change the assessment - it is still a neologism. It still hasn't gained traction. It still does not mean what it was being described as meaning (I have tried to fix this) and all of the uses appear to relate back to the single original coining. What is different is that most users of the term are not referring to genealogy at all, so a redirect to that page, as suggested as an alternative to deletion, would not be appropriate. Rather, nationalism might be the better target. Agricolae (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There were two others from Oxford University and Cambridge University. They have been removed as part of some sort of ongoing harrassment by Agricolae to cover up his forged king lists, that I have recently been correcting for him. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If it's a neologism, it doesn't pass WP:NEO; if it's supposed to be an accepted term, it doesn't have enough reliable sources that discuss the concept as opposed to simply mentioning the term. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable neologism. No evidence that the term has caught on, whether within the scholarly community, or outside it. Sems to have been used by only one person. Extremely unlikely as a search term. Falls far short of our notability requirements as far as substantial mention in multiple reliable sources is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have done extensive work on the article with referenced in ten scholarly sources now to show how the term has caught on with mainstream academia and made a significant impact. New references speak of it's development in the early nineteenth century, and calling it a "key element of Greek identity". If a delete is decided, I would appreciate some consideration to move some of the latest contents to Arkhaiolatreia.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except they aren't really using it. They are talking about this Greek obsession and then they throw in the word to indicate that someone has given it a name. When a term has 'caught on', you would see it being used in normal speech - "the progonoplexia of the Greeks has led to . . ." as a term which the readers will be familiar with and will not need to be defined or referenced. The last two references added come close to that, but they still feel they have to define it, as is the case with newly coined words that nobody recognizes yet. Agricolae (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, I still get the feeling this article is being written from Google Books snippets, which is not a good way to go about things. Agricolae (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added another French source discussing it in normal speech to re-inforce, saying how it has spread to Turks, Armenians and Jewish people. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which does exactly the same thing - the first thing it does after using the word is feel the need to define what it means, to have an ancestor complex. Switching to another language doesn't help. Agricolae (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It defines it as an "idealogical movement", which is better termed a concept as in my original text and categorization. He is using it in a sentence to describe the spread and traction that it is gained. I think it should be replaced to make both points. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which does exactly the same thing - the first thing it does after using the word is feel the need to define what it means, to have an ancestor complex. Switching to another language doesn't help. Agricolae (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added another French source discussing it in normal speech to re-inforce, saying how it has spread to Turks, Armenians and Jewish people. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, I still get the feeling this article is being written from Google Books snippets, which is not a good way to go about things. Agricolae (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except they aren't really using it. They are talking about this Greek obsession and then they throw in the word to indicate that someone has given it a name. When a term has 'caught on', you would see it being used in normal speech - "the progonoplexia of the Greeks has led to . . ." as a term which the readers will be familiar with and will not need to be defined or referenced. The last two references added come close to that, but they still feel they have to define it, as is the case with newly coined words that nobody recognizes yet. Agricolae (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my comments at the bottom.Whatever the concerns about Google Books and language switching, this topic - genealogy/genealogical research obsession - appears notable.It cites a a variety of sources that admittedly don't specify "progonoplexia", but describe the same concept. Renaming wouldn't be inappropriate given the circumstances. dci | TALK 01:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- <sigh> That is not what the word means. Progonoplexia refers to the nationalistic obsession of Greeks with their ancient cultural forebearers, in spite of the fact that one author has misused the term. It has nothing to do with genealogical research at all, and not a single source says so. Agricolae (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I get your concerns about the article, and perhaps it ought to be renamed. Prognoplexia, as said above, might be better off at Wiktionary, but an article about the "genealogical obsession", renamed but with the article's sources, could be kept in some way. Otherwise, it could be merged into a section of Genealogy or something. dci | TALK 05:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And, by the way, the Zerubavel source appears to correlate progonoplexia to this obsession. dci | TALK 05:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It might except for two things. First, it is the only such reference to that usage, and anything that has only ever said by one author in one book is inherently unreliable, in addition to being non-notable. More importantly, Zerubavel explicitly cites Clogg as his source for his usage, and Clogg is not using it that way, but instead uses it to describe the Greek obsession with being the culture that founded culture. This shows that Zerubavel either made a mistake or made up his own new definition intentionally, but finding one author who misuses a word is not a good indication of it's usage. I also do not accept that 'genealogy obsession' is a valid topic. Yes. Genealogy is popular, and genealogist can be referred to as being obsessive, but so can numismatists, philatelists, football fans and those involved in all kinds of other hobbies and pastimes. However, obsession has a specific definiton and the fact that a lot of people do it or that there are TV shows about it doesn't qualify. Other than self-reverential somewhat ironic references to themselves as being obsessive, is this an actual phenomenon? Are there scholarly studies of this obsession? Is there a clinical definition or even a published case of a patient suffering from this obsession? NO. It is just wildly popular, and some people spend a lot of time doing it, but we don't have a page on obsessive stamp collecting, or obsessive gardening, or obsessive weightlifting. Genealogical obsession is not a valid topic for Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But couldn't the tendency of a particular culture, or groups of cultures, to maintain a stronger degree of genealogic interest than others (if mentioned explicity and correctly in reliable sources) be considered notable? I believe the article and its associated sources demonstrate this. dci | TALK 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not following you. What sources associated with the article show this to be the case. The original usage of the term is not a reference to genealogy at all, but cultural identity. There may be a place on Wikipedia to mention in passing that genealogy is more popular in Utah than in Arkansas, but that is hardly the basis for a Wikipedia page. The popularity of gardening is an appropriate subject for the page on gardening - we don't need a separate Popularity of Gardening page, and the same applies to genealogy. If it's popularity is to be discussed, Genealogy is the place to do that, not a separate page. Agricolae (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not referring to popularity, but to a culturally-recognized or encouraged trait regarding genealogic interest or research. I believe the article establishes, using reliable sources, the existence of such traits, and in culture groups of nations, not examples like Utah. dci | TALK 06:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now not following you at all. The article doesn't have a single source that points to such a thing as you are describing. The Greek thing, which all but one of the references describe, has nothing to do with genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Greek thing itself describes what I am referring to; modern Greeks, according to the article and its sources, have a special and culturally-significant reverence (the recognized trait) for ancestors and related genealogic obsessions. I was merely relating the specific instance to a broader view. dci | TALK 06:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them are talking about the argument by some Greeks that an Ancient Greek language should be taught rather than modern vernacular Greek. They don't say they are interested in genealogy at all. (Please quote the words in the sources cited in the article that indicates that the Greeks are more prone to obsession over their personal genealogy, as opposed to their cultural origins. I don't remember one, although it has been a few days since I looked through them.) Agricolae (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Progonoplexia (ancestor obsession) and arkhaiolatreia (excessive reverence for antiquity) are key elements in the modern Greek identity". That's Norman Berdichevsky's Nations, Language, and Citizenship, on page 225.[1] dci | TALK 07:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And where is the mention of genealogy? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here of what the sources are referring to when they say 'ancestor'. Were one to say, "The ancestors of the modern Guatemalans were the Mayans who built the pyramids," that is not a genealogical statement but a cultural one. It is not saying that your average Guatemalan spends hours on Ancestry.com researching their family tree and can trace it in an unbroken line to a Mayan, but rather that the Mayans represent the predecessors of the population. When these authors talk of the Greeks having an ancestor obsession, they are using the term in the same sense. They are not claiming that the Greeks are more prone to research their family tree - they are saying that the modern Greeks venerate the ancient Greeks. That is all. There is nothing genealogical about it, and this is clear from the surrounding text. I don't think a one of them talk about genealogy itself. Agricolae (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the difference, which you've pointed out, between ancestry and ancestor-specific genealogy; the author seems to divide quite clearly between the two with progonoplexia, referring to genealogic ancestor reverence, and arkhaiolatreia, referring to reverence of an "ancestral" epoch or culture. dci | TALK 07:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except he doesn't - he is just listing two related terms. It was never intended to establish a dichotomous division. The two aren't parallel terms - one is the reverence for all things ancient, and the other is getting hung up on the fact that the ancient stuff was made by one's own people (generic, not genealogic). All of the early sources for the word progonoplexia make explicit reference to the arguments over which form of the language should be taught and irredentism and nationalism, ethnicity and culture. Not a single one of them refers to genealogy. Since when do the meaning of words on Wikipedia come from editors' deductions anyhow? Are there any references that talk of Greek progonoplexia that mention genealogy specifically? Again, I don't remember any. A GB search for progonoplexia only turns up 44 matches, which does not speak well for its notability. A GB search for progonoplexia and genealogy turns up just two. One is explicitly talking about "national genealogy" - the concept of the modern Greek state being the direct descendant of the Byzantine Empire, and the other is Zerubavel, who misused the term as we have already seen. It just doesn't refer to genealogy in any sense. Agricolae (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the difference, which you've pointed out, between ancestry and ancestor-specific genealogy; the author seems to divide quite clearly between the two with progonoplexia, referring to genealogic ancestor reverence, and arkhaiolatreia, referring to reverence of an "ancestral" epoch or culture. dci | TALK 07:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And where is the mention of genealogy? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here of what the sources are referring to when they say 'ancestor'. Were one to say, "The ancestors of the modern Guatemalans were the Mayans who built the pyramids," that is not a genealogical statement but a cultural one. It is not saying that your average Guatemalan spends hours on Ancestry.com researching their family tree and can trace it in an unbroken line to a Mayan, but rather that the Mayans represent the predecessors of the population. When these authors talk of the Greeks having an ancestor obsession, they are using the term in the same sense. They are not claiming that the Greeks are more prone to research their family tree - they are saying that the modern Greeks venerate the ancient Greeks. That is all. There is nothing genealogical about it, and this is clear from the surrounding text. I don't think a one of them talk about genealogy itself. Agricolae (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Progonoplexia (ancestor obsession) and arkhaiolatreia (excessive reverence for antiquity) are key elements in the modern Greek identity". That's Norman Berdichevsky's Nations, Language, and Citizenship, on page 225.[1] dci | TALK 07:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them are talking about the argument by some Greeks that an Ancient Greek language should be taught rather than modern vernacular Greek. They don't say they are interested in genealogy at all. (Please quote the words in the sources cited in the article that indicates that the Greeks are more prone to obsession over their personal genealogy, as opposed to their cultural origins. I don't remember one, although it has been a few days since I looked through them.) Agricolae (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Greek thing itself describes what I am referring to; modern Greeks, according to the article and its sources, have a special and culturally-significant reverence (the recognized trait) for ancestors and related genealogic obsessions. I was merely relating the specific instance to a broader view. dci | TALK 06:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now not following you at all. The article doesn't have a single source that points to such a thing as you are describing. The Greek thing, which all but one of the references describe, has nothing to do with genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not referring to popularity, but to a culturally-recognized or encouraged trait regarding genealogic interest or research. I believe the article establishes, using reliable sources, the existence of such traits, and in culture groups of nations, not examples like Utah. dci | TALK 06:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not following you. What sources associated with the article show this to be the case. The original usage of the term is not a reference to genealogy at all, but cultural identity. There may be a place on Wikipedia to mention in passing that genealogy is more popular in Utah than in Arkansas, but that is hardly the basis for a Wikipedia page. The popularity of gardening is an appropriate subject for the page on gardening - we don't need a separate Popularity of Gardening page, and the same applies to genealogy. If it's popularity is to be discussed, Genealogy is the place to do that, not a separate page. Agricolae (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But couldn't the tendency of a particular culture, or groups of cultures, to maintain a stronger degree of genealogic interest than others (if mentioned explicity and correctly in reliable sources) be considered notable? I believe the article and its associated sources demonstrate this. dci | TALK 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It might except for two things. First, it is the only such reference to that usage, and anything that has only ever said by one author in one book is inherently unreliable, in addition to being non-notable. More importantly, Zerubavel explicitly cites Clogg as his source for his usage, and Clogg is not using it that way, but instead uses it to describe the Greek obsession with being the culture that founded culture. This shows that Zerubavel either made a mistake or made up his own new definition intentionally, but finding one author who misuses a word is not a good indication of it's usage. I also do not accept that 'genealogy obsession' is a valid topic. Yes. Genealogy is popular, and genealogist can be referred to as being obsessive, but so can numismatists, philatelists, football fans and those involved in all kinds of other hobbies and pastimes. However, obsession has a specific definiton and the fact that a lot of people do it or that there are TV shows about it doesn't qualify. Other than self-reverential somewhat ironic references to themselves as being obsessive, is this an actual phenomenon? Are there scholarly studies of this obsession? Is there a clinical definition or even a published case of a patient suffering from this obsession? NO. It is just wildly popular, and some people spend a lot of time doing it, but we don't have a page on obsessive stamp collecting, or obsessive gardening, or obsessive weightlifting. Genealogical obsession is not a valid topic for Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And, by the way, the Zerubavel source appears to correlate progonoplexia to this obsession. dci | TALK 05:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I get your concerns about the article, and perhaps it ought to be renamed. Prognoplexia, as said above, might be better off at Wiktionary, but an article about the "genealogical obsession", renamed but with the article's sources, could be kept in some way. Otherwise, it could be merged into a section of Genealogy or something. dci | TALK 05:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- <sigh> That is not what the word means. Progonoplexia refers to the nationalistic obsession of Greeks with their ancient cultural forebearers, in spite of the fact that one author has misused the term. It has nothing to do with genealogical research at all, and not a single source says so. Agricolae (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At any rate, before either of us has to keep on typing an excessive amount of colons, should we just shelve this discussion for the time being, sort out our respective problems [on the article talk page], try to reach a conclusion, and either re-nominate or let it be? dci | TALK 07:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I am not going to agree to set aside a perfectly valid AfD for a term that is so rarely used, based on nothing but a misunderstanding of what the term means. Agricolae (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already !voted "delete" above, but I'm adding a note here to reply to dci's comments. If there is anything sourced that can be said about genealogy obsession, it should initially be said in the genealogy article. At the moment the material presented is insufficient for anything to be added at all, but if reliable sources discussing that topic show up, then yes, something could be added at that location. That doesn't justify keeping this article, under this name or a rename. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Zerubavel is a highly regarded sociologist. I suspect he knows about appropriate usage of the term better than we do and I'd like his source replaced, which seems to have been removed without reason. Also this source has been removed
- I've already !voted "delete" above, but I'm adding a note here to reply to dci's comments. If there is anything sourced that can be said about genealogy obsession, it should initially be said in the genealogy article. At the moment the material presented is insufficient for anything to be added at all, but if reliable sources discussing that topic show up, then yes, something could be added at that location. That doesn't justify keeping this article, under this name or a rename. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I am not going to agree to set aside a perfectly valid AfD for a term that is so rarely used, based on nothing but a misunderstanding of what the term means. Agricolae (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hervé Georgelin has discussed the adoption of the term in other countries, calling it an "ideological movement" that Armenians, Turks and Jewish people have succumbed to."Georgelin2005"
This shows that Turkish, Armenian and Jewish people also succumb to progonoplexia. That is important information about the use of the word, and for the peoples of those nationalities. If the definition of the word has spread beyond Greece, we should not be favouring one nationality over another. The reason given for removal was simply "not what the source says" with no explanation about the editor's interpretation about what he thinks the source does say. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I by no means want to come across as needlessly obstinate about this article, but I don't think the deletion rationales are sufficient given the existence of sources, particulary, as Paul Bedford mentions, Zerubavel (and Georgelin). dci | TALK 17:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except Paul's description of Georgelin is wildly inaccurate. He does not discuss it, he mentions it in one footnote and what he says, as I translated it, is "We use the word progonoplexia, or an ancestor complex, for this historical-idiological movement of the Greek world. Armenians, Jews and Turks, with delays, have also succumbed to it." As best I can tell he is talking about a specific movement to educate children about their religious past not only for its own sake but to create a national identification with "the country" among the "children of the fatherland". This educational movement is what has spread to the other countries, not the use of the term progonoplexia. (This is what comes of lifting quotes out of footnotes in Google Books snippets without bothering to look at what the footnote is referring to.) As to Zerubavel, he cites Clogg for the meaning of the word, and Clogg isn't using it that way at all. Zerabuvel is all alone on this and no amount of peacocking about his standing changes the fact that his own source does not support his unique usage. In fact, this shows just the opposite of what you are suggesting, and the whole reason we are having this discussion is exactly the deletion rationale. If one author, for whatever reason, can decide it means something completely different than the source he is citing it for, and this somehow carries weight, it would mean that the definition of the word is not yet established, that it is too new a neologism. That is expressly what the rationale was, along with it's non-notablility: a Google Books result returns just 44 instances in which the word has ever been used in print. That is damning and is not changed by Zerubavel redefining it or Georgelin saying that Turks, Jews and Armenians are also indoctrinating their children for nationalistic purposes. Agricolae (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I am going to retire myself from this discussion, but one lastcomment: progonoplexia, from what I've seen here, from its sources, and from around the Web, is culturally-supported ancestor "obsession". Cultural efforts to enhance or expand it seem to qualify as progonoplexia, and I think that enough sources use the term or have definitions correlating to either of the ones I mentioned to make this notable. dci | TALK 18:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- 44 Google Books hits. Just 44. Agricolae (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except Paul's description of Georgelin is wildly inaccurate. He does not discuss it, he mentions it in one footnote and what he says, as I translated it, is "We use the word progonoplexia, or an ancestor complex, for this historical-idiological movement of the Greek world. Armenians, Jews and Turks, with delays, have also succumbed to it." As best I can tell he is talking about a specific movement to educate children about their religious past not only for its own sake but to create a national identification with "the country" among the "children of the fatherland". This educational movement is what has spread to the other countries, not the use of the term progonoplexia. (This is what comes of lifting quotes out of footnotes in Google Books snippets without bothering to look at what the footnote is referring to.) As to Zerubavel, he cites Clogg for the meaning of the word, and Clogg isn't using it that way at all. Zerabuvel is all alone on this and no amount of peacocking about his standing changes the fact that his own source does not support his unique usage. In fact, this shows just the opposite of what you are suggesting, and the whole reason we are having this discussion is exactly the deletion rationale. If one author, for whatever reason, can decide it means something completely different than the source he is citing it for, and this somehow carries weight, it would mean that the definition of the word is not yet established, that it is too new a neologism. That is expressly what the rationale was, along with it's non-notablility: a Google Books result returns just 44 instances in which the word has ever been used in print. That is damning and is not changed by Zerubavel redefining it or Georgelin saying that Turks, Jews and Armenians are also indoctrinating their children for nationalistic purposes. Agricolae (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, I have returned for one last request to close the AfD and take this to the talk page. Why? Well, we really aren't debating about notability or suitability for inclusion here, we're all engaged in an argument over whether some sources explicitly or correctly define the term and correlate to the article's content. This AfD has gotten needlessly long and complicated, and it will be very difficult for other editors to wade into this mess. Instead, let's move the conversation to Talk:Progonoplexia, where we can sort out if the article correctly uses its sources, whether those sources themselves are correct, or whether this is just a neologism without the sources to prove. The discussion here, in my opinion, has led to an even divide between the contributors here, and will not be resolved smoothy or efficiently. I will be perfectly okay with deletion if a talk page conversation eradicates any potential for notability or correct usage of sources; on the other hand, if it is shown that the article's subject is at least notable and correlates to source content, I will support keeping it. Seriously, let's shelve this one, sit back for a few minutes, and talk things out where it ought to happen. dci | TALK 19:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No discussion on the talk page is going to change the 44 Google Books hits, and the confusion over the meaning only serves to highlight the lack of a defined meaning, the original rationales stand unchanged. The whole AfD process can't work if all it takes is a little distracting discussion and the whole thing gets terminated - it makes it too easy to game the system. It should be taken through to the end. Agricolae (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, there is no requirement that any article have X number of Google Books hits. A perfectly notable topic, with reliable sources, might have extremely few hits on the website. Wikipedia does not explicitly state that "Google Books" is the essential mode of finding sources; in fact, you yourself critiqued the using of Google Books previews elsewhere in this process. Furthermore, this isn't "a little distracting discussion". It's a complex and very long argument that will be extremely difficult to sort through for people who haven't been following or participating in it. I understand there are disputes between both the nom and the article creator regarding the subject; in this case, I have agreed with some of the points made by the creator that the topic is notable. However, I am willing to rethink this, as, I'd imagine, would other editors, if all of us lay out our basic concerns again and try to reach a mutual agreement regarding this. That way, there is no bitterness either way, and consensus will be reached. dci | TALK 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there is no requirement for a specific number of GBhits, but it is hard to argue notability when almost nobody seems to be taking note (at least in print). I have spent way too much time refuting the originator's misinterpretation, misrepresentation and misuse of sources to want to go back and have to hash through it all again, digging out the text that surrounds the snippets being used as sources. While I don't question your motivations, the suggestion that it be dropped so we can all go talk about it a whole lot more to me looks no different than a Keep outcome - the page remains and I get to spend a whole lot more time refuting the originator's misinterpretation, misrepresentation and misuse of sources until maybe at some point down the road there might be another AfD. The whole article was created based on a fundamental misconception, and even when it is accurately portrayed, the term relates to an obscure concept in Greek hyper-nationalism that at best requires a Wiktionary entry. If I can't convince you of this now, then it is unlikely I will be able to after blowing a whole lot more time trying. Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I disagree with your evaluation of the article and its notability, I respect your judgement and desire to make sure we have quality and reasonable articles. It's a bit irritating to have to "consign" something I really think is notable, but I will withdraw my "keep" argument. Hashing things out on the talk page would be a much better idea than a rush to delete, but you appear to be the voice of consensus here, and I will respect that. dci | TALK 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agricolae I am afraid your translation of French is innaccurate. Sorry I haven't checked on this, but you are misquoting and seem to have created a new word historical-ideological that I have not heard in common parlance before. You claimed the source says ""We use the word progonoplexia, or an ancestor complex, for this historical-idiological movement of the Greek world. Armenians, Jews and Turks, with delays, have also succumbed to it." when in fact it says ""We use the word progonoplexia, or an ancestor complex, for this idiological movement in the history of the Greek world. Armenians, Jews and Turks, with delays, have also succumbed to it." This is an entirely different meaning about the it being a movement in history, not a historical-ideological movement. As the sources in the article indicate, this concept has been around since the 19th century. "Dennis Deletant suggested that these two traits started to gain popularity in the early nineteenth century."[2] This clearly indicates the history of notability and traction it has gained in the last two centuries, likely along with Arkhaiolatreia. I would also argue this is why Zerubavel's usage is not unique. My keep remains strong. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it's not worth fighting over a translation when neither of them say what the text you are using it to support says: "Hervé Georgelin has discussed the adoption of the term in other countries, calling it an "ideological movement" that Armenians, Turks and Jewish people have succumbed to." So, where in your translation does it say anything about the term being adopted in other countries? It doesn't, just the ideological movement. In fact, it explicitly ties the term itself to the Greeks. As to Zerubavel, I can't fathom how this could be used as support for Zerabuvel's usage. The movement being spread is that of using religion and history as an avenue for nationalistic indoctrination, or didn't you read the text the out-of-context footnote you found in a Google snippet was referencing? Yet again, the evidence is being distorted. Agricolae (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Greeks, Armenians, Turks and Jewish people live all over the world. It has obviously been adopted in other countries if you understand modern sociology or have visited a European city. You've probably never been to Bethnal Green in London, but I used to live there and it's a great big melting pot of cultures, as most European cities are. All these people are all over the world, harping on about and getting obsessed with their ancestors since the early 19th century, in well documented sources. Balanced nationalism, as being proud of legendary heroes or ancestors of your nation has a place in everyone's life. Jamaicans call it Roots. If Ancestoritis or Progonoplexia is what Europeans call it, I think not giving us a well referenced word is prejudiced. I have given you other references where it is used in a general usage by Penguin Adult [3] here's another Penguin book using is as a general term (Greek) Bragging about one's ancestors. (non-specific on who the "one" is - I assume it means everyone as it is published in a big mainstream book that everyone reads). [4] I am sure if deleted some of the other terms in those books will come around to haunt, when editors of those nationalities read them in future. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it's not worth fighting over a translation when neither of them say what the text you are using it to support says: "Hervé Georgelin has discussed the adoption of the term in other countries, calling it an "ideological movement" that Armenians, Turks and Jewish people have succumbed to." So, where in your translation does it say anything about the term being adopted in other countries? It doesn't, just the ideological movement. In fact, it explicitly ties the term itself to the Greeks. As to Zerubavel, I can't fathom how this could be used as support for Zerabuvel's usage. The movement being spread is that of using religion and history as an avenue for nationalistic indoctrination, or didn't you read the text the out-of-context footnote you found in a Google snippet was referencing? Yet again, the evidence is being distorted. Agricolae (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agricolae I am afraid your translation of French is innaccurate. Sorry I haven't checked on this, but you are misquoting and seem to have created a new word historical-ideological that I have not heard in common parlance before. You claimed the source says ""We use the word progonoplexia, or an ancestor complex, for this historical-idiological movement of the Greek world. Armenians, Jews and Turks, with delays, have also succumbed to it." when in fact it says ""We use the word progonoplexia, or an ancestor complex, for this idiological movement in the history of the Greek world. Armenians, Jews and Turks, with delays, have also succumbed to it." This is an entirely different meaning about the it being a movement in history, not a historical-ideological movement. As the sources in the article indicate, this concept has been around since the 19th century. "Dennis Deletant suggested that these two traits started to gain popularity in the early nineteenth century."[2] This clearly indicates the history of notability and traction it has gained in the last two centuries, likely along with Arkhaiolatreia. I would also argue this is why Zerubavel's usage is not unique. My keep remains strong. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I disagree with your evaluation of the article and its notability, I respect your judgement and desire to make sure we have quality and reasonable articles. It's a bit irritating to have to "consign" something I really think is notable, but I will withdraw my "keep" argument. Hashing things out on the talk page would be a much better idea than a rush to delete, but you appear to be the voice of consensus here, and I will respect that. dci | TALK 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there is no requirement for a specific number of GBhits, but it is hard to argue notability when almost nobody seems to be taking note (at least in print). I have spent way too much time refuting the originator's misinterpretation, misrepresentation and misuse of sources to want to go back and have to hash through it all again, digging out the text that surrounds the snippets being used as sources. While I don't question your motivations, the suggestion that it be dropped so we can all go talk about it a whole lot more to me looks no different than a Keep outcome - the page remains and I get to spend a whole lot more time refuting the originator's misinterpretation, misrepresentation and misuse of sources until maybe at some point down the road there might be another AfD. The whole article was created based on a fundamental misconception, and even when it is accurately portrayed, the term relates to an obscure concept in Greek hyper-nationalism that at best requires a Wiktionary entry. If I can't convince you of this now, then it is unlikely I will be able to after blowing a whole lot more time trying. Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, there is no requirement that any article have X number of Google Books hits. A perfectly notable topic, with reliable sources, might have extremely few hits on the website. Wikipedia does not explicitly state that "Google Books" is the essential mode of finding sources; in fact, you yourself critiqued the using of Google Books previews elsewhere in this process. Furthermore, this isn't "a little distracting discussion". It's a complex and very long argument that will be extremely difficult to sort through for people who haven't been following or participating in it. I understand there are disputes between both the nom and the article creator regarding the subject; in this case, I have agreed with some of the points made by the creator that the topic is notable. However, I am willing to rethink this, as, I'd imagine, would other editors, if all of us lay out our basic concerns again and try to reach a mutual agreement regarding this. That way, there is no bitterness either way, and consensus will be reached. dci | TALK 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No discussion on the talk page is going to change the 44 Google Books hits, and the confusion over the meaning only serves to highlight the lack of a defined meaning, the original rationales stand unchanged. The whole AfD process can't work if all it takes is a little distracting discussion and the whole thing gets terminated - it makes it too easy to game the system. It should be taken through to the end. Agricolae (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Neologism of no note or neo to speak of. History2007 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As already highlighted, it's a NEO with little uptake. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2012 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.